Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRABBIT CREEK VIEW & HEIGHTS BLK 9H LTS 13A & 14A Peat design5ID L.o :'_:.JOl~ 6-650 AN(3 'lOl:'b%G: AI. ASKA 9!)502 0650 ~90i') 26,i-41 i I April 21, 1983 E. Lee Browning, Municipal Engineer Public Works Department Engineering Division 3500 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Subject: Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision, and; Rabbit Creek View Subdivision It was:recently brought to our attention that many of the lot lines, lot corners, streets, right-of-ways, et{:., as shown on the subdivision plats for the Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision and Rabbit Creek View Subdivision may be incorrect. In an attempt to confirm this information, this office contacted the Municipal Surveyor, Mr. Jack Stanley, and Mr. Jerry Weaver of the Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Stanley confirmed that several survey closure checks made by his office, on these subdivisions, did not close satisfactory. Mr. Stanley further indicated that several other subdivisions surveyed by the same registered surveyor(Mr. William Johnson, whose stamp #14825 appears on the subdivision plats) are also in error. Numerous other professional surveyors have refused to conduct as-built surveys in these areas, due to the discrepancies in the original surveys and the related subdivision plats. According to Mr. Weaver, Mr. Johnson received a registered letter but did not respond, and the matter has since been turned over to the Municipal attorney. In view of the confirmed fact that there are many known discrepancies on the lot lines, lot corners, streets, right-of~ ways, etc., in the Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivisien and Rabbit Creek View Subdivision; this department will discontinue the issuance of On-site water and sewer permits or health authority approvals for bank financing in both subdivisions. We will E. Lee Browning, Municipal Engineer April 21, 1983 Page Two lift this discontinuance at such time that we have some form of acceptable assurance that lot lines and configurations are correctly shown on an approved subdivision plat. If there are any further questions, please call this office at 264-4'720. Robert W. Robinson Environmental Engineering Manager RWR/ljw cc: Public Works Department Bob Daniel, Permit Office John Bishop, Building Official Jack Stanley, Municipal Surveyor Frank Huber, Construction Engineer ~Michael Kerr, Zoning Enforcement Officer Planning Department Don Alspach, Manager of Zoning and Platting Jerry Weaver, Platting Officer Health and Environmental Protection Lynn Lindquist John Kennedy Robert Pratt John W. Lynn MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 825 L Street - Anchorage, Alaska 99501 . . Telephone 264-4720 .. REQUFST FOR APPROVAL OF INDIVIDUAL WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES )IRI-'CTIONS~ Complete all parts on page 1, Incomplete requests will not be processed, Please allow ten (10) days for processing. 1. PI~OPERTY OWNER PHONE MAILING AD D ~F-SS_ PROPERTY RESIDENT (if different from above) PHONE -- PHONE 2, BUYER MAILING ADDRESS 3. [lENDING INSTITUTIONIPHONE MAILING ADDRESS 4, REALTOR/AG~N~ PHONE MAI LING ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION STREET LOCATION 6. TYPE O F R~.QENCE ~ SINGLE FAMILY [] MULTIPLE FAMILY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS [] One FCi/~our [] Two [] Five [] Three [] Six E Other 7. WATER SUPPLY ~INDIVIDUAL* ~'O ~-~' ZZ] COMMUNITY PUBLIC UTILITY ATTACH WELL LOG. A well log is required for all wells drilled since June 1975. For wells drilled prior to that date, give well depth (attach log if available.) 8, SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM [~1 N DIVI DUAI_/ON-SITE~ [] PUBLIC UTILITY ''l'f individual/on-site, give installation date If system is over two (2) years old an a~equacy test is required by this Departmen[, NOTE: THE INSPECTION FEE MUST ACCOMPANY EACH REQUEST BEFORE PROCESSING CAN BE INITIATED. ~-010(3/78) THIS SIDE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED INSPECTION APPOINTMENTS TIME TIME TIME DATE DATE DATE INSPECTOR INSPECTOR INSPECTOR DIRECTIONS: 1. TYPE OF RESIDENCE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS [] SINGLE FAMILY [] ONE [] THREE [] FIVE [] OTHER [] MULTIPLE FAMILY [] TWO [] FOUR [] SIX 2. WATER SUPPLY PERMIT NUMBER [] INDIVIDUAL DEPTH OF WELL [] COMMUNITY DATE DRILLED [] PUBLIC UTILITY Connection Verified LOG RECEIVED 3, SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT NUMBER [~3 INDIVIDUAL/ON -SITE DATE INSTALLED []PUBLIC UTILITY ~ 7 ~ Connection Verified iNSTALLER [Z]Septic Tank or ~ Holding Tank Size: ~/~-0'rf Tank is homemade SOILS RATING give dimensions: TYPE OF TANK MANUFACTURER TOTAL ABSORPTION AREA MATERIAL 4, DISTANCES Septic/Holding Tank Absorption Area Sewer Line ~ Nearest Lot Line WELL TO: Absorption Area to nearest Lot Line [] COJXJDITIONAL APPROVAL (letter~r~r~ust accompany certificate) DATE BY ITitle) LEGAL DESCRIPTION 72-010 (Rev. 3/78) GREATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH Department ef Environmental Quality 3500 Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 279-8686 Date Received ~'-~"~ Time of Inspection Date of Inspection REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF INDIVIDUAL SE~ER & WATER FACILITIES FOR 1. Aoproval Requested By: .... 5. Type of Facility to be Inspected: Number of Bedrooms: Well Data: A. Type ~'.-C~ ' ~;- :- --~--~ g. 7. Sewage DisPosal System: A. Installed / Bacterial Analysis C. Septic Tank: ].. D. Seepage Pit: 1. E. Disposal Field: B. Installer Size~~ 2. Manufacturer Size 2. Material Total Length of Distances: A. Well To: Septic Tank ~ ~: Absorption Area/~3 t~ Sewer Lines /F~ (/- , Nearest Lot I,ine/~ '~//- , Other Con'tamination/~/-f~/:~:~ B, Foundation to Septic Tank ~ ×~- ~ Absorption Area C. Absorption Area to Nearest Lot Line ~)~ K~- .. :{eq~mzt for Approval of Il tdual Sewer & Water Factlitie~ Page Two , ~/~f/~.~ ~j.~,~.~//~: Approval Vel. id for One Year From Date Signed Greater Anchorage Area Borough, De~.~rtmeut of ~nviron~ental Quality D!AGRA~ 0~: SYST~ I certlfy that the information contained in this request for approval %0 be a true and accurate representation of the subject sewer and water facilities located at: Signed Da~e~ Alaska Pacific University ' ~IOLOGICAL TESTS Samp 1~. Source ~eptic Pea~ Well Ditch PARAMETER _ ~?ank . Mound Wat~_r Water TEMPERATURE , -- o~SSOLV~O oxYG~~ ~.~ I-- - pH A~'ov. Pipes (1) k / /~' ~ Below Pipes (2) .~ /~ ~ /~ --- ~,e o~ ~ou~a (~ / // Lift Station Meters _ _ ~ DuratiOn P~' / BOD5 (mg/1) ~ BODm mg/1 / / ~ss ~/~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ TKN mg/1 q 7 3'9 / COLOR cu ~_ TOTAL COLIFORM NO./100 ml 5,~ ~O~ < ~c~L ~o~o~ ~o./~oo ~: I.~J ~ Alaska Pacific lj'niversity 4t01 University Drive * Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4672 (~07) 56tqZ66 pP~%T MOUND STUDY CwRMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS SITE: -----~ Sample- Source Septic Peat PARAMETER ,EMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE PRC AboVe Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) DATE Well Ditch ,ift Station Meters Duration O O Cycles O0 CO ~OD5 (~g/l~ BODmmg/1 cod ~g/~ TSS mg/1 NITRATE mg/l S T. PHO$ mg/1 ~ COLOR cu / TURBIDITY stu CONDUCTIVITY TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml FECAL COLIFORM No./100 <l <1 Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive * Anchorage, Alask__..~a 99508.467~2 -- pEAT MOUND STUDY t907) 561-1266 SI~B: PARAMETER TEMPERATURE )ISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BCD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 -~SSmg/1 TKN mg/1 ~ NITRATE mg/1 · PHOS mg/1 ~i¢OLOR ou TURBIDITY stu ~~ TOTAL COLIFOR~ No./lO0 i~4i~,~.~i. FECAL C~A~VOaM ,o./~00 Sample- Source Septic Peat Well Ditch ' WatE 33 ~;~°"~ ~'~ Alaska Pacific University . ~ ntverslt¥ Drive *' Anchorage, Alaska 99508-467Z 410l U ' ' ~ ~ ~ PEAT MO~ND STUDY ~.9075 56 b [ !66 CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS Sample- Source ,tic Peat Well Ditch PARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE Above Pipes (1 20 BelOW Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes 3) Base of Mound (4) Lift; Station Meters 7 Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 mg/1 TSS mg/1 mg/1 NITRATE mg/l. T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml i FECAL COLIFORM No./100 Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive · Anchorage, Alaska ~95084672 ~907~ 561.126(' PEAT MOUND STUDY '~HEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS ...-- PAR~ETER TEMPERATURE D~SSOLVED OXYGEN ~H ~EMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) Samp 1~, Source Septic Peat 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 Well Ditch mg/l T. PHOS rog/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu CONDUCTIVITY iTOTAL COLIFORM / ~c~ c_o_~Ivo~ No.?~':~ Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive * Anch¢'~, Ala~k~ 99508-4672 PEAT MOUND S~JDY CHEMICAL A/qD BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS TI~E: dP~ JO Samp 1~- Source [ Septic Pea~ PARA~IETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN >H TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipel~ (3) ~" Base of Mound (4} Jl 0 C., 3 {~7% 561.1266 Well Ditch Wate Lif't Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm rog/1 COD mg/1 TS~: mg/1 Z-7~' 5 TKN mg/1 NIYRATE mg/1 To PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu ~URBIDITY stu ~OTAL COLIFORM No./100 mi FECAL COLIFORM No./100 Alaska Pacific University 410! University Drive · Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4672 PF.%T MOUND STUDY CR~MICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS ?ARAMETER TEMPERATURE )iSSOLVED OXYGEN Sampl~ source Septic Pea~ pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) Well {907! 561.!266 Ditch ' 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration- Cycles 3 BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 mg/1 Tss m~/~ 3-? mg/1 ~T~ ~/~ /.6 T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu ?URB~DXTY stU )TAL COLIFORM No./100 ml /v~cA__._%.~ co__3?°RM ~o./~00 /,3 ,3 Alaska Pacific Umvers~ty 4101 L'mvcr*~v Drtve' Anclxotag¢. Alaska 90508.4672 pF2%T MOUND STUDY cffEMIC3kL ~2qD BACTERIOLOGICJkL TESTS PARAJqETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN o o )H TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (4) Below Pipes 1' Below Pipes Base of Mound (~) Lift Station Meters Septic DATE: TIME: . , - Sampl~ sodr--ce Peat Well 7.~- Duration cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 /.~ 1.7~ T. p~OS m~/l 7-~ COLO~ cu 68 ~5 6,/ TURBIDITY stu CONDUCTIVITY (~) VZO (~/0 ZOO TOTAL COLIFORM No./lO0 ml ~0~ ~% [ I ~ L COLIFORM No./lO0 Ditch ' Wate ,.ilaska Pacific University PEAT MOUND STUDY CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS DATE: /-/~ - 8~ Sample source Septic Peat PARAMETER q°C_ /© C TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH 7~8 7.7-- TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes ~L~ Below Pipes ~c~ (~) 1' Below Pipes Base of Mound Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles I'BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 TKN mg/1 NITRATE mg/1 ~0~~ I~ T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu COMDUCTIVITY (~) ~ TOTAL COLIFOR~ No./100 m~ ! FECAL COLIFORM No./100 17Z-- 17~10fi I 0 ql <~ Well Ditch' Water _ Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive * Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4672 PEAT MOUND STUDY C~tEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS S amp 1~. Source S-~ptic p ea-~-----T Well Ditch Mound ] Water Water PARAMETER Tank DISSOLV~,D OXYS~.N O &.S& __-------------- pH 7.5 ~. 5 7. 7 ~ -~ f Above Pipes (1) ~ Below Pipes (2) ~ 3~ Base of Mound (4) ~ ~" ~ift Station Meters < ~--' Duration - ~. 7 ~ BODm mg/1 _ -- COD m:/: &/O 3 TSS mg/1 O, O 9~ O, [~7 ~ COnOR cu 55o ~ ~ 5 o ~5 z5 /,7 TURBIDITY stu ~ TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml 55 ~~0~ ~7 x~oq ~ ~ _ ~ ~RCAL COLIFORM No./100 ml /TX10~ / ~:~' ~ < I ~r~/ Alaska Pacific University 4101 t.;m,.er~tv Drtve' Anchorage. Alaska 99508-4672 PARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN )H PF~%T MOUND STUDY CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS Ct-eel< T~: N ~oJ Sampl~ source Septic Peat /a 6.55 8, 5__ TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) 0 -- 0 Lift Station Meters 5~. 7 Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 v~ TSS mg/1 ~g/1 ~o~--~ ~,~ T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu CONDUCTIVITY ~OTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml FECAL CO__jjIFORM No./100 /7 glO~ 5,4, 2.2... 2.5 DATE: /2''tel-87 well Ditch Wats 7.7 A.[~ ', ~a Facific University 41~'~ t t~,~, .~iv t~r~ve · Anchornge. Alaska q°508'4~72 pEAT MOUND STUDY C[rEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS DATE: PARAMETER -- TEMPERATURE _ DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1 Below Pipes (2 1' BelLow Pipes (3) Base of Mound 4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BoDm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 ~ TKN mg/1 o -- ~ NITRATE rog/1 0 m T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml ~ FECAL COLIFORM No./100 mi Sampl~ sourg_e___ S--e~tic Peat ~____~ ,. Well Water Ditch ' Wate~rr ~ Alaska Pacific University 410l University Drive ' Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4672 COD 561-126~ SITE: PEAT MOUND STUDY CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS PARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN )H TEMPERATURE pROBES Above Pipes Below Pipes (2) TIME: Sampl~ Source Septic Peat 7 8,(-,, 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters ~- ~uration I- Cycles I BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 Iccp mg/~ / ~ 5 TSS mg/1 / ~[TKN mg/1 ~' NITRATE mg/1 IT. PHOS mg/1 ' ~ R cu TURBIDITY stu !' mg~l /~ CO i CONDUCTIVITY (NaC1) : TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml ~ FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml DATE: Well ?0 ,,,p /I .07 7.0 I0 'T g, o : COMMENTS Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive * Anchorage. Alaska 99508.4672 PEAT MOUND STUDY c~c~ MD ~CT~On~I~ T~.STS C~-~k T~.~: I/O° samp 1~. Source 5 Septi-c Peat Well Ditch ' PARAMETER Tank Mound Water Water TEMPERATURE C° 7 7 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (23 ~,~ pH 7,/~ %EM~.'RATURE PROBES k f ~ /' _ Below Pipes (2) ~ 1' Below Pipes (3) ~ ~, Base of Mound (4) / k, ~ ' Lift Station Meters ~ Duration ~o,~- 1~3OD (mg/1) ~'m' mg/1 /~O FCOD mg/1 / ~ 5 GO __ ~TSS mg/~ - / S? 395 .TKN mg/1 '15 q' ~ ; NITRATE rog/1 ~0:~-'~ q 6'5 : T. PHOS mg/1 , I Z~ O7 .. ~, COLOR cu ~ ~ TURBIDITf stu _ .-- '- mgL~ ,CONDUCTIVITY (Na~i) /~OO ....... TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 mi FECAL COLIFORM No./100 mi ~ ~ A3~ASKA PACIFIC UNfvERSITY PF2%T MOUND STUDY CBEMICAJ~ A-ND BACTERIOLOGICAL TF. STS TIME: /O1~ DATE: Sample Source PARAMETER TEMPERATURE C DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below PiPes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 TKN mg/1 NITRATE mg/1 o m T. PHOS mg/1 ~ , COLOR cu TURBIDITY ~tu TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml _CCOMMEN%2~_L_ Septic O Peat 7, 1,1 /~0 ~ .0 x IO'~ .% 3o /5 5..50 well Ditch Water 8.'~ 7.7 8S 90 <1 /0 ~ 0 ALASKA PACIFIC uNIVERSITY PEAT MOUND STUDY CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS TIME: /O ! ~ DATE: PARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH ~EMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) l' Below PiPes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) __ BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 TKN mg/1 NITRATE mg/1 T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY ~tu CONDUCTIVITY TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 mi I FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml Sample Source Septic Peat '7' "-5,5 0 7. 7.? Z. ?. 7-- 17-5 ~tz.. l,I /5o 7.--3 '~/o T~T~ .OXl0-~ 3, o /:5 5,5o Well Ditch Wate: 0,5 ~/ '7.7 8S /.5'7 ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSI~ PEAT MOUND STUDY Cg~.MICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS S~mpl~ 'Source Septic Peat Well Ditch PAR/LMETER Tai%k ~Qund, Water Water DISSOLVED OXYGEN O ~. 77 TEMPE~TURE PROBES k Be].ow Pipes (2) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters ~~, Duration COD mg/1 NIT~TE rog/1 /. ~. ~HOS m~/Z COLOR cu ~ TOTAL COLZFORM No./ZOO ml ' FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml ~.O ;%LASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY PEAT MOUND STUDY CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS ~ARAMETER TEMPERATURE C DISSOLVED OXYGEN m, pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mouhd (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles I'BOD5 (mg/1) DATE: Sample Sourc. e ~ '~c I Peat Well ~~ Mound Wat_er 7.1 Z gTt~T£ BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 TKN mg/1 NITRATE mg/1 T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu mg/_l CONDUCTIVITY (Nail) TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml i FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml <l 0 (OL°k'/Ooml]i ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY PEAT MOUND STUDY C[{EMICA/~ AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS SiTE :~IRD.' C?.¢~< TIM-E: DATE:_ ~ARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below Pipes (3) Base of Mound (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 m TKN mg/1 o ~ mg/1 ~ NITRATE o m T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu mg~ CONDUCTIVITY (Nabi) TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml Sample Source Septic Peat Well o /.&~ 7,? 7. Y /,/ /.qq 37 '36.5 3 o.8o /3o 33,5 Ditch Wate 30 I // ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY P~T MOUND STUDY CBF~ICAL AN[) BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS DATE: Sample Source o o PARAMETER TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED OXYGEN pH Septic © 7./ Peat Well TEMPERATURE PROBES Above Pipes (1) Below Pipes (2) 1' Below PiPes (3) Base of Mouhd (4) Lift Station Meters Duration Cycles I-BOD5 (mg/1) BODm mg/1 COD mg/1 TSS mg/1 TKN mg/1 NITRATE mg/1 T. PHOS mg/1 COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu CONDUCTIVITY (Na~£ TOTAL COLIFORM No./100 ml ' FECAL COLIFORM No./100 ml ? 27.1 1.7 ~/~ TE yT /~ tv P/]RDY RABBIT CREEK PARAMETER pH BUD5 NITRATE TKN FECAL COLIFORM No,/100 mi TOTAL COLIFORM No,/100 ml BOOm COD (~g/l) COLOR cu TURBIDITY stu 10-3-87 10-17-87 State Standards Tank/Mound Tank/Mound 6 - 9 7.1 / 12,1 7,9 / 13.1 (mo/l) 30 max, 231 / 4 142 / 4 (mO/l) 30 max. 4G / 2 52 / 83 (f,i§/1) 10 i~ax, 3, G / aG, B 1,1 / 19,5 138 / 7 A2 / 8 20 ~ax, ll,SX10(5)/(1 G,OXlO(5)/(1 TNTC / <1 TNTC / (! - 135 / 10 - / - - 275 / 49 125 / 38 118 / 25 150 / 30 57 / 29 73 / 15 10-24-87 Tank/Mound 7,6 12 154 393 ~ 6.5 45 4.2 -/ (1 195 / 60 95 / 20 GG / 10 12-19-87 Tank/Mound 7.5 / 8.3 183 / 4 .098 /. 167 8,8 / 22 64.5 / 3.6 17X10(5)/170 39X10(7)/TNTC ~50 / ~5 ALASKA E~IILJIROI1FII~FITAL COFITROL S~RUICI~S, IFIC. 1200 ~JCsl 33rd Aucnug, Suil¢ [~ · J~nc~ereq¢, /Nlesk~ 99503 · (907) 276q351 Name A---'~es~ L, Phone(s) MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Environmental Health Division 825 "L" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99502, Telephone 264-4720 ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND/OR WELL INSPECTION REPORT ~ DISTANCES ' TANK FIELD PermiJ No. NO. oi Bedrooms / C~tt ~_L FOUNDATION /~ ,~ ;~ ~A~ (ShOw location of we~, septic system, property h~es, foundabon, Section ~qlc, -5 TANKS ~ SEPTiC/j/..f~L [] HOLDING Cap¢,cily m gatlons ~anulacturer /,~'~ ~"~ ~') o. of Compadmenls '2_ TYPE OF SYSTEM TRENCH ~ W,[)RAIN ~OTHER Irom origma~ grade grade ~- Z FT ded 9rede WELLS PRIVATE [] OTHER (Identifv~ Depth Cased to FT-- uJ Municipelity o! Anchorage DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 825 "L" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99502-0650 SOILS LOG -- PERCOLATION TEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L /~/~/~ '~ 2 ~ ~l~l~, 3 4 ?~ 6 7 8 9 ~o ~ ~,1~ 4~ ' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATE P~ /g~.~,~/://}~_/,~.~z4.~Township, Range, Section: /~//,,,,,j /~.~/,~ _.c- / ' SLOPE SITE PLAN WAS GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED? ,~(' 5. S L IF YES, AT WHAT Depth to Water Alter _ .~ Moni orino? ~ % Date: t~'¢C' ~-',~.~:3~~'/r~''r''' [Y~ ~-' '~ Gross Net Depth to Net Reading Date Time Time Water Drop PERCOLATION RATE -- (minutes/tach) PERC HOLE DIAMETER -- TEST RUN BETWEEN .~ FT AND FT ~' ~'~ I ~, I~.~ CERTIFY THAT THIS TEST WAS PERFORMED IN pERFORMED BY: ALASKA BNVIRF 'MENTAL CONTROL SEEvICT INC. A FIELD REPORT ON THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PEAT SYSTEMS IN ALASKA by Joan L. Brooks (Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469 phone (207) 581-2182 BACKGROI~D At the request of Jewel Jones, Commissioner of Health and Social Services, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, I agreed to supervise the installation of two peat systems for on-site treatment of septic tank effluent. Ms. Jones, in a conference call, said that Mary Frohne would be her representative and that Mary would be the person I would have direct contact with on all aspects of the project. In conversations and a letter to Mary I requested the following: 1) sites were to be evaluated, soils mapped, and all permits approved, and copies sent to me prior to my departure for Anchorage; 2) a licensed engineer would review, sign and seal my suggested design work; 3) adequate time.be provided to meet with the excavator or contractor and the licensing agency personnel prior to the beginning of construction; 4) and that I be provided with a sample of the peat to be used in the systems at least a month prior to my departure for Alaska (this sample was to be shipped overnight in a chilled and insulated container to enable me to evaluate the microbial population in the peat). I also suggested that I should give a seminar to the engineering community on my research and nine years of experience with psat systems. Mary Prohne assured me that there was no problem with any of my requests and that they would be met. In return for my consultation on the peat systems and a brief report on suggested testing and possible future research I would receive a consulting fee and have all expenses paid. A signed contract was to be in my hands prior to my departure from Maine and the fee would be given to me after the peat systems were in place and prior to my departure from Alaska. Mary asked if I would be willing to stay at her home instead of a hotel in order to keep the costs of the project as low as possible. In return, Mary said she would see that I had the opportunity to see some of the sights in Alaska at no expense to myself, if I could stay for a week or two after the peat systems were installed. After a number of calls from Mary it became clear to me that there were conflicting opinions in Anchorage about the proposed project. The contract was delayed and I would receive it when I reached Anchorage. At the time of this writing I still have not received a contract, nor have I ever seen any of the'paperwork normally required for installation of an experimental on-site wastewater treatment system. I did receive a sample of the peat to be used in the ~ystems and determined it w~ mainly reed-sedge peat a. not sphagnum peat as I ha used in the past. I was not able to run certain microbiological tests because the sample was not refigerated during its extended time in transit. After examining the peat samples I notified Mary that certain levels in the peat deposit appeared useable in the peat systems if prepared properly and explained what was needed as to texture and moisture content. SITE EXAMINATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE PEAT SYSTEMS Upon my arrival in Anchorage I was met by Mary at the airport and taken directly to the office of Lee Reid whom I was given to understand has done the preliminary work on the sites selected for the project. We had a brief discussion on the sites but I must admit I was not at my best due to the 13 hour flight and the time change. On Thursday morning Mary introduced me to the Nielsen Brothers who would be doing the excavation and actual construction of the systems. We then went to the field to view both sites. The one site is located at Rabbit Creek Heights and the other at Bird. When we reached each site Mary told me where she felt the system should be located on the ~rop~rty. I was not shown any paperwork on property lines, distances to wells, elevations, etc. Mary. told me what these parameters were and asked how I wanted to design the systems. After viewing ~e two sites Mary took me to see the site where the peat was being excavated. This was the location of a subdivision which is now under the control of six banks. One of the bankers, Dean Cooke of the United Bank of Alaska, met us at the site for discussion about the peat and its suitability for this project. Bub Nelson of Nielsen Brothers was excavating peat for project use. I showed Bub how to recognize the type of peat which I feel will work best here. I also pointed out what material to avoid using in any future systems. On Thursday evening I gave ~ seminar to a number of engineers from private and regulatory sectors, the homeowners of one of the test sites, -and several others, on my experiences with peat systems. A number of good questions were raised by the audience following my presentation. However, these same questions indicated there was a strong difference of opinion as to how this project was being handled, or should have been handled. I tried to make it clear that I am an impartial outsider in this issue and was only here to share what expertise I have concerning past experiences with peat~systems. Rabbit Creek Heights- Some peat was on site and had been prepared by breaking up the clumps, spreading and drying the wet peat, and removing the larger roots, and woody materials. This peat was stacked to the rear of the proposed peat field area in a windrow. A pile of broken brick, crushed block and broken bags of cement which had hardened was stockpiled at the site to be used fnr the layer of sand requir~ underneath the peat in the syst There was also a stockpi of peat which had not been prepared as above but it could be used for the surround. This site is located directly on peat, between the right side ? of the house and a gravel road. On the far side of the road isl a ditch which is classified as a stream. This road intersects with the road which runs in front of the house. There are ditches on both sides of this road which are classified as streams. At present it appears that the current system is in a state of failure. I was told the owner is using a septic tank as a holding tank. I saw evidence of a high ground water table, and that at some time the untreated septic tank effluent has daylighted on the property. Stakes were already in place on what was to have been the outside dimensions of the peat system. Because the water table is near the surface of the ground it was necessary to construct the system as a mound completely above ground. The existing slope of the site also made it somewhat difficult to construct. I was told this was a three bedroom home with a design requirement of 150 gal/bedroom. Because the peat I have used will effectively treat lgpd/sq.ft. I moved the stakes so that the bed would have a surface of 16 ft X 30ft (480 sq.ft.). Mary wanted 'to discharge the treated effluent directly into the undisturbed peat below the bed. and had already placed some of the broken block within the bed area."Although subsurface disposal of the treated effluent directly under the peat field has been show~% to be acceptable in Maine, for this project it was more prudent to line the system and include an underdrain with a sample port so that monitoring of the effluent may be accomplished in such a way that the results can be compared with my previous work. I also feel strongly that an underdrain design allows collection of a more representative sample of the treated effluent, and thus more accurate results may be obtained. Dan Roth and Steve Morris of 'the municipal On-Site Services Program were on site for the construction of both this and the system at Bird.. Their presence was invaluable to me in that I could consult with them immediately whenever I had any questions about local regulations concerning on-site systems. In addition to their advice, they also provided most of the manual labor during construction of the fields. If all of the proper paperwork had been completed beforehand as I had requested, and I had had the opportunity to spend time with the on-site services personnel and the excavator prior to construction, everything would have gone much more smoothly. It took much longer to construct the system than I feel is necessary. But under the circumstances I don't think anyone could have done it in less time. The excavator was more than cooperative and was also working under somewhat adverse conditions. During construction I learned the home was actually rated for four b~,~rooms instead of three. Fortunately the work had not progress too far at that point an¢ ihere was ample room to extend the end of the field to 40 feet, making the area 640 sq.ft. The system was constructed on top of the existing peat with no undue disturbance of the surface vegetation. A liner of Visqueen was placed on the surface and the sides were built up to hold this liner in place. The liner extends approximately two feet up the sides and ends of the system. A layer of broken block was then placed on the liner and hand-picked to remove large pieces of brick and block. The underdrain (4in. perforated pipe) was bedded in the broken block and extended through the membrane with solid pipe. A sample well was constructed by placing a X connection in the solid pipe, capping the bottom, and extending the top above ground where it was covered with a removable cap. Approximately three feet of prepared peat was added above the porous material and then ditched.to receive the rock and distribution pipes. As each line was dug out rock was placed on the bottom to a depth of about 3 in. and perforated pipe was placed on the rock and leveled. Additional rock was added to the depth of the pipe before the top 18 in. of peat was put in place. The distribution network consisted of six 4 in. diameter perforated pipes, each 26 ft. long and interconnected with solid pipe at each end. Pipes were lain 2.5 ft. on center with approximately 2 ft. between the outer pipes and the limits of the peat. Additional peat was added for the surround. Work stopped at the end of a rather long day on Friday, July 10, 1987, with half of the distribution pipes in place at Rabbit Creek Heights. On Saturday morning the entire crew returned to finish putting in the'distribution pipes and adding the top 18 inches of peat to the system. The peat system was then complete with the exception of some grading of the surround. Other work which.remained included adding more perforated pipe beyond the sample well for final disposal of treated effluent into the.existing ditch behind the house, · covering this pipe with rock, installation of a new two chamber septic tank which will include a lift station, installation of the pipe from the lift station to the distribution network in the peat field, and setting the pump to dose the system with a maximum of 0.5 gal/linear foot of perforated pipe within the field. The owner is having a new well installed which will be located more than 100 ft. from the treatment field. The owner said the existing ditxh behind the house will eventually be filled in. I advised her to extend the perforated discharge pipe in this ditch for at least 100 feet if possible before it surfaces to ground level, and to bed the pipe in rock. It was at this point that the entire crew moved down to Bird to begin the process once more. Bird site--When Ma~Y and I visited this site mn 'l'nu~'~u=3 =~ showed me where s~ expected to put the field I had some concerns as to what would really be the best spot for the system. The test pit was located outside of the proposed field area. A utll~t~e pole with underground connections to the house and across the street to another house was located in the center of the lot~ There is a 20 foot right of way from the road according to Mary. Also there is a steep slope at the left side of the property. Mary showed me the location of property lines and the well. We measured the distance from the well and discussed the location of the treatment field further. There was a very large tree located just at the edge of the 100 foot separation distance from the well and even though the owner had volunteered to take it down I hoped we could save it if at all possible. Mary also indicated that the owner wished to keep the driveway in its present location. I observed an uncovered septic tank with dirty water surfacing around it and then flowing off in a ditch to the side of the property. I was told this was only gray water. Mary did not know where the existing treatment field was located, but thought it was directly between the tank and the road, but did not know how it was constructed. On this site I had been told the soils were such that a larger area was required[ per bedroom and I laid out a tentative area for the field to the left of the utilities pole. When the decision was made to line this system, it was possible to decrease the field size to 16 ft X 30 ft. as this was a three bedroom house, with a ground water table located at 5.5 ft it was possible to put at least part of this system within the ground and still maintain a 4 ft separation from the bottom of the field. Prior to my arrival the 6wner had taken a week of kis vacation time to prepare the peat whick was stocked on ~site. He had spread it out all over his front Y'ard to dry,.broken it up, and removed all woody materials. When Bub Ne~lson arrived at the site he had a much better idea of what was going to happen and was able to stack the prepared peat where it would be available easily during the actual construction. Once again because Dan and Steve'were on site I was able to consult with them on the best location for the system. The owner was most cooperative and said there was no problem with moving his driveway, o~ anything else we wanted to do. He also volunteered to assist in any way he cDuld during construction on Saturday. However he would not be able to be with us during the week as he works on the North Slope. An excavation was made between the utilities' pole and the existing drive. This was then lined with Visqueen. An 8 inch layer of sand was placed over the membrane and the 4 inch perforated underdrain was then bedded in this sand. Two and a half feet of peae were added above the sand ~efore work stopped for the day. Bef e Bub left the site he co~ ~ed the stockpile of prepared peat with plastic° The peat field was also covered with plastic to protect it from rain until Monday when work would resume. On Monday the crew again assembled and the distribution pipes were bedded in rock and covered with an additional 18 in. of peat. A sample well was placed in the underdrain pipe about one foot from the lir~er. When the soils were being excavated from the area for the peat system a large vein of sand was observed at approximately the two foot level. Oral history of the site indicated there had been a ridge which ran along this property line and it was possible this sand would be adequate for the acceptance of the treated effluent from the field. A decision was made to discharge this effluent into a 7 ft wide trench which ran parallel to the property line and perpendicular to the treatment field. Two 4 in perforated piped were placed 4 feet on center with 1.5 ft from pipe to side walls. These pipes were placed over 6 in of rock,, covered with 6 in of rock and then Typar before being backfilled with spoils. A test well was also installed to monito~ the level of the ground water. This also allowed Dan and Steve to do another soil profile adjacent to the trench. When we finished at the end of the day the treatment field and the disposal trench were complete and a 500 gal lift station had been delivered. Bub Neilson was to return on Tuesday to install the lift station, connect the feed line to the distribution network, cut the driveway, and do the finish grading. This system went in easier than the first for several reasons: the excavator was able to place materials where he wanted them, sand was used under the peat unstead of material used in the previous field (required much'less time and labor to put in place), part of the system was in ground which made it easier to line and build side walls, and there was a better understanding of the process as a whole. RECOMNENDATIONS Thermocouples should be placed in both fields a minimum of four depths below the surface: just above the distribution pipes, just below the distribution pipes, o~e foot below the distribution pipes, and two feet below the distribution pipes at the sand/peat interface. If funding is available, useful information could be obtained by placing thermocouples in mineral soils about 20 feet from the peat field at the same depths from the surface as above. I would strongly recommend that samples be c~llected of both influent to, ant ~ffluent from, each of the ~o peat systems once each month for a full year. Tests should include suspended solids, BOD5, pH, fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen (DO), and nitrate nitrogen. Temperature of influent and effluent should be recorded immediately prior to sample collection. A sample of each month's effluent should be retained for visual comparison of the color change over time. In addition to the above, I recommend that all samples be collected by an independent contractor. Sample wells must be evacuated within 12 hours prior to sample collection to remove any material trapped in the wells which could contribute to erroneous results. Testing of the samples should follow Standard Methods. At the end of a full year of testing an evaluation will have to be made as to whether to continue the tests or not. I should point out that my experience has been the peat systems tend to improve with age and I would not be concerned if the first month or two the effluent did not meet the standards for BOD5 or suspended solids. If the local peat proves acceptable, and funding is available, I would recommend installing at least two systems without liners. These would have to be sized according to code and could be tested by placing a series of slotted and wrapped pipes below the peat and outside the limits of the field on the downslope side. Future systems must go through the permitting process prior to construction. Having the proper paperwork in hand would make it easier for the excavator to do his job. It would also eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of anyone from agency to owner about what is required or expected and exactly where individual respons±biii~ies lie. SUMUL~RY Two experimental on-site peat systems have been installed and a testing regime has been recommended. Both systems have lift stations~and are lined with an underdrain and contain a sample well. Influent to the systems may be collected from the septic tanks or the lift stations. Final disposal of treated effluent is subsurface in rock filled trenches. Recommended tests include BOD5, DO, TSS, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Fecal coliforms, and pH. Temperatur~ of influent and effluent should be monitored. The~ocouples should be placed at various depths within the peat system to monitor temperature. If possible a duplicate set of thermocouples should be placed in mineral soil approximately 20 feet from the peat system. The systems took longer to construct than expected. The major reason was the lack of written plans and the fact that many decisions had to b~ made in the field during ~onstruction. Many delays could have ~en avoided had I received opies of site evaluations, plans, and permits as agreed upon. The Nielsen Brothers are to be commended for their excellent work under what,I am sure, were sometimes trying conditions~ The lack of documentation and my unfamiliarity with the municipal codes would have made it virtually impossible for me to make competent on-site decisions, had it not been for the assistance of Dan Roth and Steve Morris of the Municipal On-Site Services Program. Their assistance was invaluable to me and to the success of the project and I appreciate the fact that their superiors allowed them to spend several days with me in the field, especially on such short notice. With any experimental system it is absolutely necessary that full communication, backed up by written documentation, be maintained with all parties involved from the beginning of the project. I cannot stress too strongly that proper procedure be followed in the future. In conclusion may I say that this has been a very interesting experience. I expect the peat systems to function adequately. I request that a copy of all the paperwork and the as-builts be sent to me as they become available.' OO~ m .~ ,/ Test Peat Drainfield Cooperative Agreement The homeowners are responsible for all of their engineering costs that they have contracted for to date. The homeowners will give the MunicipalJ_ty and its representatives access to the lot for prepara- tion, storage and installation. The Municipality will provide the plan of the bed and the upfront costs such as: peat, its preparation and transportation, lift pump and chamber, pump control, pipe, fittings, and labor of preparation and installation. The homeowners are expected to help get the peat into shape for plac- ing in the mound. The Municipality will furnish supervision of the installation. The homeowner is to give the Municipality free access to the bed or mound for testing purposes in the future. The frequency of the testing will be determined by the results of the tests as we go along. Initally, tests are planned to be.done weekly. After a few months, it wi].], go to monthly then it will probably spread to multiple months or even years between tests° The homeowners will not be charged for the-test costs° If and when test results indicate to the Municipality that the mound is operating properly, and it is anticipated that it will continue to operate properly, the homeowner will be notified ·that it is time to begin repaying upfront costs of the bed or mound a~d interest will begin to accrue. If the peat field is not approved, there will never be a charge to the homeowners for the upfront costs; If the mound or bed is not approved, the peat will become the property · of .the homeowners to do with as they wish. The MunicipalJ. ty will not remove it. If the peat bed is not approved the homeowner wi]_l have to go ~o a holding tank or to a sand mound (if the sand mound can be approved of for the site), at their own expense. FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE: -./~-~~~-- Date STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss THIRD JUDICIAL I)ISTRICT ) TItlS CEI~iTIFIES that on this day of , 19 ._, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, personally appeared , known to me and to me known to be the individual named ill and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she is authorized to execute this contract on behalf of and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she signed the same freely and voluntari.]y for the uses and purposes therein contained. Owner of: Subdivision: Lot number: STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss i'ItIRD dUDICIAI, DISTRICT ) Tills CERTIFIES fha[ on this a ,~ day of ~ , 19 ~ before me, the undersigned, a ~Notarv Public i~ior-'the State of' Alaska, personally appeared ~_~~~ . known to me to be the individual named i~-and -~[~o executed the foregoing instrument, and he/she acknowledged t9 me that.lie/she is authorized to execute this contract on behalf of _~_~ , and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she~signed ~ same freely and voluntarily for' the uses and purposes therein contained. WITNESS my hand and official seal the date and year first above ~ritLen. l? My commission expires: STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss before me, the undersigned, a Noiary ~7blic in~nd~o~the Share of Alaska, personally appeared ~, ,~~~':p~e__ . known tO instrument, and he/she acknowledged tojme that/h~/she is authorized to ' f ' , and execute this contract on behalf he/she acknowledged to me that he/she signed t~e same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein contained. WITNESS my band and official seal the date and year first above wri%ten. Nlanicipality of Anclx~:age MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 17, 1987 Lee Browning, P.E. Manager THRU: Gus Andress, P.E., Manage ' On-site Services/Water Environmental Services Robert w Rob~nson~,.~,?~ager Quality On-site Lot 13 and 14 Block 9 Rabbit Creek Heights Application for Well Permit Attached is an application for an on-site well permit for the above lot is one of the two sites on which the referenced property. The .... recently installed. If we two experimental peat mound systems follow the same guidelines and rules on this permit application that we do for any other application, we simply cannot issue the permit. ........ ~ .... ~ ~ =~=a,~ ¼¢¢~ 4]]acallv drilled and completed without /iAUNICIIPALI-~o: OF ANCHOgI/.-RIL POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA99502-0650 TO REFERENCE DA~E FROM PLEASE REPLY IN AREA BELOW Thanl~ Ym~] TO_ FROM REPLY DATE p. O. Box 240668 Anchorage, Al( (90q) 279- 5553 RECEIVED 99524-0668 ~-* FAX (90'~/ 2'76- 8'706 Deconlber 28, 1990 Municipality of Auchora.~e Department of Ilealth & Iluman Services 825 L Street, Fifth Floor Anehoraffe, At( 99502 ATTN: Dan Rotb Lot 17, Rabbit Creel< tleigh'ts Dear Dali: Last yrida¥ I ehecked the lift station at the peat Mound. For some reason, the lift station was running a loliyer time than expected. This, I think, was the reason we had experienced a breakout of effluent at the top of the mound. The drawdown in the tank was slightly over 1 fooL. As calculate it, it would be pumping slightly over 300 gallons of water (313 gals) at each cycle. I have reset iL so that now, instead of one cycle per day, it pumps 4-6 cycles per day. I recomlnend that we leave it that way for several days into the new year. The Blakes will be going back to school teaching, so the life style will change. If it runs 2-4 cycles per day, I'll leave it as it is. I collected a sample today;. It was delivered to the Chem [,ab, I'll let yoU know the results whea I get them. (January 2, 199~, Gene Yonkin, Chem Lab, called and said the 1412 ~6~ 33~5 ~V611Lt6 · ~ncho~aq6, ~laska 99503 ~ (907} 279-5553 sample was TNT(:). I believe that as soon as the coliform count drops that we should start testing for other parameters. It i,~ a waste of money 'to do any tests except coliform until that t'ime, If the coliform count doesn't drop, then there is a structural problem in the mound. I'm at a loss to explain the problem. If tile coliform count doesn't drop, we'll .just have to wait until sprin~ to determine the problem. I' 11 keep you posted. Sincerely yours, Leroy C. Reid, Jr. PhD, PE, DEE LCR/sr -.~, ....... ,',CLETED BY ~"'~-::~' ' ' PUBLIC WA~'E~ SYSTEM I.n.# ~d'. ','TE '..'/ATE~:i CONTROL '-'- '~ ..... ;:,2~ ~ ~. ...... P. O. BOX 24066S OheckSamplo(l°r routine samp ~ ~ ~dWater with lab ret, no. 7 4 ~ ~eatedWater Special Purpose SAMPLE NO. 4 5 /~,1 ,'' :. ¢/:' .~ ~ .iL :' ~.,,&[ ~'- nking Ws. ler /.n:': .: :-..upo[, for Total Coliform Bacteria · TO BE COMPLETED B\' LABOR/,TDRY Time Collected Collected ~/ /:* ~ I ',~'~ Analysis shows this Water SAfd?LE ~ Satisfactory ~ Sample too long in t~ansit: sample not be over 30 hours old at examim :,-an to indicate reliable resultS. Pteasc nev,' sample via special delivery )aie Received J'-f '/~<?' Time Received Analytical Method: k,~embrane Filter * No. of colonies/lO0 mi. Lab Ref. No. ~s/vu./[~ 90.5058 ~-~ Analyst READ Il,,' STP, U CTi'd r,~ BEFOP, E COLLECTII,,'G SAt',.: P L E [t/,.C-fERIOLOGICAL WATER ANALYSIS RECORD ~embrane Filler: Direct Count-q~'/k~. '~-~ dC~ ~ Col,lor~llOOml Veritication: LTB . . /~-,~,_~ BGB Final Membrane Filter Results ~ ~;~¢'~ Collform/lOOml , Reported By.~~%:~ [-~ Dale T~,:. /~0 .... ~.~. p,~, TNTC = Too i,,'~rnb~rousTo Count Confirmation NORTHEE{N TESTING LABORATORIES, NC. 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGe:-, ALASKA 99503 907-277-8378" FAX 274-9645 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 907-456-3116" FAX 456-3125 3330 INDUSTRIAL WAY ~_~,..~_~_~.~=.~ ............. ~ Municipality Of Anchorage D.H.H,S,/Water Quality Section p,O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Attn: Dan Roth Our Lab #: Location/Project: Your Sample ID: Sample Matrix: Comments: Report Date: 12/13/90 Date Arrived: 11/29/90 Date Sampled: 11/29/90 Time Sampled: 1120 collected By: DR A107287 peat System/Rabbit Crk Ht Water Flag Definitions U = Below Detection Limit DL Stated in Result B = Below Regulatory Min. H = Above Regulatory Max, E = Below Detection Limit Estimated Value Date Result Flag Analyzed Method Parameter Unit% .................................... EPA 160,2 Total Suspended solids mg/1 6,0 12/03/90 2.0 11/30/90 mg/1 EPA 300,0 Nitrate-N EPA 351,3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1 7.0 12/11/90 SM 909C Fecal. coliform #/100 ml 41OO 11/30/90 Reported By: Francois Rodigari Anchorage Operations Manager MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORA(~JJ DEPT, OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION t']EC 1 3 1990 RECEIVED NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, NC. 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907-277-8378 ° FAX 274-9645 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 907-456-3116 " FAX 456-3125 3330 [NOUS'I'RIAL WAY ~---- ~ Report Date: 11/09/90 Municipality Of Anchorage D.H.H.S./Water Quality Section p.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 Attn: Dan Roth Our Lab #: Location/Project: Your Sample ID: Sample Matrix: CommentS: Date Arrived: 11/01/90 Date Sampled: 11/01/90 Time Sampled: 1015 Collected By: DR A106805 Lot 17 Rabbit Creek Hts. Water Flag Definitions U = BelOw Detection Limit DL Stated in Result B = Below Regulatory Min. H = Above Regulatory Max. E = Below Detection Limit Estimated Value Date Result Flag Analyzed Method Parameter Un~tS Unit 6.4 11/01/90 EPA 150.1 pH EPA 160.2 Total Suspended solids mg/1 54.0 11/02/90 mg/1 1.5 11/02/90 EPA 300.0 Nitrate-N EPA 405.1 Biochemical oxygen Demand mg/1 11 11/02/90 SM 909C Fecal Coliform #/100 ml 890 11/01/90 Reported By: Francois Rodigari Anchorage Operations Manager 2505 FA~BBAFIKS S1REE, 3330 INDUSTRIAL WAY Hunicipality of Anchorage D.H.H.S./Water Quality SeCtiOn p.O. Box 196650 Anchorage AK 99519-6650 At:n: Dan Roth Our Lab #: Location/Project: Your Sample ID: sample Matrix: Comments: ANCHOF{AGE, ALASKA 99503 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 907-27/ 8378 ' FA× 274 96,V* 907-456-3116 ' FAX 456:3 A106805 LOt 17 Rabbit creek Hts. Water Report Date: 11/o9/9o Date Arrived: 11/01/90 Date Sampled: 11/01/90 Time Sampled: 1015 collected By: DR Flag Definitions U = Below Detection Limit DL Stated in Result B = Below Regulatory Min. H = Above Regulatory Max. E = Below Detection Limit Estimated Value Date Result Flag Analyzed arameter Units ............................... [4ethod P ........................... 6 4 11/01/90 Unit ' EPA 150.1 pH 54.0 11/02/90 EPA 160.2 Total Suspended solids mg/1 1.5 11/02/90 mg/1 EPA 300.0 Nitrate-N 11/02/90 11 EPA 405.1 Biochemical oxygen Demand mg/1 890 11/01/90 #/100 ml SI4 909C Fecal coliform Reported By: Francois Rodigari Anchorage operations Manager MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RECEIVED ~ ~ ANCHORAGE MuNIC~pAL'~.Y2~E^.D HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEAl-tn ~"' Division Environmental Health REPORT 825 "L" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 9950?-, Telephone ?-64-4720 CES ON-siTE SEWAGE DisPOSAL SYSTEM AND/OR WELL iNSPECTION /.70 ~ lo/ SEPTIC n g¢lOnS TRENCH TYPE ~ ~N. DRAIN oTHER fade pRiVATE B,C) WELLS ~ OTHER (identitv~ to a~ment A~proval: DaP , SEAL ~Z 0 2: FIGURE 7-30 NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINING THE MINIMUM DOSE VOLUME FOR A GIVEN LATERAL DIAMETER, LATERAL LENGTH, AND NUMBER OF LATERALS 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 9OO 8OO ' 700 60O 50O 45O ,40O 35O 3oo 2O 287 p, O, Box 240668 Anchorage, AK 99524-0668 *** FAX (907) 2?6-8706 (907) 279-5553 September 20, 1990 Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health & Human Services 825 L Street, Fifth Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 RE: Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Peat Mound This report is supplemental to the and the attached as-built drawings. Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision ()n--Site Section report, It is shown in red on the as-built how modifications were made to the design. When the construction initially started the secondary field was first installed, generally in the same configuration as shown on the design drawings. Several of the trees that we intended to save had to be removed in order to get the system installed, The secondary system is over good soil. We did note that the northern part of the secondary bed was over peaty type soil. We checked the water table, and there are not spots in the bed in which the water table approaches four feet below the disposal field. There were some slight changes made to the design of the peat bed. When they opened the field up for removal of the old sand and gravel that had been placed over the original visqueen liner, we found that there had apparently been enough cement in the sand and brick to cement it into a relatively hard rock. The contractor graded it and placed a small amount of i~aterial over it to smooth it. The new layer of visquecn was then placed on top of this old collection s~stem, Instead of a foot of rock we only used 9 inches, The intent of the rock ~as for a collection vehicle and not as a ~aste treatment vehicle, so tile rock was reduced to 9 inches. Eighteen inches of sand ~as then placed on top of the rock, This is a clean pit-run sand from the Lake otis sand and gravel pit, The peat, as it was being removed from the original bed, ~as segregated into the peat had been contaminated with fill material, and the clean peat. This clean peat ~as placed in accordance with the drawings. The contractor substituted 1-1/4 inch laterals instead of the 1 inch laterals. All holes and configurations were as originalll~ shown on the design documents. The net effect of the larger pipe would be to somewhat reduce our head losS, therebl~ giving more available bead at the pump system. Once the pipes were in place the peat the Beautl~ Bark ~as placed in thc excavated holes, The Beaut~ Bark is to break up the flow from the laterals. There was an original distribution pipe that came into the bed that had been disconnected b~ others. ~e reconnected it, and moved it in sligh'tl¥ closer to the bed. The contractor felt that insulation should be placed over it to give it better protections. This ~as done. upon having everything :in place, but before the peat cover ~as placed on -the pipes, tile pump lift station was started 'to see hew the distribution plan would work, The water gently welled out of the p~pes an(] spread out across the peat. It appeared that eventually there would be a complete saturation. The s~ze of 'the ho]es and spacing appeared to be more than adequate. The pattern was even. Once this was done, the contractor brought in several loads of milled peat to place over the top of the distribution pipes. Only then did they take the remnants of the old peat bed and place on top. Some of this peat has been contaminated with gravel, brick and rock. The home owners will probably remove the brick before they start to reseed the bed, This contaminated peat will not affect the s~stem as it is well above the active peat. The contractor felt because of 'the drainage condition he needed to bring in additional fill and regrade tile ground to ensure that water would not flow between the pea~; bed and the secondary distribution system. I{e brought ill a silty sand~ fill which was pushed out to build a terrace between the two beds. He then ditched around so that the flow is to the east--west and to the north-south along the lot lines. On September 20, 1990, I again inspected the bed to see what conditions where, other than a few minor adjustments 'to the grading, the system is in good shape. It appears to be 907 p O. Box 240668 Anchorage, Ali 99524--0668 .9.79-5553 *** FAX (907) 27(;- 8706 June 6, 1990 John SIttith, P.E Department of tlealth & Social ServiCeS ~unici. pal i~ of Anchoraffe 825 L Street, Fifth F]oor Anchorage, AK 9950] RE: Peat System: Lots 33-14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Iteights Subdivision Here i,4 rite desi<Zn of the peat system apgrado. I intend use a pr. essure distribution system. Here are the salient pein'ts of kl~e design. I . The preSsll]~c di,',;t cibllt5 on ;V':;hem wi] } tlt-;e one eighi ~ Jltcll ha!es . 2. As ?ock i',~ Leo heavy, I intend (o ptacc "Beauty Ba~'k" t~round each of the ouLlet poJl~ts. This will keep the peat away fpom the ho] es wi thout settlement- · I t i,~i ] 1 also break up 2he sir'earn of efflueilL ft'oln the ott2leL . 3 . If tho Blakes are agt, ecable , I t~ant to recycle, some of the ]iquid back into the septic tank to see if ~,e can get bettcp nJtr'ate removal . I 'ye made a simple sketch of the t e S t S L1 II/p , 4. The system ~,i]]l be smaller. It will be more in line ~ith the Maine studies by Dr. Rock at 5. There will be 18 inche,'-; of the filleting sand under 'the pe~t, 6. There w5 1] be 3 feet of peat to compeasate for the settling previously experienced. ?. I will develop a compaction testing schedule te bring the density of the peat in line wlth Dr. Roekes work, ~.e., 6.1-7.4 #/ft3' Please review the desiffn, then issue a permit if you have no questions. Sjneerely yours , president LCR/sr ALASKA ENVIRONM~NTAL CONTROL SERVICL INC. 1200 West 33rd Avenue, Suite B ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 56~.-5040 JOB-- "~ OF- ~' '- SHEET .o. :-/We ° DATE -- CHECKED 'Fo simplify the design of small pressure distribution networks, Table 7- 13, and Figures 7-28, 7-29, and 7-30, may be used. E×am~les 7-2 and 7-3 illustrate their use, Other design methods may be equally suitable, however. TABLE 7-13 DISCHARGE RATES FOR VARIOUS SIZED HOLES AT VARIOUS PRESSURES {g~m~ Pressu~e~ 0.43 0.74 0.87 1.04_~ 1.30 1.28 1.73 1.47 2.17 1.65 1.15 1.66 2.26 2.95 1.63 2.34 3.19 4.17 1.99 2.87 3.91 5.10 2.30 , 3.31 4.51 5.89 2.57 3.71 5.04 6.59 Design a pressure network for an absorption field consisting of five trenches, each 3 ft wide by 40 ft long, and spaced 9 ft apart center to center. Ste~ 1: Step Select lateral_ len~t~h~ Two layouts are suitable for this ~~ol d (Fi gure ?-24l or end mani fold (Fi gure' 7-25~. For a central manifold design, ten 20-ft laterals are end manifold design, five 40-ft laterals are e. used; for an required. Ihe end manifold design is used in this exampl . d hole s~acing for laterals' For this Sel~o:e~d-~V~rY~' are used, ~le, ~- ~'~ ........ although other combinations could be used. 284 285 plol!ueV~ pua 286 _ FIGURE 7-30 NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINING THE MINIMUM DOSE VOLUME FOR A GIVEN LATERAL DIAMETER, LATERAL LENGTH, AND NUMBER OF LATERALS 4,000 3,500 · 3,000 2,500 2,000 ~,5oo uS ..J · 1,000 · 900 w 800 700 · 600 500 450 ~--~ 400 35O 3OO 250 :zoo ]5O / 7-3 '10 2O 287 TYPICAL 170 160 150 140 130 1BO 110 BO 70 60 50 40 80 10 PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVE 15--20~-25 30 3~ G~Llons per mlnu~ce NENA 4X junc't NE'd ITEMS 1' PI~E NIP ~/ELDEi INTO RISER WALL KEEP ABOVE GRADE 1' CONDUIT LB PVC MALE ADAPTER l' PVC CONDUIT Re-trlevcil ~ PERFORMED FOR:_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~/¢~,~Z ~-'¢.~6/~-- ~ Township, Range, Section: -- --- - SLOPE ~I,~¢ 'JF[~. ~t' ~I't~GIN~-~'~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN S~Hv[~'~/' - 825 "L" Street, Anchorage, A,aska SOILS LOG -- PERCOLATION TESTat SITE PLAN WAS GROUND WATER ~~ 10 ENCOUNTERED? '~'~' '~ S 1 1 IF YES,TAT wHAT ~ pO DEPTH. -- / Reading / Date ~ ~ime I. Time T-'- . ~ 15 J ~0 16 ~ · ~? 18 19 ~ 20 PERCOLATION RATE ~ ~ (minutes/inch) PERC HOLE DIAMETER ~ -- __ CERTIFY THAT THIS TEST WAS PERFORMEO IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE AND MUNICIPAL GUIDELINES IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE. DATE: ALASKA ENVIRONI~'~'~ITAL CONTROL SERVICI~-, INC. ].200 West 33rd Avenue, Suite B ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 561-5040 ~ __ OF -- SHEET NO.~ CALCULATED BY-- DATE - CHECKED BY-- SCALE- ALASKA ENVIRON~'-NTAL CONTROL SERVICL-., INC. [200 West 33rd Avenue, Suite B ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 561.5040 JOB ? CHECKED BY I" ~- I~ SCALE DATE / \ \ Torn Fink, Mayor un clpat tY Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 · I~UNIClPN.ITY OF ANC~ DEPT. OF HEN. TH & ENVIRONMENTAL pROTECTION December 8, 1989 RECEIVED Mr. & Mrs. curtiss Blake p.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: , 1989 it was agreed that.the After our meeting of November 2%ervices (DHHS) would prepare a Department of Health and Human .... f establishing basic in for the purpo~ v .._ ...... r on-site letter of understand guidelines and a time f~=m .....e m we trust that the following ' at . disposal syste... __ ~ ,,nderstandings arrlvedto the wastewa~er and fairly reflecns accurately _ - during our meeting and def~nes the conditions apolicable reconstruction of your existing system. BACKGROLrND AND HISTORY 1. DHHS is supportive of the design, construction and testing of innovative wastewater disposal systems. As demonstration of that support, DHHS has expended approximately $17,500 for the design, construction, and testing of the original experimental peat mound system located on your lotS. 2. The original system was installed in accordance with a cooperative agreement signed by the owners and DHHS on June 23, 1987. After extensive testing, the original system was not able to be permitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) or DHHS. Since it was not possible to issue a permit for the original system, owners have been relieved of any obligation to reimburse the municipality for costs associated with the design, construction or testing of that system. while the original system has served the owners for approximately two years during the testing period, test results do not allow continued use of the system in its present condition. Based on effluent quality being discharged into groundwater, ADEC has denied a wastewater disposal permit for the system. Are O~r Future Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 page Two 4. The existing system has failed as presently qonstructed. AGREEI~ENT TO RECONSTRUCT THE SYSTEM The following items are acknowledged and will serve as a basis for reconstructing the system: 1. DHHS acknowle~ges that test results from the original system indicate that the peat mound may eventually prove to be an acceptable system for wastewater disposal in Anchorage. Accordingly, DHHS views the reconstruction of this system as a positive step towards documenting the performance of peat mound systems. 2. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E., a licensed civil engineer in~ the State of Alaska, will serve as the owner~s engineer as required by AMC 15.65. Should Dr. Reid not be able to complete his duties as engineer, the owners will retain the services of another qualified engineer. 3. In an effort to avoid installation of a holding tank, the owners have indicated a desire to reconstruct the existing system with the anticipation that the rebuilt system will ultimately be approved by DHHS and ADEC. The owners acknowledge that there is no guarantee that the rebuilt system will perform successfully and at a level of efficiency which will allow the system to receive final approval from DHHS for conventional use. 4. All modifications or upgrades to the existing innovative system shall be accomplished in accordance with AMC 15.65 and all applicable state regulations. 6. Should the owners elect to continue using and reconstruct the peat system, all work shall be performed under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Reid and in accordance with the following time frames: - As a temporary measure to disinfect the effluent coming from the failed system, a Sanurial Chlorinator will be installed within ten days after receiving ADEC authorization. - A detailed design of the proposed system upgrade and a wastewater disposal permit application shall be submitted to DHHS by April 1, 1990. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Three - DHHS will issue a permit for upgrading the system wlthin~'5 days after receiving an acceptable, complete design and permit application. - The system upgrade shall be completed no later than July 31, 1990. ~' will be required for a ~eriod of one year 7. Effluent testing from the date that the system receives final as-built pproval by DHHS. Parameters which will require testing nclude fecal coliform, ~OD, suspended solids, pH, and nitrate nitrogen. The effluent discharging from the peat mound is expected to have the following qualities: ~ day BOD Total Suspended Solids Nitrate Nitrogen Coliform {colon~es/100m!) 0 to ~0 mg/1 0 to 30 mg/1 0 to 20 mg/1 !ess than 20 . without disinfection 1 with disinfection 5.5-7.5 pH he frequency of testing will be once every two weeks for the first four months and once a month for the next eight ~onths. This proposed testing frequency assumes that the system performs as intended. Should the system not perform ~ =~e~uent or extended testing may be ,~as intendeo, more ~~ _ - ,l~'required. All test results shall be submitted to DHHS ~= days after the scheduled sampling date. within ~n It is understood that, should the reconstructed system discharge effluent at an elevation less than ~ Ft. above the seasonally high groundwater table, an effluent discharge permit may be required from ADEC. It is further understood that ADEC may require more stringent effluent standards and/or a more detailed and complex testing schedule than specified above. In addition to sampling and testing which will be performed by Dr. Reid, DHHS engineers may also collect and test effluent samples. The owners agree to provide DHHS access to the system for the purpose of sample collection and testing. If, after the one year testing period, the system is not able to be oermitted, and has no reasonable hope of being permitted, ~y both ADEC and DHHS, the owners will convert to a holding tank in accordance with .~4C 15.65.090, or some other approved system. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 page Four 9. Funding of all design, construction and testing of the reconstructed system shall be the owner's res'ponsibility. This agreement does not preclude the use of municipal, state or federal funds, should such funds be available and authorize~.. ~ 10. It is intended that this letter of understanding supersede the agreement which was signed by DHHS and the property owners on June 23, 1987. If you concur with this letter of understanding, please acknowledge your concurrence by signing in the space provided below and return one copy to this office at at your earliest convenience. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any.questions or concerns. Sincerely, /' John smith,' P.E. P~ogram Manager, On-site Services cc: James Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. AlaSka Environmental Control Services, Inc. Robert Flint, Regional Program coordinator, ADEC We understand and concur with the requirements and specifications contained in this letter of understanding. Municipality of Anchorage: Manager, Envir~nzaz Services . //~ ~g r id ~Yake Robert A. (Bert) Hall Date Director, Department of Health and Human Services Date unicipality. of Anchorage Tom Fink, Mayor P.O. BOX 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650' March 15, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Waskewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: In talking with your engineer, Leroy Reid, we understand that you have some concern over the testing parameters specified in Paragraph 7 of the letter of agreement. It is intended that the concentration limits specified in Paragraph 7 be considered nominal values that would reflect the average performance of the system during the one year testing period. Periodic spikes above these values will be expected and will not necessarily be viewed as indicative of the overall system performance. We would like to remind you that the letter of agreement specifies that a detailed design of the proposed system upgrade must be submitted to this office for review and approval by April 1, 1990 and that the system upgrade must be completed by July 31, 1990. We trust that you and your engineer are proceeding towards meeting this schedule for design and installation of the proposed new system. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any questions. Sincerely,7 '7 /~' Jc~n Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Kids Are Our Future Z I:_E- Yo UR- ALASKA er~UIROnmEI~TAL CONTROL SERUIC~S, ~nqineerinq $ ~nuironmentol Studies TO DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL RECEIVED Tom Fink, Mayor unicipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825"L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 March 15, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wasgewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: In talking with your engineer, Leroy Reid, we understand that you have some concern over the testing parameters specified in Paragraph 7 of the letter of agreement. It is intended that the concentration limits specified in Paragraph 7 be considered nominal values that would reflect the average performance of the system during the one year testing period. Periodic spikes above these values will be expected and will not necessarily be viewed as indicative of the overall system performance. We would like to remind you that the letter of agreement specifies that a detailed design of the proposed system upgrade must be submitted to this office for review and approval by April 1, 1990 and that the system upgrade must be completed by July 31, 1990. We trust that you and your engineer are proceeding towards meeting this schedule for design and installation of the proposed new system. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any questions. Sincerely,/~/'i'/~/~' ~~ / J~n Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Kids Are Our Future Tom Fink, Mayor unicipality of Ancl orage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 December 8, 1989 MUNICIPALITY OF ANC~I~; DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights RECEIVED Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: After our meeting of November 20, 1989 it was agreed that.the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would prepare letter of understanding for the purpose of establishing basic guidelines and a time frame for reconstructing your on-site wastewater disposal system. We trust that the following accurately and fairly reflects the understandings arrived at during our meeting and defines the conditions applicable to the reconstruction of your existing system. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1. DHHS is supportive of the design, construction and testing of innovative wastewater disposal systems. As a demonstration of that support, DHHS has expended approximately $17,500 for the design, construction, and testing of the original experimental peat mound system located on your lots. 2. The original system was installed in accordance with a cooperative agreement signed by the owners and DHHS on June 23, 1987. After extensive testing, the original system was not able to be permitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) or DHHS. Since it was not possible to issue a permit for the original system, owners have been relieved of any obligation to reimburse the municipality for costs associated with the design, construction or testing of that system. 3. While the original system has served the owners for approximately two years during the testing period, test results do not allow continued use of the system in its present condition. Based on effluent quality being discharged into groundwater, ADEC has denied a wastewater disposal permit for the system. K~ds Are O~tr F~tatre Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 page Two 4. The existing system has failed as presently constructed. AGREEi~ENT TO RECONSTRUCT THE SYSTEM The following ~tems are acknowledged and will serve as a basis for reconstructing the system: 1. DHHS acknowledges that test results from the original system indicate that the peat mound may eventually prove to be an acceptable system for wastewater disposal in Anchorage. Accordingly, DHHS views the reconstruction of this system as a positive step towards documenting the performance of peat mound systems. 2. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E., a licensed civil engineer in. the State of Alaska, will serve as the owner~s engineer as required by AMC 15.65. Should Dr. Reid not be able to complete his duties as engineer, the owners will retain the services of another qualified engineer. 3. In an effort to avoid installation of a holding tank, the owners have indicated a desire to reconstruct the existing system with the anticipation that the rebuilt system will ultimately be approved by DHHS and ADEC. The owners acknowledge that there is no guarantee that the rebuilt system will perform successfully and at a level of efficiency which will allow the system to receive final approval from DHHS for conventional use. 4. All modifications or upgrades to the existing innovative system shall be accomplished in accordance with AMC 15.65 and all applicable state regulations. 6. Should the owners elect to continue using and reconstruct the peat system, all work shall be performed under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Reid and in accordance with the following time frames: - As a temporary measure to disinfect the effluent coming from the failed system, a Sanurial Chlorinator will be installed within ten days after receiving ADEC authorization. - A detailed design of the proposed system upgrade and a wastewater disposal permit application shall be submitted to DHHS by April 1, 1990. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Three - DHHS will issue a permit for upgrading the system within~5 days after receiving an acceptable, complete design and permit application. - The system upgrade shall be completed no later than July 31, 1990. Effluent testing will be required for a period of one year from the date that the system receives final as-built proval by DHHS. parameters which will require testing nclude fecal coliform, BOD, suspended solids, pH, and nitrate nitrogen. The effluent ~ischarging from the peat mound is expected to have the following qualities: ~ day BOD Toqal Suspended Solids Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3) Fec~ Coliform (colonies/100ml) )H 0 to 30 mg/1 0 to 30 mg/1 0 to 20 mg/1 less than 20 without disinfection 1 with disinfection 5.5-7.5 'he frequency of testing will be once every two weeks for the first four months and once a month for the next eight months. This proposed testing frequency assumes that the system performs as intended. Should the system not perform .~s intended, more frequent or extended testing may be required. All test results shall be submitted to DHHS within ten days after the scheduled sampling date. It is understood that, should the reconstructed system discharge effluent at an elevation less than ~ Ft. above the seasonally high groundwater table, an effluent discharge permit may be required from ADEC. It is further understood that ADEC may require more stringent effluent standards and/or a more de~ailed and complex testing schedule than specified above. In addition to sampling and testing which will be performed by Dr. Reid, DHHS engineers may also collect and test The owners agree to provide DHHS access ~. effluent samples. to the system for the purpose of sample collection and testing. If, after the one year testing period, the system is not able to be oermitted, and has no reasonable hope of being permitted, ~y both ADEC and DHHS, the owners will convert to a holding tank in accordance with ~MC 15.65.090, or some other approved system. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Four 9. Funding of all design, construction and testing of the ~' reconstructed system shall be the owner's responsibility. This agreement does not preclude the use of municipal, state or federal funds, should such funds be available and authorized.. 10. It is intended that this letter of understanding supersede the agreement which was signed by DHHS and the property owners on June 23, 1987. If you concur with this letter of understanding, please acknowledge your concurrence by signing in the space provided below and return one copy to this office at at your earliest convenience · Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any~questions or concerns · John Smith~ P.E. Pr~ogram Manager, On-site Services cc: James Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Robert Flint, Regional Program Coordinator, ADEC We understand and concur with the requirements and specifications contained in this letter of understanding. Municipality of Anchorage: Lee--l~ r ownl ng, . ~. Manager, Environmental Services Robert A. (Bert) Hall Date Director, Department of Health and Human Services ~/Curtiss Bl~'k~ J Date /rS fg rid ~lfa k e Date Tom Fink, Mayor unicipality oi Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 March 15, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Curries Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: In talking with your engineer, Leroy Reid, we understand that you have some concern over the testing parameters specified in Paragraph 7 of the letter of agreement. It is intended that the concentration limits specified in Paragraph 7 be considered nominal values that would reflect the ...... ~ n~rF~rmance of the system during the one year testing pe~ above these values will be expected a] viewed as indicative of the overall s] We would like to remind you that the specifies that a detailed design of t J NlCl Lily OF ANCHOiCqGE must be submitted to this office for .... April 1, 1990 and that the system upg DEPT. OF HEALTH July 31, 1990. We trust that you and ENVIRONMENTAL PROtECTION proceeding towards meeting this sched installation of the proposed new cyst Please contact me at 343-4744 if you RECEIVED Sincerely, ~ Jffn Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Kids Are Our Future Tom Fink, Mayor Alunicipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services $25 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 February 9, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: We have received and reviewed your January 21 letter which suggested amendments to the letter of understanding which would permit the reconstruction of your existing experimental peat mound wastewater disposal system. After careful consideration of your comments and suggested amendments to the letter of understanding, we offer the following specific responses: 1. The besting schedule specified in the letter of understanding reflects what this office believes to be an absolute minimum testing frequency'in order to document satisfactory performance of the proposed system. 2. The On-site Services program is staffed with qualified engineers and health professionals who have the experience and expertise to properly sample wastewater effluent from the proposed peat mound system. This office will conduct its own effluent sampling and testing program. We will notify both you and Leroy Reid of our sampling schedule and we will provide you with copies of all laboratory results. 3. This office has been and will continue to be supportive of any grant funding which may become available for the installation and testing of experimental peat mound wastewater disposal systems. We will keep you informed of any funding that becomes available. Kids Are Our Future Mr & Mrs. Curti$~ Blake February 9, 1990 Page Two 4. The effluent testing parameters listed in the letter of understanding are based on well established federal, state and local standards. You may wish to reference the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523), the State of Alaska Wastewater Disposal Regulations (18 ACC 72) the State of Alaska Drinking Water Regulations (18 ACC 80), the Municipality of Anchorage Water Pollution Control Regulations (AMC 15.40) and Wastewater Disposal Regulations (AMC 15.65). A complete discussion of how these regulations are interrelated and how they apply to your specific situation is beyond the scope of this letter. However, you are welcome to come by our office to review these regulations and to discuss how they are applied to the permitting of conventional soil absorption systems and non-conventional systems such as the peat mound system. When issuing a permit for the installation of an on-site wastewater disposal system, this office has the authority and responsibility to ensure that the proposed system will not serve as a pollution source to groundwater and surface water and/or pose a health risk to the neighboring community. We believe that the letter of understanding, as currently written, is not only fair but also establishes minimum basic criteria which will allow this office to issue a permit for the reconstruction of your existing failed system. Accordingly this office does not support the changes to the letter of understanding which you have requested. Attached are two copies of the letter for your signature. If you concur with this letter of understanding, please acknowledge your concurrence by signing in the space provided and return one copy to this office by February 23, 1990. If you remain convinced that the conditions and stipulations contained in this letter of understanding are unacceptable, then you may wish to consider applying for a permit to install a holding tank. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ %r~o~~~2~g~i On-site Services cc: James Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman Robert A. (Bert) Hall, Director, DHHS Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. P. O. Box 110285 Anchorage, AK 99511 January 21, 1990 Dear Mr. Smith, After reviewing the letter of December 8 with Lee Reid and our attorney, we would like to amend it as follows: Section 7, paragragh 3: If after two months of testing at two week intervals, with satisfactory results, the testing schedule will change to once a month. Section 7, paragragh 4: Any sampling and testing by the Department of Health and Human Services will be done by knowledgable people who have been trained by the APU testing team, including Dr. Reid, and these persons will be certified by the APU testing team. This also is to include proper equipment as determined by Dr. Reid. All sampling and testing is also to be observed by Dr. Reid and/or his staff at APU. Section 9: Since any favorable results from this innovative system will be to the benefit of the muuicipality, we would like to see efforts by your office to obtain funding through municipal, state, or federal grants. We want to be kept informed of these efforts and their progress. In addition to the above amendments, we would like to know how you came up with the parameters for test results (section 7) and how they compare to the parameters for results from conventional systems, and why they may differ. Thank you. C~rtis~Blake Judy Blake cc: Dr. Leroy Reid Jim Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPT. Of= HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION :."'! 2 3 1990 RECEIVED Tom Fink, Mayor 3 xunicipality of Anclxorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.©~ Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 January 16, 198~3-~O Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, we have enclosed a copy of the letter of agreement that was sent to you on December 8, 1989. We understand that the two original copies of this agreement have been misplaced. Please review this copy and provide us written comments by January 23, 1990. After review and incorporation of your comments, we will send you two revised original copies of the agreement for your signature. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, / John Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services cc: James Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman Robert A. (Bert) Hall, Director, DHHS Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Kids Are Our F~ture ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 563-6775 Dece~e~ 26,~989 Dr. Leroy C. Reid, Jr. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. 1412 West 33rd Ave. Anchorage, AK 99503 Subject: Upgrade of On-s~te Wastewater Disposal System, Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mro Reid: We have reviewed your request for permitting discharge of septic tank effluent into a non-conforming subsurface disposal system on the subject property° The non-conforming system addressed has the potential of having less than 4 ft. separation between the bottom of the waste disposal system and highest groundwater table. We have determined that the requirement for permitting .of a discharge will be unnecessary in this situation. However, a waiver issuance will be necessary to meet State regulatory compliance. A temporary waiver for the sihgle family residence must be applied for through the Department of Health & Human Services with the Municipality of Anchorage. Suggested minimal requirements that may be proposed to obtain a waiver approval are as follows: 1. Disinfection of effluent (assure adequate contact time in all anticipated flow conditions) 2o Monitoring effluent quality (minimal testing for fecal coliform; less than 1 FC/100 ml using Membrane Filter method or less than 3 FC/100 ml using the MPN method) 3. Minimum treatment complies with Title 18, Chapter 72, Section 029 of the Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 72.029}o 4o Complete all necessary reconstruction work on the waste disposal system prior to July 31, 1990. Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Page 2 December 26, 1989 If you have any questions, please contact me at our Anchorage Western District Office at 563-6775. Sincerely, Michael P. Lewis,, PE Ehvironmental Engineer MPL: bas cc J/ohn smith, DHHS Julie Howe, SCRO Bruce Erickson, AWDO Tom Fink, Mayor Municipality Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 %" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 December 8, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: After our meeting of November 20, 1989 it was agreed that.the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would prepare a letter of understanding for the purpose of establishing basic guidelines and a time frame for reconstructing your on-site wastewater disposal system. We trust that the following accurately and fairly reflects the understandings arrived at during our meeting and defines the conditions applicable to the reconstruction of your existing system. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY DHHS is supportive of the design, construction and testing of innovative wastewater disposal systems. As a demonstration of that support, DHHS has expended approximately $17,500 for the design, construction, and testing of the original experimental peat mound system located on your lots. The original system was installed in accordance with a cooperative agreement signed by the owners and DHHS on June 23, 1987. After extensive testing, the original system was not able to be permitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) or DHHS. Since it was not possible to issue a permit for the original system, owners have been relieved of any obligation to reimburse the municipality for costs associated with the design, construction or testing of that system. While the original system has served the owners for approximately two years during the testing period, test results do not allow continued use of the system in its present condition. Based on effluent quality being discharged into groundwater, ADEC has denied a wastewater disposal permit for the system. Kids Are Our Future Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Two 4. The existing system has failed as presently constructed. AGREEMENT TO RECONSTRUCT THE SYSTEM The following items are acknowledged and will serve as a basis for reconstructing the system: DHHS acknowledges that test results from the original system indicate that the peat mound may eventually prove to be an acceptable system for wastewater disposal in Anchorage. Accordingly, DHHS views the reconstruction of this system as a positive step towards documenting the performance of peat mound systems. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E., a licensed civil engineer in the State of Alaska, will serve as the owner's engineer as required by AMC 15.65. Should Dr. Reid not be able to complete his duties as engineer, the owners will retain the services of another qualified engineer. In an effort to avoid installation of a holding tank, the owners have indicated a desire to reconstruct the existing system with the anticipation that the rebuilt system will ultimately be approved by DHHS and ADEC. The owners acknowledge that there is no guarantee that the rebuilt system will perform successfully and at a level of efficiency which will allow the system to receive final approval from DHHS for conventional use. Ail modifications or upgrades to the existing innovative system shall be accomplished in accordance with AMC 15.65 and all applicable state regulations. Should the owners elect to continue using and reconstruct the peat system, all work shall be performed under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Reid and in accordance with the following time frames: - As a temporary measure to disinfect the effluent coming from the failed system, a Sanurial Chlorinator will be installed within ten days after receiving ADEC authorization. - A detailed design of the proposed system upgrade and a wastewater disposal permit application shall be submitted to DHHS by April 1, 1990. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Three - DHHS will issue a permit for upgrading the system within 5 days after receiving an acceptable, complete design and permit application. - The system upgrade shall be completed no later than July 31, 1990. Effluent testing will be required for a period of one year from the date that the system receives final as-built approval by DHHS. Parameters which will require testing include fecal coliform, BOD, suspended solids, pH, and nitrate nitrogen. The effluent discharging from the peat mound is expected to have the following qualities: 5 day BOD Total Suspended Solids Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3) Fecal Coliform (colonies/100ml) pH 0 to 30 mg/1 0 to 30 mg/1 0 to 20 mg/1 less than 20 without disinfection 1 with disinfection 5.5-7.5 The frequency of testing will be once every two weeks for the first four months and once a month for the next eight months. This proposed testing frequency assumes that the system performs as intended. Should the system not perform as intended, more frequent or extended testing may be required. Ail test results shall be submitted to DHHS within ten days after the scheduled sampling date. It is understood that, should the reconstructed system discharge effluent at an elevation less than 4 Ft. above the seasonally high groundwater table, an effluent discharge permit may be required from ADEC. It is further understood that ADEC may require more stringent effluent standards and/or a more detailed and complex testing schedule than specified above. In addition to sampling and testing, which will be performed by Dr. Reid, DHHS engineers may also collect and test effluent samples. The owners agree to provide DHHS access to the system for the purpose of sample collection and testing. If, after the one year testing period, the system is not able to be permitted, and has no reasonable hope of being permitted, by both ADEC and DHHS, the owners will convert to a holding tank in accordance with AMC 15.65.090, or some other approved system. Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake December 8, 1989 Page Four Funding of all design, construction and testing of the reconstructed system shall be the owner's responsibility. This agreement does not preclude the use of municipal, state or federal funds, should such funds be available and authorized. 10. It is intended that this letter of understanding supersede the agreement which was signed by DHHS and the property owners on June 23, 1987. If you concur with this letter of understanding, please acknowledge your concurrence by signing in the space provided below and return one copy to this office at at your earliest convenience. Please contact me at 343-4744 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, /' JohnSon Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services cc: James Barnett, Assemblyman Joe Evans, Assemblyman Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. Robert Flint, Regional Program Coordinator, ADEC We understand and concur with the requirements and specifications contained in this letter of understanding. Municipality of Anchorage: Lee-~rowning, P.~. Manager, Environmbntal Robert A. (Bert) Hall Date Director, Department of Health and Human Services Date~ Services Property Owners: Curtiss Blake Date Sigrid Blake Date From: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE MEMORANDUM 91-015 (Rev. 1/81) Nlunicipa,-ty B O~ (907) 2e4-431~ Anchorage . 196650 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99519-6650 Joe Evans 1127 West 7th Avenue. Anchorage, A~aska 99501 (Work) 4741 Southpark Bluff Drive. Anchorage. Alaska 99516 fHome) Work (907) 263-7251: Home (907) 345-3688 RECEIVED NOV 1.:.i i~89 L)I-IHS Olfice o¢ the Directo~ November 14, 1989 Bert Hall, Director Department of Health & Human Services MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Pouch 196650 Anchorage, AK 9.9519-6650 .:ov 16 198 t RE: Curtis and Judy Blake Dear Bert: I would like to add to the names of folks that I think should attend our meeting on the Blakes~ septic system: John smith, Bill Lamoreaux (DEC, Southcentral Regional office), and Lee Reed. I would also request that we set the meeting up at the end of the day so that Mr. and Mrs. Blake will not have to miss time from their work duties. I look forward to hearing from you. sincerely, ~eph W. Evans JWE/jss CC: Curtis and Judy Blake Jim Barnett Fred Dyson Mary Frohne Bill Lamoreaux Lee Reed ALASKA IUIROtq IqTAL COIqTROL SEIqUICES, IlqC. ~n~lincmnq ~ ~nuironm~nld Sludies P. 0. Box 240668 Anchorage, AK 99524-0668 (907) 279-5553 *** FAX (907) 276-8706 RECEIVED November 13, 1989 Department of Health & Human Services Municipality of Anchorage P. O. Box ] 96650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 ATTN: Lee Browning, P.E. Manager, Environmental Services RE: Lots ].3 aud 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creel< Heights Dear Mr. Browning: This is a follew up of our conversation on the subject lots. Today, I spoke to Mary Frohne and she has not installed the Sanuril chlorinator. I have decided ~o take the job over and do it as we agreed. Attached is the follow up letter to Bruce Erickson, ADEC. Sincerely yours, PhD, PE, DEE President LCR/sr Tom Fink, Mayor AAunicxpali'ty of Anclxorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 November 15, 1989 Dr. Raymond Z. Riznyk, Professor Alaska Pacific University 4101 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4672 Dear Dr. Riznyk: Thank you for your November 3 letter which reported your recent testing of the Rabbit Creek Heights peat system. I am ple'ased to hear of your continuing involvement with the testing and evaluation of this system even though funding constraints have precluded further participation on our part. As you know, this department has been unable to approve the original system based on its performance to date. We understand that Dr. Leroy Reid, P.E. is serving as the Blake's engineer and that both you and Dr. Reid are working together to modify the existing system. Your expertise and continued efforts towards testing and documenting the performance of innovative peat systems is certainly appreciated and encouraged by this department. I am optimistic that this type of system will eventually be approved for conventional use. Sincerely, Robert A (Bert) Hall, Director Department of Health and Human Services cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager, Environmental Services Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E., Alaska.Environmental Control Services, Inc. "Kids Are Our Future" Alaska Pacific University -}',.~l I i.vrl a' I~.,'t' ~ \,,,h,,*.*,!~. \l''~'''~q''li November 3, q989 Robert A. Hall . Director Dept. of Health'and Human Services Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Dear Bert: I am writing this letter to inform you of my continued efforts in monitoring the Rabbit Creek [{eights Peat Mound Septic System. It is my understanding that the system has recently been modified with the introduction of 1 1/4" distribution pipe with 5/32" - sized per~orations. This modification was carried out with the e×pectation of evenly distributing the effluent. In addition to the pipe size and flow alterations, 6 soil moisture sensor probes have been installed at various depths to monitor the percent moisture in the peat. A sample of peat leaehate taken on Sunday (10-29-89) showed <1 fecal coliform. At the time of sampling the percent moisture in the mound was approximately 95%. There appears to be a high correlation between the amount of moisture in the mound ~nd fecal coliform counts. In reviewing our data we find that periods of high fecal contamination coincide with periods of heavy raineall or seasonal snowmelt (breakup). It is possible that uneven distribution o£ effluent in the mound during oversaturatlon caused peat to lose its capacity to adsorb bacteria. I plan to continue monitoring the mound system on a weekly basis to see if the redesigned pipe configuration will improve the system's performance. Sincerely, tta~'mond Z. Riznyk, prdf~ssov Alaska Pacific University RZR:mh cc: Lee Reid Jewel Jones Mary Frohne Lee Browning ,A Non' Unil'crsit7 Jot a New MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 1989 TO: File FROM: John Smith SUBJECT: Lots 13 & 14, Block 9 Rabbit Creek Heights Peat Mound Wastewater Disposal System 8/14/89 8/21/89 8/23/89 9/18/89 9/18/89 9/19/89 Blake notified that system was not functioning properly. This was confirmed by dye testing and laboratory testing which showed 6,040 coliform bacteria per 100 ml. Sample was taken from surface effluent downgradient from system. Meeting with L. Reid, R. Riznyk, L. Browning and J. Smith. Based on meeting it was agreed that the system was not functioning properly and that Blakes should keep the system pumped until the system could be rehabilitated. Meeting with L. Reid, Mr. & Mrs. Blake, L. Browning and J. Smith. Based on meeting it was agreed that Blakes would keep their system pumped and that L. Reid, working as their engineer would develop a plan to rebuild the system. Blakes were also informed that, rebuilding their system would require that they obtain a permit from DHHS in accordance with AMC 15.65. Blakes send letter to DHHS requesting that, in accordance with the original contract, they be relieved of any financial responsibility associated with the original peat system. Meeting with M. Frohne, S. Oswalt and L. Browning. M. Frohne expressed desire to rebuild system using a pressure distribution system. She was informed that all repairs and/or modifications to the system would require an appropriate design and permit application submitted by a licensed engineer. Letter from Browning to Blakes informing them that because the original system failed there would be no attempt by the Environmental Services Division to seek reimbursement for the original system. The letter also urged the Blakes to promptly initiate plans to rebuild the failed system. 9/26/89 Letter from Smith to Blakes explaining the options and requirements for fixing their failed system. A deadline of October 15, 1989 was specified. A copy of AMC 15.65 was also sent so that the Blakes would have a more complete understanding of the guidelines for fixing their system. Leroy Reid was copied on this letter. 10/5/89 Letter from Reid to Browning describing his recommendations for fixing the Blake's system, i.e. rebuilding the system using sphagnum peat, installing a chlorinator as an intermediate measure and reroute the foundation drain away from the wastewater disposal system. 10/16/89 Letter from Browning to Reid approving in concept his proposal to rebuild the system using sphagnum peat. Prior to sending letter Smith consulted with Reid to make sure that the deadlines and requirements specified were fair and could realistically be met. The Blakes and J. Smith were copied on this letter. 10/3/89 10/3/89 Meeting with M. Frohne, J. Smith and L. Browning. M. Frohne described the modifications which she had completed in an effort to fix the system. She was reminded of discussions at the 9/18/89 meeting regarding the fact that this work should have been done under the guidance of licensed engineer and that there was some question as to how the system could ever be approved without the involvement of an engineer. M Frohne also delivered letter from R. Riznyk stating that one recent test, subsequent to modifications done by M. Frohne, showed zero coliforms. J. Smith called Mr. Blake at 5:10 pm to inform him of this office's concern over someone other than a licensed engineer performing modifications to their system without an approved design. He agreed with our concern but stated that he thought that M. Frohne was working under the guidance of L. Reid. Mr. Blake was advised to contact L. Reid and to make sure that L. Reid is still working as his engineer. 10/4/89 M. Frohne came to J. Smith's house at 8:45 am. M. Frohne appeared to be upset at J. Smith, telling him that he had no right ~o tell the Blakes that only a licensed engineer could design or make modifications to an on-site wastewater system. M. Frohne requested that J. Smith accompany her immediately to 825 L Street so that she could get a copy of the ordinance and so that she could show J. Smith where the ordinance allowed her to install and conduct research on an innovative system. J. Smith told M. Frohne that he would go to the office later in the day to pick up a copy of the ordinance for her. M. Frohne said that wasn't soon enough and left J. Smith's house saying that she would contact an assembly person to get a copy of the ordinance. PEAT SYSTEM COST BREAKDOWN The following cost breakdown reflects the total cost to install two experimental peat mound wastewater treatment systems. The design and construction of both systems was very similar so it is valid to assume that the approximate individual system cost is equal to half the total cost of both systems. Nielsen Brothers - Contractor Alaska Pacific University - Research Contract Joan Brooks - Technical Advisor Mary Frohne - Technical Advisor Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. - As-built Documents $10,034.30 $15,953.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,869.00 $ 1,700.00 Total ........................................... $35,083.30 Total Cost for Each System ...................... $17,541.65 It should be noted that this cost does not include labor costs, (approximately 65 man hours), associated with DHHS personnel assisting with the construction of both systems. I Torn Fink, Mayor NluniCipal'ity of AnchOrage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 September 26 1!)89 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: · :L4 1989 you have been aware that your on-sit, e SinCe Apgus~..~~i,=1 system is not functioning properly. This wasnewauer ~l.~pvo~ = 1989 to discuss the department met with you on August 23, available options for upgrading your system. At that meeting it was agreed that you would pursue resolution, of the problem, with Dr. Leroy Reid, P.E. serving as your engineer. At this time we have not received any indication that you intend to proceed with upgrading your system. We recognize that the recent wet weather has not been conducive to the construction or repair of on-site systems which are located in areas of high groundwater. However, in order to avoid the problems associated with winter construction,, it is very important that you take immediate corrective action which will provide a permanent solution to the deficiencies in your on-site wastewater disposal system. Therefore, please be advised that by October 15, 1989 you must complete one of the following corrective measures: 1. Convert to a holding tank system which meets or exceeds the requirements specified in AMC 15.65.090 - Holding Tanks. 2. Install an alternative innovative system or modify and upgrade the existing innovative peat mound system. In either case the system must meet or exceed all requirements of AMC 1.5.65 - Wastewater Disposal Regulations and all discharge requirements mandated by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). " ids Are Our Future" Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake September 26, 1989 Page Two If you have any questions or concerns about the requirements for upgrading your system, please contact our office at 343-4744. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of AMC 15.65 - Wastewater Disposal Regulations. Sincerely, ~ Program Manager, On-site Services cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager Environmental Services Division Leroy C. Reid, Phd, P.E. Alaska Enviornmental Control Services, Inc. /vlunicipality o¥ Anchorage Tom Fink, P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Mayor September 19, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Reimbursement for Peat System Drainfield - Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. & Mrs. Blake: In response to your letter of September 18',.. reimbursement for the peat system on your lot is governed by the terms of the agreement you entered with the municipality on June 23, 1987. That agreement states in part, "If the peat field is not approved, there will never be a charge to the homeowners for the upfront costs;" AS you know, a permit for your system to operate on a permanent basis is required from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) before the municipality can grant approval for its use as other than a temporary "innovative" system. The results of tests performed on your system by Alaska Pacific university during the past year were submitted to ADEC for review and approval. ADEC denied approval of the system for conventional use because the effluent did not meet state standards for discharge into groundwater. A. copy of the ADEC response is attached for your information. In my opinion, since the peat system on your lots cannot be approved as presently constructed, the agreement provision quoted above takes precedence. Accordingly, this office has no plans to pursue reimbursement of the expenses incurred with the existing peat mound. I would urge you to advise us promptly of your plans for constructing an acceptable on-site wastewater disposal system as discussed in our August meeting. __/~incerely~ e Brown.i, ng, P.E. ~.~ . Manager, Environmental SeTvlces cc: John Smith, P.E., Program Manager, On-site Services Kids Are Our Future ,,,~.,...- ...... ~k.,JORAGE ~:NV~R,~,NMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SEP 1 ? 1989 RECEIVED Tom Fink, Mayor /Vlunicipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L' Street P,O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 October 16, 19-89 Leroy C. Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services,' Inc. P.O. Box 240668 Anchorage, Alaska 99524-0668 Subject: Peat Mound Wastewater Disposal System Lot 14, Block 9 Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision Dear Dr. Reid: We have reviewed your October 5 letter which seeks DHHS concurrence and approval to continue operation of the existing peat mound wastewater disposal system. This office continues to be supportive of the design, installation and testing of innovative wastewater disposal systems. We support your efforts to conduct research on the applicability of using peat mound systems to treat on-site domestic wastewater. Based on our understanding of the specific problems which exist at the subject lot, we have several comments and concerns with respect td the continuing operation and eventual rehabilitation of the existing peat mound system. Since August 14, 1989, the existing system has been confirmed as not functioning properly. The system was originally installed as a special research project which received funding from the municipality. It has operated, on an experimental basis, for the past two years without receiving a permit from the municipality or a permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to discharge wastewater effluent to groundwater. With the failure of the existing system, the property owners have been released from any obligation to reimburse the municipality for the original installation costs. "Kids Are Our Future" Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. October 16, 1989 Page Two We believe that any future modifications or upgrades to the existing system should be accomplished in accordance with all state and municipal requirements. If the vertical separation between the seasonally high groundwater and the bottom elevation of the rebuiltI drainfield is less than 4 Ft., a permit must be obtained from'ADEC for discharge of wastewater effluent to groundwater. Also a permit for upgrading the existing system must be obtained from this office. Your letter recommends that, as an interim measure, the existing system be allowed to continue to operate through the winter months. It is our understanding that next summer you intend to rebuild the system using sphagnum peat. This type of peat apparently has'superior physical characteristics necessary for treating wastewater. For the existing system to operate through the winter, you have recommended that the apparent hydraulic cross connection between the foundation drain and the wastewater drainfield be eliminated by relocating the foundation drain outfall. You"have also recommended that a Sanuril chlori'nator be installed on the effluent pipe discharging from the peat mound. This office will concur with your recommendations providing that the guidelin~ and stipulations listed below are followed: 1. A detailed design of the proposed upgrade and a schedule of when the system will be upgraded must be submitted to DHHS by April 1, 1990. We believe that the system upgrade should be completed no later than July 31, 1990. Design, installation and testing of the new system must be accomplished in accordance with AMC 15.65.110 - Innovative Systems. 2. Details of the proposed foundation drain relocation and temporary chlorination system must be submitted to DHHS for review. Your submittal should contain a letter of non-objection from ADEC which will allow the temporary discharge of chlorinated wastewater to groundwater. Your submittal must also indicate how the chlorinator will be accessed during the winter, who will be responsible for servicing the chlorinator and who will be responsible for periodic testing of the chlorinated effluent. 3. To ensure that the system effluent has been disinfected, DHHS personnel may periodicaily collect and test effluent samples from the peat mound and adjacent surface waters. Should the chlorination system prove ineffective, or should ADEC not allow discharge of chlorinated wastewater to groundwater, DHHS will require that the existing system be converted to a holding tank. Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services Tom Fink, 825 "L" Street Mayor P.O. BOX 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 October 16, 1989 Leroy C. Reid, PhD, P.E. Alaska Environmental Control Services, Inc. P.O. Box 240668 Anchorage, Alas|va 99524-0668 Subject: Peat Mound Wastewater Disposal System Lot 14, Block 9 Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision Dear Dr. Reid: We have reviewed your October 5 letter which seeks DHHS concurrence and approval to continue operation of the existing peat mound wastewater disposal system~ This office continues to be supportive of the design, installation and testing of innovative wastewater disposal systems. We support your efforts to conduct research on the applicability of using peat mound systems to treat on-site domestic wastewater. Based on our understanding of the specific problems which exist at the subject lot, we have several comments and concerns with respect to the continuing operation and eventual rehabilitation of the existing peat mound system. Since August 14, 1989, the existing system has been confirmed as not functioning properly. The system was originally installed as a special research project which received funding from the municipality. It has operated, on an experimental basis, for the past two years without receiving a permit from the municipality or a permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to discharge wastewater effluent to groundwater. With the failure of the existing system, the property owners have been released from any obligation to reimburse the municipality for the original installation costs. "Kids Are Out' Future" Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. October 16, 1989 Page Two We believe that any future modifications or upgrades to the existing system should be accomplished in accordance with all state and municipal requirelnents. If the vertical separation between the seasoDally high groundwater and the bottom elevation of the rebuilt drainfield is less than 4 Ft., a permit must be obtained from ADEC for discharge of wastewater effluent to groundwater. Also a permit for upgrading the existing system must be obtained from this office. Your letter recommends that, as an interim measure, the existing system be allowed to continue to operate through the winter months. It is our understanding that next summer you intend to rebuild the system using sphagnum peat. This type of peat apparently hms superior physical characteristics necessary for treating wastewater. For the existing system to operate through the winter, you have recommended that the apparent hydraulic cross connection between the foundation drain and the wastewater drainfield be eliminated by relocating the foundation drain outfall. You have also recommended that a Sanuril chlorinator be installed on the effluent pipe discharging from the peat mound. This office will concur with your recommendations providing that the guideline~ and stipulations listed below are followed: 1. A detailed design of the proposed upgrade and a schedule of when the system will be upgraded must be submitted to DHHS by April 1, 1990. We believe that the system upgrade should be completed no later than July 31, 1990. Design, installation and testing of the new system must be accomplished in accordance with AMC 15.65.110 - Innovative Systems. 2. Details of the proposed foundation drain relocation and temporary chlorination system must be submitted to DHHS for review. Your submittal should contain a letter of non-objection from ADEC which will allow the temporary discharge of chlorinated wastewater to groundwater. Your submittal must also indicate how the chlorinator will be accessed during the winter, who will be responsible for servicing the chlorinator and who will be responsible for periodic testing of the chlorinated effluent. 3. To ensure that the system effluent has been disinfected, DHHS personnel may periodically collect and test effluent samples from the peat mound and adjacent surface waters. Should the chlorination system prove ineffective, or should ADEC not allow discharge of chlorinated wastewater to groundwater, DHHS will require that the existing system be converted to a holding tank. Dr. Leroy Reid, PhD, P.E. October 16, ].989 Page Three With the onset winter weather conditions it is important that your proposed modifications be completed immediately. If these modifications are not completed by October 31, 1989, the existing septic'tank and lift station must be converted and operated as a temporary holding tan]{ during the winter months. Please advise if there are any questions regarding the above stipulations. Sincerely, ne~--'~-~'owning, P.E. ~ Manager, Environmen[al Services cc: John Smith, P.E. Program Manager, On-site Services Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake Tom Fink, Mayor A unicipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 September 26 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Blake P.O. Box 110285 Anchorage, Alaska 99511 Re: Upgrade of On-site Wastewater Disposal System Lots 13 & 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Dear Mr. ~ Mrs. Blake: Since August 14, 1989 you have been aware that your on-site wastewater disposal system is not functioning properly. This department met with you on August 23, 1989 to discuss the available options for upgrading your system. At that meeting it was agreed that you would pursue resolution of the problem, with Dr. Leroy Reid, P.E. serving as your engineer. At this time we have not received any indication that you intend to proceed with upgrading your system. We recognize that the recent wet weather has not been conducive to the construction or repair of on-site systems which are located in areas of high groundwater. However, in order to avoid the problems associated with winter construction, it is very important that you take immediate corrective action which will provide a permanent solution to the deficiencies in your on-site wastewater disposal system. Therefore, please be advised that by October 15, 1989 you must complete one of the following corrective measures: 1. Convert to a holding tank system which meets or exceeds the requirements specified in AMC 15.65.090 - Holding Tanks. 2. Install an alternative innovative system or modify and upgrade the existing innovative peat mound system. In either case the system must meet or exceed all requirements of AMC 15.65 - Wastewater Disposal Regulations and all discharge requirements mandated by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). "Kids Are Our Future" ALASKA BllUIRODmE DTAL CODTROL SE I4UICE S, P. O. Box 240668 Anchorage, Al( 99524 0668 (907) 279-5553 MUN[CIPALI1Y OF ANCI [ORAG~ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION 1989 RECEIVED October 5, 1.989 Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health & Human Services 825 L Street, Fifth Floor Anchorage, Al( 99501 ATTN: Lee Browning RE: Lot 14, Block 9, Rabbit Creel( Heights Subdivis on Hear Lee: I have reviewed the problems associated with the peat mound at the Rabbit Creek Subdivision, and in view of several problems that have occarred, I would like to discuss the issue of this peat mound in more detail. As you are well aware, 'the peat mound bas channelled and periodically high counts of bacteria }lave come through the mound. Samples taken last week by Dr. Riznyk show that the coacentration of bacteria had fallen. Work that he has been doing at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has shown that the peat that was used in the mound is not a sphagnum or a reed sedge, but a hypnum moss. This may explain why our data was erratic so that we were getting excellent results for awhile, and then it woald change. It would appear that 1412 ~V6sc 33[}b cNV6F~U6 I ~nchol~aq6, alaska 99503 ~' (907) 279-5553 there is not a decent source of peat moss nearby Anchorage. It is possible to bring good sphagnum peat from British Columbia. Curreatly we are talking to Alaska Greenhouse concerning the possihility of bri,lg'ing in sphagnum peat fo[' use in the system. Also, on Friday, October 6, 1989, Dr. Riznyk, Sabra Reid, and Mary Frohne were going to look at a peat bog near the Willow Airport, which is alledged to be nearly 100 percent sphagnum. Dr. Riznyk will be able to determine whether or not this peat would meet the requirements for a mound system. However, since it is on state land, and is in reality a wetlands, it make take a while to get a pernlit 'co extract that peat. I think the state will probably allow this since we are using it on an experimental basis. However, I wouldt~'t believe that we would be able to get it in a very short period of time. There are several, reason wily I think the mound failed. O,le is tl~at this peat does channelize. The same thing had also happened down at Bird Creek, hut since it is going into a secondary drainfield, it did not daylight to the surface. It was probably not noticeable. I believe that were we to take some action, we could leave the peat mound at Lhe subject lot in operation this winter, with tile following s-kipulations: 1. A Sanuril chlorinator using calcium hypochlorite pellets (HTH) would ensure that any effluent from the mound would be disinfected before it would be allowed into the secondary field. 2. It would appear that the foundation drain that was installed after the syste~n was put in, cuts too close to the secondary field, therefore allowing water to come from the secondary field under tile foundation drain and 'then which daylights into 'the ditch. I would recommend that the foundation drain he cut off and moved to the northwest so that the drain from the fouadation goes away from the system and then terminates into a wet well on their property, but to the northwest of the house. The main underground pipe should be removed 'to a point to the east of the septic tank and then plugged. This would keep water from coming out of the secondary drain and going into that open pipe and discharging into the ditch which runs along the north lot line of the house. This would allow the system to stay in operation this winter, and would allow sufficient time to get peat either brought in here from British Columhia or dug from the bog near Willow and machined. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHU~.,~.~ M E M 0 R A N 0 U M [)ATE: TO: F ROM: SUBJECT: CURRENT SITUATION After' o,,r. meetin.~ with L, R~i,i ar, d R. Rizr, v'k or, ,=,,..~t,,o~ ther'e OV.~.- I","~ g ..... .apPme. F'5 ~n P~m .~ ,-nFiSeF~SU9 ~l: ~ ~ iFIFi ~l,J,J, ~ ......... ' '' '~ Creek H%s is io:ated on Lo,.=. lJ ~ i4~ B~,-,,:K 9 Raoo~ · ~URC%iOFiRq pF'OPePlY. Their' ~e$t F'e'~.ul~s ,:or-r'oh~F'.~te our' ~ , ~L~ ~-~ {~_ '5'7"~-~e~ is dischaF'miFq '*'a. 9~:w'~eF' F'e'sul{e which iF~,Ji'-~- L~'*. ~ .... ~ -'; ' C, Ot~ AFU aF~ r'~L,F .. ~ ,, lF~g have COF~{IF'~ie,J kaboF'.~tnF'¥ {~'-+ ' ' '~ ~ d ~' ~-¢' Te's{ _ :.. '5 D Y , .... . .... ~l ~J IJ f~,-al ,-~,li{oF'm ,:OUF,~ ,-,~ appr'ox~ma{eIY ,5,0(:,(:,/iooml. DYe .... ' i ' schJ. F'¥~'J + 0 has COF~{i,'mvu '-:~ '- ~ " - a,J.iaceF~ surface water and/oF' perched ,mF. oundwateF'~ This disohaF',~e is in violation of both Hunici;~al and StaLe F' ~'~ U I a% i ors , IF, HaF. ch~ !989, DHHB, iF, SUPper'{ O{ aCqUiF'{F~g {inal approval for the sYetem~ ,]~,i submi~ a permit ..... ~-.~fi,::,F: to AOEC ~OF' di~.,-haF, qe o{ w~'=.~ e,,,ateF' %0 ,~F'OUFidWa{eF'. The permit app1 i :e~ ~OF, ~ ,.~,~ Final ...... - wa.s ~,-co~P.~.F:ied Fy ~ ~ - P{epOF'% '~'' - ~ ' ~ '= .... ' - F' ~ .~, Rizr,¥k, This r-epor'+ ,J - ~ed + , ..... · - , ,JuF'in9 fhe fiF's~ Yee. F' ,-,f op'er'a(1on. The , ~q ~l 0 U l'l ,] ': y '=. ,. e ~, - · - ' dls,:Ra. Pqe peF'~i( W~.S ,JeF~ied [,':,' muEC based OF~ {he z.i~'~, s. F. ePC, F'{ ,.his. +i~e ~{ ~':. Roi ,::leaF' now flexible a~E= Will be iF~ ¢F~nF"-Inm '-~ A] .... dmr. ds At this p,OiF,( +hey are r. eqUiF'ir'm ths~ 6:!uali!y .m .... F, - · · " " · · _ ~ -- m-d.- Wi~h SOftie Fieqn~i¢.(l ef{lueF,( mee( [:,F-inkiF9 Wa~mr' m(~.~,J-.l'~ A[:,EC maw b,e willing (o lower' ~hese AVAILABLE OPTIONS AND RECOMMEN[:,ATIOWS , ' ~ h.~ ,.~ h e !R view of the ,]dr'F'eFit si~uatior, it ~s iffIP,Dr'{arl¢ ( pF'OPeF'~Y OWF~eF'S have {heiF' septic (aFik F,u¢~ped OF~ a F. eg~JlaF' basis iR OF'deF' tO p,F'eVeFl{ {UF'{heF' ,jis,]haF',~e ~Fj (he F'~.B{ ~iOUFid. ~Uff~F, iFig of {he sep,~i,: tank will only [,e COFiSi,JeF'ed a {eEipOF'.B.F'Y [TiErS U F' e · Po.:.~.ib]e ],-_,n~ ter-m ._--.,D] ut i,_-,n.-~ to the cur. r. ent pr. oblem inc~,ude the ~ol 1 a,,,±nq: Aha. ndon the e;:.~ist~nq, s':'.:.tem a.n,J ,_,_,~v~,.~ te .~_. ho~,~in,~ t.~.n~::. cc, st effective .~..s ,.,ell a.s the or,!'/ pr..~.,:ti,-.;i a. lter. r,.~.tive. ReconstPuct thR e)~i.--.ting peat mou'nd sro-tern. This option ,,~o~:ld r. equir, e that the o,~ner, r. et.m. in .an engineer' to pr. ep.s.r.~ a ,".;esign of m. ne,~, s'./stem. This ,:iesign ,~,ou!d r. equir'e appr. oval hy DHHS; ~,r-ior' to cor~str, uction of the ne,,, s'x'.-:.tem. The ne,.4 r. ebuiit s':,'stem ,~ould .:.till be vie,.~ed a'~ .e,n ir:nov._~.tive s':~stem and ~,,ouid r. equir, e testing for..:-~ per. iod of at 1em. st c, ne '.~'e._~.r.. Unless ,.~r. oundw.m, ter' level.-:, a.r.e i,-:,~,er, md, r. ecor~str, u,:ti,-,n c,f the ,Ji.:.ch.~.r.,~e per. mit fr. om ADEC;. Evaluate the po.s.s, ibilit'x of in.s. taiiin,g .a ,jiffer'ent type c, · ~.Y-~.tem i~ the qr-oun,Jw.eter' ]evel'~. cc, u]d be ]o,~,er'ed .~.oi. sir. eta. cou]d be con,ir-med. Another- option ~,,ould he to, F:'i.~nt's. ~,,ou]d be consider'ed inno? ..... ye A FIELD REPORT ON THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PEAT SYSTEMS IN ALASKA by Joan L. Brooks (Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469 phone (207) 581-2182~ BACKGROUND At the request of Jewel Jones, Commissioner of Health and Social Services, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, I agreed to supervise the installation of two peat systems for on-site treatment of septic tank effluent. Ms. Jones, in a conference call, said that Mary Frohne would be her representative and that Mary would be the person I would have direct contact with on all aspects of the project. In conversations and a letter to Mary I requested the following: 1) sites were to be evaluated, soils mapped, and all permits approved, and copies sent to me prior to my departure for Anchorage; 2) a licensed engineer would review, sign and seal my suggested design work; 3) adequate time be provided to meet with the excavator or contractor and the licensing agency personnal prior to the beginning of construction; 4) and that I be provided with a sample of the peat to be used in the systems at least a month prior to my departure for Alaska (this~sample was to be shipped overnight in a chilled and insulated container to enable me to evaluate the microbial population in the peat). I also suggested that I should give a seminar to the engineering community on my research and nine years of experience with peat systems. Mary Frohne assured me that there was no problem with any of my requests and that they would be met. In return for my consultation on the peat systems and a brief'report on suggested testing and possible future research I would receive a consulting fee and have all expenses paid. A signed contract was to be in my hands prior to my departure from Maine and the fee would be given to me after the peat systems were in place and prior to my departure from Alaska. Mary asked if I would be willing to stay at her home instead of a hotel in order to keep the costs of the project as low as possible. In return, Mary said she would see that I had the opportunity to see some of the sights in Alaska at no expense to myself, if I could stay for a week or two after the peat systems were installed. After a number of calls from Mary it became clear to me that there were conflicting opinions in Anchorage about the proposed project. The contract was delayed and I would receive it when I reached Anchorage. At the time of this writing I still have not received a contract, nor have I ever seen any of the paperwork normally required for installation of an experimental on-site wastewater treatment system. I did receive a sample of the peat to be used in tk systems and determined it as mainly reed-sedge peat and not sphagnum peat as I have used in the past. I was not able to run certain microbiological tests because the sample was not refigerated during its extended time in transit. After examining the peat samples I notified Mary that certain levels in the peat deposit appeared useable in the peat systems if prepared properly and explained what was needed as to texture and moisture content. SITE EXAMINATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE PEAT SYSTEMS Upon my arrival in Anchorage I was met by Mary at the airport and taken directly to the office of Lee Reid whom I was given to understand has done the preliminary work on the sites selected for the project. We had a brief discussion on the sites but I must admit I was not at my best due to the 13 hour flight and the time change. On Thursday morning Mary introduced me to the Nielsen Brothers who would be doing the excavation and actual construction of the systems. We then went to the field to view both sites. The one site is located at Rabbit Creek Heights and the other at Bird. When we reached each site Mary told me Where she felt the system should be located on the property. I was not shown any paperwork on property lines, distances to wells, elevations, etc. Mary told me what these parameters were and asked how I wanted to design the systems. After viewing the two sites Mary took me to see the site whera the peat was being excavated. This was the location of a subdivision which is now under the control of six banks. One of the bankers, Dean Cooke of the United Bank of Alaska, met us at the site for discussion about the peat and its suitability for this projact. Bub Nelson of Nielsen Brothers was excavating peat for project use. I showed Bub how to recognize the type of peat which I fee]. will work best here. I also pointed out what material to avoid using in any future systems. On Thursday evening I gave a seminar to a number of engineers from private and regulatory sectors, the homeowners of one of the test sites, and several others, on my experiences with peat systems. A number of good questions were raised by the audience following my presentation. However, these same questions indicated there was a strong difference of opinion as to how this project was being handled, or should have been handled. I tried to make it clear that I am an impartial outsider in this issue and was only here to share what expertise I have concerning past experiences with peat systems. Rabbit Creek Heights~ Some peat was on site and had been prepared by breaking up the clumps, spreading and drying the wet peat, and removing the larger roots, and woody materials. This peat was stacked to the rear of the proposed peat field area in a windrow. A pile of broken brick, crushed block and broken bags of cement which had hardened was stockpiled at the site to be used ~r the layer of sand requi d underneath the peat in the system. There was also a stockpile of peat which had not been prepared as above but it could be used for the surround. This site is located directly on peat, between the right side of the house and a gravel road. On the far side of the road is a ditch which is classified as a stream. This road intersects with the road which runs in front of the house. There are ditches on both sides of this road which are classified as streams. At present it appears that the current system is in a state of failure. I was told the owner is using a septic tank as a holding tank. I saw evidence of a high ground water table, and that at some time the untreated septic tank effluent has daylighted on the property. Stakes were already in place on what was to have been the outside dimensions of the peat system. Because the water table is near the surface of the ground it was necessary to construct the system as a mound completely above ground. The existing slope of the site also made it somewhat difficult to construct. I was told this was a three bedroom home with a design requirement of 150 gal/bedroom. Because the peat I have used will effectively treat lgpd/sq.ft. I moved the stakes so that the bed would have a surface of 16 ft X 30ft (480 sq.ft.). Mary wanted to discharge the treated effluent directly into the undisturbed peat below the bed and had already placed some of the broken block within the bed area. Although subsurface disposal of the treated effluent directly under the peat field has been shown to be acceptable in Maine, for this project it was more prudent to line the system and include an underdrain with a sample port so that monitoring of the effluent may be accomplished in such a way that the results can be compared with my previous work. I also feel strongly that an underdrain design allows collection of a more representative sample of the treated effluent, and thus more accurate results may be obtained. Dan Roth and Steve Morris of the municipal On-Site Services Program were on site for the construction of both this and the system at Bird. Their presence was invaluable to me in that I could consult with them immediately whenever I had any questions about local regulations concerning on-site systems. In addition to their advice, they also provided most of the manual labor during construction of the fields. If all of the proper paperwork had been completed beforehand as I had requested, and I had had the opportunity to spend time with the on-site services personnel and the excavator prior to construction, everything would have gone much more smoothly. It took much longer to construct the system than I feel is necessary. But under the circumstances I don't think anyone could have done it in less time. The excavator was more than cooperative and was also working under somewhat adverse conditions. During construction I learned the home was actually rated for four b .rooms instead of three. F aunately the work had not progressed too far at that point and there was ample room to extend the end of the field to 40 feet, making the area 640 sq.ft. The system was constructed on top of the existing peat with no undue disturbance of the surface vegetation. A liner of Visqueen was placed on the surface and the sides were built up to hold this liner in place. The liner extends approximately two feet up the sides and ends of the system. A layer of broken block was then placed on the liner and hand-picked to remove large pieces of brick and block. The underdrain (4in. perforated pipe) was bedded in 'the broken block and extended through the membrane with solid pipe. A sample well was constructed by placing a X connection in the solid pipe, capping the bottom, and extending the top above ground where it was covered with a removable cap. Approximately three feet of prepared peat was added above the porous material and then ditched.to receive the rock and distribution pipes. As each line was dug out rock was placed on the bottom to a depth of about 3 in. and perforated pipe was placed on the rock and leveled. Additional rock was added to the depth of the pipe before the top 18 in. of peat was put in place. The distribution network consisted of six 4 in. diameter perforated pipes, each 26 ft. long and interconnected with solid pipe at each end. Pipes were lain 2.5 ft. on center with approximately 2 ft. between the outer pipes and the limits of the peat. Additional peat was added for the surround. Work stopped at the end of a rather long day on Friday, July 10, 1987, with half of the distribution pipes in place at Rabbit Creek Heights. On Saturday morning the entire crew returned to finish putting in the distribution pipes and adding the top 18 inches of peat to the system. The peat system was then complete with the exception of some gradinq of the surround. Other work which remained included adding more perforated pipe beyond the sample well for final disposal of treated effluent into the existing ditch behind the house, covering this pipe with rock, installation of a new two chamber septic tank which will include a lift station, installation of the pipe from the lift station to the distribution network in the peat field, and setting the pump to dose the system with a maximum of 0.5 gal/linear foot of perforated pipe within the field. The owner is having a new well installed which will be located more than 100 ft. from the treatment field. The owner said the existing di~ih behind the house will eventually be filled in. I advised her to extend the perforated discharge pipe in this ditch for at least 100 feet if possible before it surfaces to ground level, and to bed the pipe in rock. It was at this point that the entire crew moved down to Bird to begin the process once more. Bird site--When .ry and I visited this sit on Thursday she showed me where she expected to put the field. I had some concerns as to what would really be the best spot for the system. The test pit was located outside of the proposed field area. A utilities pole with underground connections to the house and across the street to another house was located in the center of the lot. There is a 20 foot right of way from the road according to Mary. Also there is a steep slope at the left side of the property. Mary showed me the location of property lines and the well. We measured the distance from the well and discussed the location of the treatment field further. There was a very large tree located just at the edge of the 100 foot separation distance from the well and even though the owner had volunteered to take it down I hoped we could save it if at all possible. Mary also indicated that the owner wished to keep the driveway in its present location. I observed an uncovered septic tank with dirty water surfacing around it and then flowing off in a ditch to the side of the property. I was told this was only gray water. Mary did not know where the existing treatment field was located, but thought it was directly between the tank and the road but did not know how it was constructed. ' On this site I had been told the soils were such that a larger area was required per bedroom and I laid out a tentative area for the field to the left of the utilities pole. When the decision was made to line this system, it was possible to decrease the field size to 16 ft X 30 ft. as this was a three bedroom house. With a ground water table located at 5.5 ft it was possible to put at ].east part of this system within the ground and still maintain a 4 ft separation from the bottom of the field. Prior to my arrival the owner had taken a week of his vacation time to prepare the peat which was'stocked.on site''. He had spread it out all over his front yard to dry, broken it up, and removed all woody materials. When Bub Neilson arrived at the site he had a much better idea of what was going to happen and was able to stack the prepared peat where it would be available easily during the actual construction. Once again because Dan and Steve were on site I was able to consult with them on the best location for the system. The owner was most cooperative and said there was no problem with moving his driveway, or anything else we wanted to do. He also volunteered to assist in any way he could during construction on Saturday. However he would not be able to be with us during the week as he works on the North Slope. An excavation was made between the utilities' pole and the existing drive. This was then lined with Visqueen. An 8 inch layer of sand was placed over the membrane and the 4 inch perforated underdrain was then bedded in this sand. Two and a half feet of pea were added above the sand afore work stopped for the day. Before Bub left the site he covered the stockpile of prepared peat with plastic. The peat field was also covered with plastic to protect it from rain until Monday when work would resume. On Monday the crew again assembled and the distribution pipes were bedded in rock and covered with an additional 18 in. of peat. A sample well was placed in the underdrain pipe about one foot from the liner. When the soils were being excavated from the area for the peat system a large vein of sand was observed at approximately the two foot level. Oral history of the site indicated there had been a ridge which ran along this property line and it was possible this sand would be adequate for the acceptance of the treated effluent from the field. A decision was made to discharge this effluent into a 7 ft wide trench which ran parallel to the property line and perpendicular to the treatment field. Two 4 in perforated piped were placed 4 feet on center with 1.5 ft from pipe to side walls. These pipes were placed over 6 in of rock, covered with 6 in of rock and then Typar before being backfilled with spoils. A test well was also installed to monitor the level of the ground water. This also allowed Dan and Steve to do another soil profile adjacent to the trench. When we finished at the end of the day the treatment field and the disposal trench were complete and a 500 gal lift station had been delivered. Bub Neilson was to return on Tuesday to install the lift station, connect the feed line to the distribution network, cut the driveway, and do the finish grading. This system went in easier than the first for several reasons: the excavator was able to place materials where he wanted them, sand was used under the peat unstead of material used in the previous field (required much less time and labor to put in place), part of the system was in ground which made it easier to line and build side walls, and there was a better understanding of the process as a whole. RECOMMENDATIONS Thermocouples should be placed in both fields a minimum of four depths below the surface: just above the distribution pipes, just below the distribution pipes, one foot below the distribution pipes, and two feet below the distribution pipes at the sand/peat interface. If funding is available, useful information could be obtained by placing thermocouples in mineral soils about 20 feet from the peat field at the same depths from the surface as above. I would strongly acommend that samples be ~ ilected of both influent to, and effluent from, each of the ~wo peat systems once each month for a full year. Tests should include suspended solids, BOD5, pH, fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen (DO), and nitrate nitrogen. Temperature of influent and effluent should be recorded immediately prior to sample collection. A sample of each month's effluent should be retained for visual comparison of the color change over time. In addition to the above, I recommend that all samples be collected by an independent contractor. Sample wells must be evacuated within 12 hours prior to sample collection to remove any material trapped in the wells which could contribute to erroneous results. Testing of the samples should follow Standard Methods. At the end of a full year of testing an evaluation will have to be made as to whether to continue the tests or not. I should point out that my experience has been the peat systems tend to improve with age and I would not be concerned if the first month or two the effluent did not meet the standards for BOD5 or suspended solids. If the local peat proves acceptable, and funding is available, I would recommend installing at least two systems without liners. These would have to be sized according to code and could be tested by placing a series of slotted and wrapped pipes below the peat and outside the limits of the field on the downslope side. · Future systems must go through the permitting process prior to construction. Having the proper paperwork in hand would make it easier for the excavator to do his job. It would also eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of anyone from agency to owner about what is required or expected and exactly where individual responsibilities lie. SUMMARY Two experimental on-site peat systems have been installed and a testing regime has been recommended. Both systems have lift stations and are lined with an underdrain and contain a sample well. Influent to the systems may be collected from the septic tanks or the lift stations. Final disposal of treated effluent is subsurface in rock filled trenches. Recommended tests include BOD5, DO, TSS, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Fecal coliforms, and pH. Temperature of influent and effluent should be monitored. Thermocouples should be placed at various depths within the peat system to monitor temperature. If possible a duplicate set of thermocouples should be placed in mineral soil approximately 20 feet from the peat system. The systems took longer to construct than expected. The major reason was the lack of written plans and the fact that many decisions had t¢ ~e made in the field durin construction. Many delays could have been avoided had I received copies of site evaluations, plans, and permits as agreed upon. The Nielsen Brothers are to be commended for their excellent work under what,I am sure, were sometimes trying conditions. The lack of documentation and my unfamiliarity with the municipal codes would have made it virtually impossible for me to make competent on-site decisions, had it not been for the assistance of Dan Roth and Steve Morris of the Municipal On-Site Services Program. Their assistance was invaluable to me and to the success of the project and I appreciate the fact that their superiors allowed them to spend several days with me in the field, especially on such short notice. With any experimental system it is absolutely necessary that full communication, backed up by written documentation, be maintained with all parties involved from the beginning of the project. I cannot stress too strongly that proper procedure be followed in the future. In conclusion may I say that this has been a very interesting experience. I expect the peat systems to function adequately. I request that a copy of all the paperwork and the as-builts be sent to me as they become available. STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR DEPT. OF ENVIRON~IENTAL CONSERVATION SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 3601 C ST., SUITE 1334 ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 (907)563-6529 July 10, 1989 MUNICipAL TY OF ANCHORAC-,-E DEPT. OF HEALI'H & A1 Sundquist On-Site Services Supervisor Dept. of Health & Human Services/~lOA P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Dear Hr. Sundquist: ENVIRONMENTAL pROTECTION RE: Application for a Wastewater Disposal Permit ADEC File No. 8921~DB011 We have received your application for a wastewater disposal permit for the discharge of domestic wastewater at Lots 13 & 14,' Block 9, Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision and have determined that we require additional information about the project before we can reach a decision. The information required is as follows: 1) The information submitted as Exhibit 3 to the wastewater disposal application does not indicate an ability to comply with the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) or the Alaska Drinking Water Regulation (18 AAC 00), and as such cannot be permitted. Specifically, the following parameters are being exceeded according to the data provided on page 12 of the exhibit: fecal coliform turbidity color nitrate total suspended solids Please submit plans or information regarding modifications to the system in order to achieve compliance with the state standards, or further information which indicates an ability to comply with the standards. You are advised that failure to provide information within two (2) weeks of receipt of this letter can result in denial of your application under 18 AAC 15.040. If you are unable to provide the requested information within the time specified, please contact Julie Howe at the above indicated address or at 563-6529, so that other arrangements can be made. Please note that the number assigned to identify this project is 8921-DE011 and should be used for identification in all future correspondence. A1 Sundquist July 10, 1989 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. , S i nc/~ ,_ RCF:JH:rts cc: Anchorage Western District Offite MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: August 17, 1987 A~dress, p.E., Manager, on-site services/Water GUS ...... n-site Service~ QUa~l~Yw ~oth civil Engzneer, ~ Danle£ u. ~ , SUBJECT: Rabbit creek Heights Peat Mound system On Tuesday August 11, the above mentioned site was visited by steve Morris and myself to check the volume of the sump at the end of the peat bed to verify if it would be adequate for all the tests that will be required on the treated effluent. We extracted 850 ml which will be just adequate. while we were at the site we noticed the lift station had been disassembled and the pump, floats and the basket that houses the pump were all lying on the ground around the lift station manhole. We did not know who had done this until we went to the door of the residence being serviced by the lift station to inquire. We found no one home but a note was wedged in the handle of the door. We read this note written by Mary Frohne that stated the residents should not use any water until she and her helper, ,Joe', came back to put the lift station together, steve also is aware that MarY is keeping close contact with Anchorage Tank, inquiring about how the lift station works. to the site the following day with a camera and the I. station was still ~ An th~ door. On Thur~d~.t~ . disassembled photographs are ~ldreturned lift ~- was st~ll ~ . ~e site so .... ~ed. The no~ ..... elf went to a~~ ~ob'nson ana m~= still disassembled' 13tn Ru~ ~--~ station was view the mound. The lift I do not feel that the warranty may be honored by Anchorage out that anyone besides disassembling the unit. Tank on this lift station if they find the installer or manufacturer is Mary called me today by telephone and informed me that she has recently become aware that On-Site Services is not pleased with installations because all aspects of the the peat mound .... n circumvented' she said that this was not ordinanc? have ~.. that SteVe Morris and myself were to part of her con~' responsibility from the beginning to be blame since it was our ' sure all the ~ .... ~- ~n Brooks an~ ~- is why she wrote her that we told this Lu .... Mary circumvented the system. report to Jewel Jones stating that Mary then directed me to call Joan Brooks and tell her that we were wrong and that the blame for ,dodging' the system was steve'S and my fault. cc: Robby Robinson, Manager, On-Site services DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT TELEPHONE 264-4721 NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROTECTION Please take notice that the undersigned authorized represen. tative of the Director has reason to believe that on or abou -;:" ,19 .:':.~ , at or near the following: APPRO~4fMATE LOCATION: NAME: ADDRESS: ' ' "/'. ,, ,. , ..2, : :- > ',.;-,: WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY OF"ANoH~RAGE I~ID UNI~AwFuLLY: which is, a separate Violation of § ::'~ ?; ' "; ' I '' ' re of the Anchorage Code of Ordi- nandes each and every day such condition exists. A COPY OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON: NAME AT C-'.';,, '. ,'/' ,.::: " /'/ ~ IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 1. by )ersonal service 2. by ce[tiffed mail '3; I~y posting this notice on or about the location described herein when such person cannot be found after diligent effort to do so. If the violation or violations referred to herein have not been corrected by :,: -;: .:'.)"~ ., 19~':'~',', legal proceed- ~ngs may be initiated as provided by law. TITLE 70-004 (Rev, 5/78) ? INC. 9074793115 907.277 I]378 Hun icipality of Anchorage Ileal th l)epnr'l.ment P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519--6650 Attn: Dan Roth Date Arrived: Time Arrived: Date Sampled: Time Samp.led: Date Completed: 09/10/88 1410 09/10/88 VarJ ous 09/17/88 Source: See Below Sample ID#: A091088-1,2 Parmneter Unit A091088-1 A091088-2 Bird Ck. Rabbit Ck. Biochemical rog/1 <6 7.8 Oxygen Demand [)II @ Deg. C. 6.3 @ 7.0 7.1 @ 7.1 Total Suspended Solids mg/1 24/28 348 Fecal Coliform Bacteria #/lOOm1 <2 42 Nitrate-N mg/1 42 19/19 ~UN/CIPALITy OF ANC~IO/~,AOE DEPT, OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEB 2 RECEIVED Reported By: ~ ~ ' Date: 09/29/88 Francois Rodigari, Anchorage Operations M~hager NOIITI'tEIIN TESI'ING LABOi{ATOIIIES, INC. Quality Control Report ====================== Client: MOA/llealth Dept. iD#: AO91088-1,2 Listed below are quality coutrol assurance reference samples with a known concentration prior to analysis. The ~cceptab]e limits represen~ ~ 95~ confidence interval established by the Environmental Protection Agency or by our laboratory through repetitive snalyses of the reference sample. The reference samples indicated below were analyzed at the s~e time as your s~lple, ensuring the accuracy of your results. S~q, le ~ Parameter Unit Result Acceptable Limit EPA WP284-3 Nitrate-N rog/1 0.15 0.]0 - 0.18 EPA WPl185-2 Total Suspended rog/1 95 95 - 117 Sol. ids Glucose Biochemical mg/1 210 170 - 230 Oxygen Demand Reported Dy: ~ ~ Date: 09/29/88 Francois Rodigari, Anchorage Operations Manager NORTHERN TESTING LABORATORIES, 000 UNIVERSITy PLAZA WEST, SUITE A FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99?09 90L479-3115 2505 FAIRBANKS STI~EET ANCHORAGE. ALASI'~A 99503 907-277-8378 Hunicipality of Anchorage D.H.H.S.-Water (]uality Section P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Attn: Dan Bolles Date Arrived: Time Arrived: Bate Sampled: Time Sampled: Date Completed: 07/31/89 1134 07/31/89 1057 08/01/89 Source: Rabbit Creek Peat System Sample ID#: A073189-2] Par~leter Unit Result Fecal Col iform #/lOOml ].20 Bacteria Reported By: /~ ~X Bate: 08/02/89 Francois Rodigari, Anchorage Operations Manager NORTHERN TEST N6 LABOF AT0 IES, 600 UNIVERSITY PLAZA WEST. SUITE A FAIFiBANKS, ALASKA 99709 907 479-3J15 2505 FAIgBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 907-277-8378 Municipality Of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK. 99519-66500 Agtn: Dan Bolles Source: Rabbit Creek Heights Sa~np ].e ID#: A081089-2 Date Arrived: Time Arrived: Date Sampled: Time Sampled: Date Completed: 08/10/89 ]042 08/10/89 1000 08/17/89 ParmJleter Unit Result ADEC MCC* Nitrate--N mg/1 1.6/1.7 10 Fecal Coliform #/lOOm] 330 Dacteria MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHOI~A(~ DEPT, OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .REC[IVED < Francois Rodifari, Anchorage Operations Manager * MCC = Maximum Contaminant Concentration - O THE N TESTIN 600 UNIVERSITY PLAZA WEST, SUITE A FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99709 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 907-479-3115 907 277-8378 Quality Control Report Client: Municipality Of Anchorage ID#: A081089-2 Listed below are quality control assurance reference sem~ples with a known concentration prior to analysis. The acceptable limits represent a 95g confidence interval established by the Environmental Protection Agency or by our laboratory through repetitive analyses of 'the reference s~ple. The reference sem~ples indicated below were analyzed at the same time as your ssmp]e, ensuring the accuracy of your results. Sample # Par~.eter === .... _ ............. Unit Result Acceptable Limit EPA W8:~78-12 Nitrate-N rog/1 7,3 7.17 - 8.01 Reported By: ~/~ :=~=__~_~: Date: 08/21/89 Francois RodJgari, Ar]c}~orage Operation Manager. ...... OflTHE~ T~NG OffAl"Off,ES ~ ~ TES LAB ' 600 UNIVERSITY PLAZA WEST SUITE A FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99709 2505 FAIRBANKS STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907-479-3115 907.277-8378 Municipality Of Anchorage D~lS/Water Quality Section P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK. 99519-6650 Attn: Dan Bolles Source: See Below Date Arrived: Time Arrived: Date Smnpled: Time Sampled: Date Completed: 08/14/89 1526 08/14/89 Various 08/16/89 Sample ID#: A081489-54,55 Parameter A081489-54 .................................. A081489-55 Unit L13/14 B9 Ditch on ........................ Rabbit Ck, Heights North Side I~ecal Coliform #/]OOml 6040 1470 Bacteria Enterococei #/lOOm/ 4 18 MUNICIPALIT~ OF ANCHORAGE DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ~^{J6 1 7 1989 RECEIVED e k R-ported By; ~ ..................... ._D_:a__t.~:::=O=8_._/~=7=/~__9 Francois l?odigarJ.~ Anchorage Operations Manager STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR ~ ®F ~V~~N~ ~ON§~RVAT~O~ SOUTI-1CENTIL~L REGIONAL OFFICE 360]. C ST., SUITE 1334 ANCIiORAGE, AK 99503 A1 Sundquist (907) 563-6529 July 10, 1989_:__tp~oF ^N On-Site Services supervisor Dept. of Health & ! Dear Mr. Sundqu~st. RE A licatzon ~: c '[¢ , for the discharge o~t6 Rabbit Creek Heigh~ require additional reach a decision. The information req~ SL~ L, ~ ~ ~' ~(~[~ .... ~,,~ wa~cewauer 1) The informs_ disposal application does not indicate an ability to comply with the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC . he Alaska Drinking Water Regulation (18 AAC 80), 70) or t , _ ......... 4tied' Specifically, the and as SUCh canno5 following parameters are being exceeded according to the data provided on page 12 of the exhibit: fecal coliform turbidity color nitrate total suspended solids Please submit plans or information regarding modifications to the system in order to achieve compliance with the state standards, or further information which indicates an abi].ity to comply with the standards. You are advised that failure to provide informat:[on within two (2) weeks of receipt of this letter can result in denial of your application under 18 AAC 15.040. If you are unable to provide the requested information within the time specified, please contact Julie Howe at the above indicated address or at 563-6529, so that other arrangements can be made. Please note that the number assigned to identify 'this project is 892].-DB011 and should be used for identification in all future correspondence. A1 Sundquist -2- July 10, 1989 RCF:JH:rts CC: ~hank you for your cooperation in this matter° ~ ional Program Coordinator anchorage Western District Offil e Tom Fink, Mayor /v unicipality Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services @25 "L" Street P.O. Eox 196650 Anchorage, ^laska 99519-6650 March 15, 1989 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Anchorage/Western District office 3601 "C" Street, Suite 322 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attn: Shawn Sexton District Engineer Dear Shawn: The attached application for an individual wastewater discharge permit is submitted in accordance with 18 AAC 72.920(d) (2). information on the quality of the treated wastewater is presented under Exhibit 3. The discharge application is effected via the 4-inch perforated pipe and the 5 feet by 120 feet gravel imbedment seasonally within the groundwater table as depicted on Exhibit 1 as-built drawing. If additional information is desired, please advise. Since~, -- - A1 Sundqu~st, P.E.,Progr Manager On-Site Services, ESD-DHHS-MOA cc: Lee Browning, P.E., Manager Environmental Services, DHHS-MOA Dan Roth, CE II, On-Site Services STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT In accordance with Alaska Statutes, Title 46, "Water, Air, and Environ- mental Conservation", Chapter 03, Section 66.03.100, and rules and regu- lations promulgated thereunder, the following application is made: Department of Health and Human Services/Municipality of Anchorage Environmental Services Division (name of applicant) Post Office Box 196650 (address and phone number of applicant) Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 343-4744 C. TYPE OF INDUSTRY/OPERATION: Residential On-site Disposal System D. LOCATION OF WASTE DISCHARGING FACILITY: General: 16901 Robert Drive Legal: Lots 13 & 14 Block 9 Rabbit Creek Heights Subdivision E. LOCATION OF WASTE DISCHARGING POINT(S): General: Same as "D" above. Le__g.a.l: Same as "D" above. F. WASTE DISCHARGE VOLUME: DOMESTIC INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER WASTEWATER Maximum (gallons/day) 600 Daily Average (gallons/day): 300 -0- COOLING WATER -0- G. RAW WATER SUPPLY: Source: Private Well Volume 450 gallons/day H. NAME OF RECEIVING WATER/TYPE OF RECEIVING AREA.: .G.roundwater APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PERMIT Page 2 I. DESCRIPTION OF SOURCFS: Give a detailed description of the sources of all industrial/domestic wastes within your facility. Include a schematic flow diagram showing the sources of all wastes and their flow pattern. Submit this informa- tion with your application as Exhibit 1. J. WASTEWATER TREATMENT: K · Describe waste treatment practices used on this discharge with a brief narrative. (i.e. primary, secondary, cooling, oil/water seParator, etc.) Include the disposal method for any sludge generated by the treatment system. Submit this information with your application as Exhibit 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE FLOW: Describe in detail the chemical and physi- cal properties of the effluent to be discharged to State waters (includ~ ing but not limited to temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, color, total dissolved solids, suspended solids, BOD5, COD, oils, phenol, heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, biocides, acidity, alkalinity, etc. Also in- clude a description of sampling and analytic methods used to derive this information. Submit this information with your application as Exhibit 3. L. PLANT OPERATION: Days per Year Average: 365 Maximum:3~5 M. RAW MATERIAL AND CHEMICALS USED IN PROCESSES: Brand Name Chemical, Scientific or Actual Name Quantity Used per Day* Average Maximum & cleaninq materials Varies Household deterqents ~# 1~ _ APPLiCATiON FO~ WASTEWATER ~SPOSAL PERMIT N. PRODUCTION: ~tem Page 3 Quantity Produced per Day* Average Maximum N/A N/A * Please specify units. barrels per day, etc. O. SEASONAL VARIATION: For example: Tons per day, pounds per day, Explain any seasonal variation in waste discharge volumes, plant opera- tions, raw materials, and chemicals used in processes, and/or production. No variation P. SYSTEM PLAN APPROVAL: Submit engineering plans for systems not previously approved by the De- partment as Exhibit 4. ~, ~. Q. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Include any additional information or comments as necessary to clarify this application as Exhibit 5. The information given on this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date / ' ~-ignature ' A1 Sundquist, P.E. Printed Name On-site Services Supervisor Title POINT WORONZOF DEBARR NORTHERN ANCHORAGE INTERNA TIONA AIRPORT RASPBERRY~ ROAD KLATT ROAD TUOOR A88OTT ROAD ROAO ROAD DEARMOUN I I Coastal .Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement Please answer all questions. Include maps or plan drawings with your packet. An incomplete questionnaire may be retm'ned and will delay the review of your packet. APPLICANT INFORbIATION MOA - DHHS ESD 2. A1 Sundquist Contact Person Name of Applicant PO Box 196650 PO Box 196650 Address A&lres.s Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 City State Zip Code City State Zip Code 343-4360 343-4360 Phone Phone PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Provide a brief description of your pr~ect and Al 1. ~sociat~ facihties (caretaker facilities, etc.): Discharge of single-family residential peat mound wastewater dispos_al system to ground water. Start~g Date for Project March 6 1989 Ending Date for Project Indefinite PROJECT LOCATION 1. Please give location of project. (Include nearest community or identifiable body of land or water.) 16901 Robert Drive, Anchorage, Alaska (Lots 13 & 14 Block 9 Rabbit Creek Township~ Range ~ Meridian., Section. Heights Subdivision) Aliquot Parts ~ USGS Map .... 2. Is the project on: (pleaxe rrmrJ: with ~/) State Land __ Federal Land~ Private Land XXX Municipal Land __ 3. Project is located in which region of the state (see attached map): Northern Southcentral .,X, XXX Southeast PERMIT APPROVALS Yes No I. ~4 Y°UaC~U~r~evnatJY have any S.tate or federal approvals for this project? If yes, please 1/st below. [] [] (, ore: ,w/,, ' means perrmt or any other form of authorization.) .Approval T},~ _Approval # .Expiration Date FEDERAL APPROVALS 1. Will you be placing structures or fills in any of the following: tidal waters, Yes So streams, lakes, or wetlands*? [] [] * If you are uncertain whether your proposed project area is in a wetland, comact the Corps of Engitzeers, Regulatory Bramrh at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands determination. [f you are outside the. Anchorage area, call toll free 1-800-478-2712. If yes, have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit? Please indicate at fight and describe below. Yes No 2. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for a U,S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (N'PDES) permit? Please indicate at right and describe below. (Note: Any wastewater discharge requ/~es an N'PDES permit.) 3. Have you applied for or do you intend to apply for permits from any other federal agency? If yes, please list below. A~ency A~proval Type Yes No Date submitted (or intend to submit) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAl, RESOURCES ,A, PPROVALS Yes No 1. 'rs the proposed project on state-owned land or will you need to cross State lands for access? [] ~ 2. Is any port/on of your project placed below the ordinary high water line of a stream, fiver, Yes No lake or other water body? [] [] 3. Will you be dredging? If yes, location of dredging is: yes No Township Range __~ Meridian ~ Section o Location of disposal site for dredged materials: Township . Range ~ Meridian ___ Section _ Yea No 4. Will you be filling with rock, sand or gravel? If yes, amount? [] [~ , Location of source: Toxin, ship. Range ~ Meridian . Section ~ o Location of area to be filled: Township Range ~ Meridian ~ Section . 5. Do you plan to use any of the following state-owned resources? Timber , If yes, amount?_ , Location of source: Township ~ Other Materials , ]Y yes, what material? o Location of source: Township ~ 6. Are you planning to use any fresh water? , ff yes, amount (gallons per day)? ° Source? 7. Will you be building or altering a dam? 8. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well? Range Meridian ' Section (peat, building stone, slit, overburden, ¢[c.) Range __ Meridian Section 9. Will you be exploring for or extracting coal? 10. Will you be exploring for or extracting minerals on state-owned land? 11. Will you be exploring for or extracting oil and gas on state-owned land? 12. Will you be harvesting timber from 10 or more acres? 13. Will you be investigating or removing historical or archaeological resources on state-owned land? Yes No Ye s No Yes No Yes No 14. Wil'i the project be located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System? Yex If .you answered NO to all questions in this section, .you do not need an approval t'rom the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Continue to the next section. If you answered YES to ANY questions in this section, contact DNR to identify and obtain necessary application forms. Based on your discussion with DNR, please List (below) the approval type needed and date submitted. Approval Typc Dat~ Submi;tcd (or in£cnd to submit) Have you paid the filing fees requked for the DNR permits? If you are not applying for DNR permits, indicate reason below: ~ a... (DN-R contact) told me on approvals or permits were required on this project. ~ b. Other: Yes No (date) that no DNR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME APPROVALS 1. Will you be working in a stream, river, or lake? (This includes running water or on ice, Yes No wit.kin the acive floodplain, on islands, the face of the banks, or the stream tideflats down to mean low fide.) [] Name of stream or river: Name of lake: If you answered "no", proceed to question #2. If "yes", will you be doing any of the following: a) Building a dam, river tra/ning structure or irish'earn impoundment? b) Using the water? c) Diverting or altering the natural channel st:ream? d) Blocking or darnrakng the stream, (temporarily or permanently)? e) Changing the flow of the water or changing the bed? f) Pumping water out of the stream or lake? g) Introducing silt, gravel, rock, petroleum products, debris, chemicals or wastes of any type into the water? F9 [] [] [] [] [] h) Using the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing the stream with tracked [] [] or wheeled vehicles, log-dragging or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)? i) Altering or stabilizing the banks? [] [] j) Mining or digging in the beds or banks? [] [] k) Using explosives? 1) Building a bridge (including an ice bridge)? [] [] m) InstalLing a culvert or other drainage structure? [-----] [] n) Constructing a weir? [] [~ o) Other M-stream s~ucture not mentioned above? 2. Is your project located in a State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area, or State Game Sanctuary? 3. D~es your project include the construction and operation of a salmon hatchery? 4. Does your project affect or is it related to a previously permitted salmon hatchery?. 5. Does your project include the construction of a shellfish or sea vegetable farm? If you answered NO to all questions in this section, you do not need an approval from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Continue to the next section. If you answered YES to any of the questions under 1 or 2, contact the Regional DFG Habitat Division Office for information and application forms. Yes No If you answered YES to questions 3, 4 or 5, contact the DFG Private Nonprofit Hatchery Office at the F.R.E.D. division headquarters for information and application forms. Based on your discussion with DFG, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted. Yes So Approval Type Date Submitted (or intend to submit) [] [] If you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below: ~ a. (DFG contact) told me on approvals or perrrdts were required on this project. b. Other: (date) that no DFG DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONblENTAL CONSERVATION APPROVALS 1. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur? (See #2 in "Federal Permits" section) 2. Will a) b) c) d) e) 3. Will 4. Will 5. Will your project generate air emissions from the following: Diesel generators totaling more than 10,000 bp? Other fossil fuel-fired electric generator, furnace, or boiler totaling greater than 10,1300 bp, or 9,000 kWh, or 100,000,000 btu/hr? Asphalt plant? Incinerator burning more than 1000 lbs. per hour? Industrial process? a drinking water supply be developed that serves more than a single-family residence? you be processing seafood? food service be provided to the public or workers? Will the project result in dredging or disposal of fill in wetlands or placement of a structure in waterways? (Note: your application for this activity to the Corps of Engineers will also serve as your application to DEC.) 7. Is sewage or greywater disposal involved or necessary? Yes No -4- 8. Will your project result in the cevelopment of a currendy unpermitted fatality for the disposal of domestic or industrial solid waste'? 9. Will your project require offshore drilling or vessel transport of oil, or other petroleum products as cargo, or include onshore facilities with an effective storage capacity of greater than 10,000 barrels of such products? 10. Will your project require the application of oil or pesticides to the surface of the land? [] [] If you answered NO to all questions in this section, you do not need a permit or approval from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Please continue to the next section. If you answered YES to any of these questions (see #6 Note), contact the DEC Regional Office for information and application forms. Based on your discussion with DEC, please list (below) the approval type needed and date submitted. Approval Type Daw Submitted (or intend m submit) ff you are not applying for permits, indicate reason below: ~ a.. (DEC contact) told me on approvals or permits were required on this project. ~ b. Other: (.date) that no DEC Certification Statement The information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the proposed activity complics--vyith, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal ManagementS/. ~// //~ 6'"---~ ~; ppucantorAge~ March 6, 1989 Date To complete your packet, please attach your state permit applications and copies of your federal applications to this questionnaire. -5- TREAT~fl~,NT O[" SI';PT£C TANK I';i"FI.UENT tN A PEA'[' BED C.A. Rock J.l.. Brooks m.A. Bcadurm F.E. Woodard In rural settings where ctmtralized sewage [rc~atment is not avail, able, domestic wastewater must be disposed of ons[Le. The conventional method disposal in unsewered areas has been the s~.ptfc tank-subsur~aca sot1 tion system. Well over 15 million such svr. L,m:s t~>:[sC tn the Un[ted Stace~. The key component of the ~;,~,stunl ts [ho soil ndsorpt~on dra[llF[e[d. meability cud depth, grouud water Lcvul, utulmr[y[ng mater/al, s.l~~_, :lt,d proximity to wells, streams, and lakes (l~emh.r, [g7i). Failures of soil adsorption systems are generally attributed ~:o ore of thretx subsurface con-- ditions: 1) Slowly permeable soils; 2) bedrock near soil surface; or 3) high ground water table (Smyth and l.owry, 1978). It has buen estim:tred only 32 percent of the total land area of cbc UnLtetl Stares i.s suitable For soil. adsorption systems (U.S. Et~v[ronmental Pr,,tccci(m Ageucy 1973). areas has prompted researchc:r~; [o t,>:illll[.ll(~ ;ii [('rtl;It i. VC [rOiltmc..n[ ~i}.'S[OlI/S. One logical approach has been co import suitable dvaiufield matcri..t[ ;ts substitute.for the existing native sni.]., tn mound systems medium textured sands, sandy loams, soil mixtures, bottom ash, strip mine spoil and slags have been tested (Converse cc al. 1.978). '{'h~ ad,.';~:~tuge oF the mt~und is c~ofold; not only is the septic eff].uenC pur[(k~d, but it ts a[:~o dis- ct:ibuted .over a large area so that adsorption int:o slightly i,cFmeai:h, native soil can take place. '['h~, :~t~jor d[sadv~tllt;Hlt':~ o( moulld systems arc the large lZllld art~;l requirement, high CoIlstrt~Ct [OII C~S[ , ~t~td I'[XO uect~?: [ t}' l,~ [~ttl~[) inf. loent. If purification is tl~e only requirum,Rnt, thou a sand fi. lter can 1:,(~ used where there ~s adequat'e depth of soil abo've bedrock or grouud ....,aEsir aquifers (llJnes et al. 1978). Although sand filters USe m[ic}l s:ll(!I ~.,r laud area than mouud systems, an effluent disc ~arge i~: presort. Peat moss bas been successfully used to tt;eet hadustri, a[ .' ~'"tm (Chanoy Iludeman, 1979, Leslie, 1974). Eger cc al. (1.9~1) found peat co be eg6ecuLve 5n the removal of trace metals (Cu, N~, Co, Zn) from ore suockp~e leachate. Peat enjoys considerable Popularity in FLnlaud ~or the treatment of munL- cipal wastewater. Nineteee cities time a series (>1= ditches it~ nauuril[ bog~; re treat primary effluent (Surakka and Kapi i, 1971.). tn treatment by passing through a l)eac bog ((htntonspergeo et hi, ].9~1). anti Brown (~972) reported suct'essfut uruat'x:umt oF secondary eFFLue::t irrigated on a peat filter. To date, however, peat has not been used treat septic tank effluent (Brooks', 1930) .... MUNICIPALI~ :=' ENVi;:;:4;,~EI;FA,. i.O E,~,O:I Research Associate, Sylvia A. Bradeen, Rt~soarch A:;s[stant, Civil Department, University of Haine, Orono~ Franklin I.]. Woodard, President, Woodard and Curran, Inc., Corham, blt. ,An'~'~'~A'~.imAntal drainfJ' ](I using 5phagntml poac as tl~e ce tructlon med.Ltun was coenected to an ex~ i~g septic t~nk serving a si~xg( family dv~al[ing for:six persons. P~eviousl5' tho s,?ti~: e~ f~uw~L di~;,'h~t~:g~d th~ougl~ l~rge Desig~l o1! Bed of the tl'eme~ldous water holdit~g C;tl>;~cic;; ~1' pc;ti, it is an material for adsorption systems. Fo~' example, the Ma*ne Stero Human Services (1979)-6~i'{~i~'i"'o'r'ga'nic"hoils (pga~.~t0.~.~uck) of more than ~5 Cm (six in) dep=b as poorly dr~ii~dd ~-;iii"ili,d ;~re, therefor'e, deemed itt- 4j.d r;g' e ~or septic tank drainfields. Desp-i't& 'the inherently poor draiuag~ t'harlt('teristi,'s o1: org~t(~ic soils, there has been extensive research i~lvo.l.vit~g organit: ma~,.cial, p~rr[ct~l;~rly Sphag- nu~'i)Ti'ik'. '['hese s~udies hart. in<lud~,d n~t,itsttr,~met~:~ of thcs, li'gdrau].ic_con- ductivity ranging from 115 cm/d (0.35 gpd/ft:2) re 2880 cm/d ('~'91 'gpd)ft2% (Ko~-pijakko a~d R~dfort}~, 1972). Act:ordinal to Kor'i>iji~kko :ll/d RadForth ti~'ls ~4ide range was dt~e to a variety of f~t:tors, i.~cluding degree ........ of humkfi- ~:ation,-'iCater'~o'ii~i~nt, dry dt, i~gity, typ,, of pc;It, ;ind depth of sample.' ~astt.~,u~t~'r I'[ot~. Far~hl (2 974) tlett~rmined the opt ijmlq} ~anged between 5 ~ltlt[ 20 cm/d (1.2-4.8 gpti/l't;21) depc.~di~g tlpt):l L}tc~ of dos;age, ttse of sand to dt~wi~[or the over-l.ving Dt.:tt, chi('lq~t~ss of the layer, ;~t/d bt~lk density. Further insight i~lto select/on off t:he valuos ra~go from a lot4 06 0.~{ cm/d (0,2 gl,d/f t2) cm/d (1.2 gpd/ft2) fo~' stand. Also (!.0 gDd/ft')) for a bt~riud, itlce~:mit[ont like the at, t/cji)aced l)e~tt bed. Coiisequently ii was decided rli:~t il rt, lacivt.[>' lo;.., loadi~!g :~l:ottld b,' ttst,~!, ,ts well. as ~ln adequltte dr:li~age s;,?stom. A 1.5 cm/d (0.35 gpd/ft2) was The second criterion, .;the depth of pe[tt. ~tlsn had ~o be baned upon limited (1978) recommel~ds that 60 to 120 cm (24 to 48 in) of unsaturated soil' should exist between the trench bottom and the seasot~allg'l{~igh w~er 'tabi~ ' 0r bedrock. Tyler et al'.'- (1.978) noted 'into the soil st~rrounding ~ tren(:h the the accopgable range for ~ fully trc~tc~t[ ,...,~;tow:tter. studies, Green and t]liver (1974) a.].sjl..~l~owt:d thltt 60 c~m ~(24 ~fficient to remove viruses whe~ tile lo~tciin~ was kept ].oto, 5 cm/d (1.2,. gpd/ft2). For bttried J~termitte~t sm~d J'ilt~rs cm (24 to 36 in) of sand is r(~co:nm~nd~d reported ~hat 60 em (24 [t~) of sand w:~s pt~rific:~tion in a merited system. In a sttidy el: spray irrigation el- Bt'ov/n and lPal'nhLlm (:1076) ru, commt, ndt,d ' :mdtThl 6f' b'iicteria, a · -at depth ol /bcm ~ Jo tn) was Inscatlat':[on o[- Bed running parallel to the bed, dictated a width of 4.8 m (16 fi). Cerise- quently, a length of 19 m (62 fo) was seleCEd'd~ to obtain the desired ~ ~n..order:=~ha~'-mdn~Cbr'ing'~'U~l.'d be 'conducted, the 90 %~ (36 in)..deep..~xcava~ d~n-~s'.cL~ned ,wLc~ ~-~aa~Lc;'smecLn~;j, san~]wiched,,b2~een cwo $o~ers project,Ye sand) ~pprox~mace]y LO em (4 in) zn depth. ~he.s~.aye~ was.. .: '~overdd with a 15 cm (6 in) Layer of crushed, washed I cm (3/8 in) stone. /~'""e~"(4 in) diameter PVC l>[~t'fOL'ated draLn pipe was placed in the crushed scone ~ayer Co facilitate draina)4e of the peat. Bukk'Sphagnumpeac-was~ added'co a' depcli'of 75 cm (30 in) in tO-~5 cm (4-6-'t]~)-~a'~eka .~n~a~y raked ahd compaac 'a:' Three lO'am (a'"~n)'a'~am~e'r 'PQC pe~'d~ed p~pes, each 18.3 m (60 ft) lm~g~h, were ~nstaZ~ed leve~ on ~op of the 75 cm (30 ~n) pea~ ~ayer. p~pes were bedded ~n crushed stone and ~n~rconnecced to pr~n~ote ~n ~-~ibuCioT1 of cbc incoming sppt~c c??k ul'[~luc'nC, 'AI~ ~(di'~Lonal L5 .qm (6 of peat'0as'adde~ on top of the pipes, making the:"~d-[a~ 'depth of peat approximately 90 cm (36 in). The plan vicw and section view are in'Figure 1. Construction of the peat b,.d was comp!c~tad in Novembe]: (Brooks, 1980) . RI']SUt,'t'$ Both inlTluena and effluent sampLes were col tut:ted durLng the first and t:hit-d bi) uhe Americas Public ttealch Assockttion ([9752. The comb[ned effluent. Table ].. Chemical Analysis of htf[ucnc ami i.:i'l'/uenn Sampl~2s from the Peat Bed Parameter [nl ]ucnl E COD (rog/L) 630 (St)a !.09 TSS (rog/L) 239 (24,~ 24 (23) NIi3-N (rog/L) 2}8 (~5) 2.3 (51.) Org-N (rog/L) 15 (55) 2.1 (552 NII3-N (mg/L) 7.7 (:',~ 29 (52) Total P (rog/I,) 5.5 k',5.~ 3.0 pll (units) 6.0-O.¥ 5.0-6.O Temp (°C) 7-2~ 4- aNumbers in parentheses except for pi{ and temperaturu. SECT~O~ VIEW gO cm . ... ~ D IS TIHglJTIO,~ LATERAL PEAT .- IJ~OERORAHI Fig, i Schematic Diagram o( E:<porLmcmtal Peat Bed Over Lbo past thL'ee years tile system ha~; op,.:':tu,-.d v;ititout problems. been no visible pending. Although it W;l>~ Ot'i~ILit;i].]-f intended to cover thc peat bed with a protective layer of topsoi L, uhLs has not been done to date, ~or does it appear to be necessary from an opcrat Lena[ point. Odors are not not~ceab%e and, in fact, the anaerobic influcnt bt:~came well aerated leaving the bad. The effluent dissolved o:.:ygcn (D.a.) ran>lo:l beE'..gcen 13.1 mg/L with an average of 6. 7 '~e 'aerobic conditions have ensmred that ~1o<~(1 o~ganLc remow~! occurred.' ~hemical oxvgen demand (C.().I).) removal w:~:, ,;~ p,.~'c:c~t ('fl[bi,' 2). I)cL';i%itu' relatively ~i~h incoming ~o~al su~pcmdad solid~ ('['S~) concentrations, by the end of thc ),o~lr. C~trL'e[~!y, tile dJ~l'J'~u'Nt i~;l:; a C~:;1L', J)LtC 1. ighU unit traveling through thc bed. COI) ~ 3 'I'S~ 9 3 Nit3_Na Organ [c-Na 86 NO 3-Na (2 7 5 ) '['o ta] P 45 To~al Colifo~-m 09.9 Fecal Coliform Not Detected aTransforma~[on also 'rite nitri£icanion of ammonia and organic nitrogen to nj. crate made it ficult to~evalua-te the actual removal of nitrogen. Tim c~mi>inauLoa formation and removal result in about 90. percent voducuion [p :..{-~ and organic-N while N()q-N increased by'db<mt 275 l>croe, nt.' .lnLtial. ly removal c, xceeded 70 pert:eat, hut Ln the third veal' ~)f uperat [tm removal has averaged only 32 percent. The peat bed provided excellent removal of both total and fecal coliform bac- ceria based on limited (20) bacteriological, analytics. The infloent contain an bfN count of more than 240,000 .b.act.pria per 100 ml ,p.f.>pS.~]..?caz and fecal coliforms. T6c-al d'oiif0Tm werd'reduced by 99.9 percent, whereas fecal coliform were not detected in the effluent using the multiple-tube fermen- tation technique. In a recent series or: ~hrue analys~-s using [he f~ ILar technique, one positive COtIIIL Of [ fcca[ t:ol. tl:or'.;i colony per L()O was ohtained. EVAidlAT IOH OveraLl, tile e×perimevttai peat bed pcrform,.d vcl;y ,.,,c../..L wLth vi. rLual Iv ,lainta~lall(le requLred, While good COD and I'SS E(ZtROVa[ was obtained, the This may be a drawback, depending upon whol;c t'i~e eft:l, ucnt is; dLscixargod. higher ~utrient reduction is requLrc, d, then a gl'ase; covar mav be geous. Farnham and Browi/ (L972) found that: }Ii'a1:4:4 v,q,%i'lal i,'t! '...';ts pal'tLcu~3rlv u~ve in the l) iologica] uptake of both pito=;l)hot't~; ;:;d RiLrOgdl/ fFotn a pc':tL additional Lmmob [1 i zatiotl Or' i)hosI)ilol'tlS, :lit ill),l:.',il ;lllltltlllES 'dL) l'c~ IIOL ~ltlallL i- to treat secondary effluent. }lc ]'Ottlld klt:tt 9q.i~ percent of the antlcipated, biLE felt chat higher r,:mov;t! could l>o obcaklled b',' b, LLcr by spray i. rT-i. gaui.on, wher(la:4 Lilt' ]>I'uy;t'IIL :i?ritl'[[l JLa% a gtlbStll'~'aCO iupuU. Consequently, there is some question as to the effectiveness of grass covet for a buried system, floweret, a gra.~s cover Will be cultivated in tile summer of 1982 to verify its impact upon nutrLc, nt removal. It appears that excellent Co[.[['oi'm bactcl:ia l:umovaL can be achieved. 7'..:: noted in the RESU]Y£S Section, the membrane: f Llter technique produeeci one positive result in limited testing for fecal coliform. Osborne (1975) reported low counts, finding that 75 percent of the t.ime no fecal coliform bacteria were present in the discharge. The highest value he reported was 24 per 100 ml while the average was only 2 per 100 mt. These low suggest that disinfection may m)[ I)c essential. In fact, [t may be po:~s[.biu to' meet water quality standards wLthouC any d Ls[nfecc[on. Fo~' example, the State of Maine's (1977) highest classif[ca~Lon (Class A) requ[ues ~ha~ fr~sh water contain not more than 20 fecal co[il'om~ bacteria p~-[ !D0 mL. chis could be a major advantage o[: the peat ~c.d system. Since the original design of the peat bed depended upon adaptation meters found in the literatnre for other types of systems, additional search is ongoing to optimize Cbc bed design. Va~:ious factors, ~4m'h all degree of compaction and peat type, chat [nl:lu~mce hydraulic conductivity are being examined. I,aboratory studies us[m; 30, OO, and 90 cm column:4 peat have confirmed the limited hydrau[[c Loading capaci, ty of peat. In a' 30 day experiment, an average hydraulic loading o~ 7.7 cm/d (1.8 g~/~ ~-) resnlted in ponding and the development of anaerobic conditions. By Dav 21 cbc effluent COD actually exceeded the influ,.nt' COD. [nterest[ng].y the bLo- chemical oxygen demand (BOD) i.o the effluent: remahned Low. [n fac~, removal efficiencies remained aronnd ~5 l)erc,'n[ l-or the duration of the experiment. At tbfs relatively high hydraul, i< ~oad[ng no di~{tfnct[oi~ could be d/scorned between the various depths o~: pt<~t . ..%!J. ]:esponded sLm[]arLv. Additional co].umn studies are underway to dctcL'm{ne L[ depth is an lmpor'tnat factor tn treatment efficiency at ]ower hydvaul lc loadings. '['es[:]n~; o~- hydraulic loadLngs above ]..5 cm/d (0.35 g[.,d/ft2), but be]ow 7.7 c;u/d gpd/ft2), will also be examined tn an el:tort to reduce the amount of peat required. The effeot of peat on the pi{ and color o1' the effluent may be a potential concern. A pH of 5.0 can have adverse ~mvfro~mental. effects, part[cular il. y in poorly buffered waters such as those in Ha[ne. However, in most the buffering capacity should be sufficient:, gi.v~m the small volume fluent discharged fronl the septic tank peat bcd syscom. Color is o[ less concern, primarily being a problem of CONC[,US tO>Lq .Sphagnum peat hold:~ promise as ;i vinble, al:,'l'naLivo fni' the septic tank ei.[~uenL. ,l i:ull-scaLe SySt~.m It:ts I)~'~q! LO satisfactory oper:~t Lon for over tllree years. [mprovement:¢ [!/ l/tl['rit'llL Uellh)Va]. . ~nuat be.l'°tmd if fete:Lying water [s subject co eutrophicatioo. Mikrobiological removals may be high enough to eliminate, or at least..reduce~'thc negd ~or di. sinfeet[on. H~wever, this concept will require additional ce~itr~lh before, a ~[~nclusion can be reached, gXt L}w. [>~'e~mnt tiara, tih,. ,,fl'luent qm~litv facLory for discharge into most receiving w:ttcr:;. ,.ontinuing ~'e:~ca~.'ch may lead to i. mprovements in the de>~ign criteria u:4cd in cbJ~; c:.:pcrimeutn[ specifica].iy the very low hydraul i~' l,~ad[ Research nnd Developme U.~. }.]nvironmt!ntal ['vococtiou ~ncv, (EP,\) undcz grant number R-808069-6 Add[tLon~i [:m~din~ w~s prov[du~ by the University of Ma.[ne. The EPA doe~ n~ m,.cox:~rilv ~nd~':~. ~mv ,'omm~,~-~'~ p~'od'~cL~; ~'.~;~.d U. ~. KPA. '2. 10. 11. ].2. I( I'] I"i". R J.]N C I.:.% ,\merLcan Public llenlrh A~;:;t>,:Lation. L97q. ,%t'ai:dnl'd ,"lothocls foc thc B e.,~.d e t', '.4. H. 1971. Bulletin No. 7349. permcab]e soils w/ti~ .qt'{ll-tiOl~/lJ[]',' [)t'.r~t'JlcttJ ~,':tLt'~' t:~tbl, us. "./. Eh','. '~,::~!. ~t: 3o~-~88. Brooks, .I.L. 1980. ,\ "' .- ~,' R T,. ;md P.T. FtsnIOVO CLIdBli[II!i i-YORI Wit,~LL'.\.tilL,'I',c,, 1978. .'o . :,~:' th,.' i00-120. interaction oi: a whito ~:c~d;ir bog ;tnd :::/nih>4 saw,oki) lie le;tcha!to, r.i)_ Si.:<~h [~lcet'nationrll Po:It Congross, I>~'o~:oodi;::.:;, {hJl. uCh', btN, pl) fi42-5-'7 i:~r?,ham, R.S. 1974. U~;t. o( org:m[c s>L{:; !or w:t:-;te',,utte~- in: Hi~tosols: Their ~hnract~,~'[:~t:ic~ '::~..: and cLLt:~sifJcnt/on. ~q~ionce Soc. of Americ~ Spe~:. Pith. No. [). pp 11[-118. Farnham, R.S. and J.I,. 1½rot,,n. 1972. .. Ot'Lll/.[Olgi, Fil/];lll(I, Vol. fi, J'[) [~/[-2~','~. (;~:o<~n, K.bI. :md i).0. (JtLVL'I:. 1974. ;<,.,:i,,v:i: ,,! '.'iL'us f~:{~:u s,'[': [~: t;,nk .,L. .Joseph, ,i,, pp ]37-14'/ 14 15 16. ]7. 18. 19. 20. 2]. 2'2, 2']. :[:Ol' ~]:l:Jtle£1C EFt2~EIB~'~E ;ln,:[ t1: ,Second :~hiC i~'".':], }tome II., pp Korpijakko, M. and N.'..!. [Ctdl:o','Lh. i972. Sl_udius on the h'.,dr;:uiic duccivity of peat. _[Jl i:our'Lh lnt,.!:'nac[oi``;ll. [ ,it (]ong:'t.u~s Procc(:di Vol, 3, Otaniemi, Fi.n]and, pp B23-333. Leslie, H.E. 1974. Peat:: ,,\met. Dyestuff Reptr. 4-6. surface waters. August:a, MI.:. Part :i. Subsurface ~¢ascewaLor dLsposn! I:egil~.li'Jioils, AugLisl2o., !q[':, .'4sine Department oC Hut:tan Sc:".'ices. 19/;. surface was[ewater disposal it,, >!;tine, Au:4us~a, Osborne, J.>!. 1975, ']'er~iarv tre;ltmcn[ o1' campground wastes usiiD; a native :.iinnesota peat. .I. Soil and tq.ter Con.qer. 30: 235-2~t~. Smyth, .J.R. and .I,D. Lowt:v. IgF, o. Tim :~p2Lic. ac.ion of pk:,'sica! and I.and and Water Res. Canter RpC. No. A-t/d)-S!?:, Univers[ky of Na ne, Orono, Hi':. Surakka, S. and A. Kampp£. 1.971. soil (English Summary). Sue. 221 51-58. Tyler, E.J., R, Laak, E. ."!cCoy, and :; ASAE, Chicago, iL. pp 22-37, S. Sandim. L978. The soil i::~;!:,.' ~c'.,,'il~/,e '?re;IL:::t'l/~ U. 5}. ['~l!virollI~,t::!lLal Prot:ecc ion flows. F. PA-600/2- 78-1.7 ]. l', -q . [=' n v [ r o Ft P,:t, !1E al ~c [lltm[ and dLsl)osal. FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES THE UTILIZATION OF PEAT LEACHFIELDS FOR 0N-SITE TREATMENT OF HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER: A PILOT STUDY pREPARED BY: RAYMOND Z. RIZNYK ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL SCIENCES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99508 NOVEMBER 30, 1988 CONTRACT NUMBER 74151 THE UTILIZATION OF PEAT LEACHFIELDS FOR ON-SITE TREATMENT OF HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER: A PILOT STUDY Introduction: In many areas of Alaska, conventional septic systems cannot be installed or have failed because of inadequate drainage. The presence of bedrock outcrops, shallow watertables, and permafrost require some alternative to residential septic systems utilizing soil~ absorption. Mounded peat drainfi~lds show strong promise as an alternative to conventional soil drainfields, especially in the rural areas of the State. Current work at Alaska Pacific University is showing peat to be an effective medium for the treatment of on-site septic tank effluent. Low maintenance peat drainfields, constructed from readily available local material, are feasible for new home cosstruction'or retrofit septic systems for homes in areas with marginal drainage. Peat is one of Alaska's most abundant resources. It has been estimated that as much as half of the U.S. peat resource base is located in Alaska and far exceeds the 1 State's oil and gas resources Peat muskeg and marsh cover more than 110 million acres. Peats are classified according to the composition of the plant remains comprising their bulk. The dominant plants are represented by several 0 d 0 0 · ~ 0 0 ~' e ,:d 0 rH Peat Leachfie!ds page species of sedge, reed, and moss. Most prominent are ~ustifol~um. E. va~inatum Scir~_~itosus, ~io~horum --~ ....... = .......... , 2 ~hos~ora alba and several species of ~~ The peat used in our mound systems was obtained from a local Anchorage deposit and is comprised of equal amounts of moss~ sedge and reed. Municipal Standards have been.established, by the Municipali~ty of Anchorage to which waste disposal systems must conform to prevent discharge of wastewater into surface waters, upon the ground surface, into watershed areas, onto streets and roadways and directy into groundwater and wells3 On-site wastewater disposal systems must have an operational capacity sufficient to dispose of 150 gallons per day per bedroom. However~ the Municipal Health and Human Services Department may approve on-site wastewater disposal systems that do not conform to their standards if tests and engineering data show that the system will function as effectively as a conforming system. Owners of these non-standard systems however, must post a bond to ensure financial liability if the system fails. The regulations do specifically permit elevated mound systems but indicate that t'hey must be built on soil greater Peat Leachfie!ds page 3 than 2 feet above the seasonally saturated horizon of bedrock with a percolation rate of between 5 to 60 minutes per inch. The ordinance currently requires that any organic matter including ~S~ be removed from the elevated mound site and the mound covered with vegetation to prevent erosion. The Municipality of Anchorage may however~ permit the installation and operation of innqvativ~, syst.ems, including peat systems, which meet or exceed the National Sanitation Foundation certification criteria. A provisional permit is issued for a period of one year during which time testing and evaluation of the particular system is conducted. After the period of the provisional permit, the Department of Health and Human Services shall evaluate the performance of ~he innovative system. If the system has performed in conformance with the wastewater standards and is as effective or more so than the conventional on-site wastewater systems, the Department may permit the continued operation of the system. Two peat mound drainfields are currently in operation in rural Anchorage; one in the Rabbit Creek Heights subdivision, the other at Bird in the Delak subdivision. These drainfields have been monitored for one year by Alaska Pacific University under contract to the Municipality of Anchorage. The peat for each system was prepared by Peat Leachfields page breaking up clumps from a local excavation site, removing the roots and woody materials and spreading to dry. Because of the existence of shallow watertables close to the ground surface, mounds of peat were required above the surface of the soil. ~[~tem Desi~ Rabbit Creek He~s Site This site is located directly on native peat. Prior to the installation of the peat drainfield system, the owner used his septic tank as a holding tank with untreated effluent daylighting on the ground surface. This residence was rated for four bedrooms with a requirement of treating 150 gallons of effluent per bedroom. Prior work in Maine has shown that peat could effectively treat one ,gallon of septic waste per day per square foo~ of mound area4. Consequently the dimension of the drainfield was designed to be 640 square feet (Figure 1). The drainfield was constructed on top of the existing peat-laden soil with minimal disturbance of the surrounding vegetation. A liner of Visqueen plastic was placed on the ground surface and extended two feet up the sides of the system. A layer of construction rubble was placed on the liner with an underdrain of A-inch perforated pipe embedded Peat Leachfields page 5 in the rubble and extending through the plastic liner at one end. A sampling portal was constructed by placing an X-connection in the pipe~ capping the bottom and extending the top above ground where it was covered with a removable cap. Three feet of groomed peat were added above the porous rubble and trenched to receive perforated distribution pipelines. As each line was t.~enched, ~o~k.was. pla~ed on the bottom of each ditch to a depth of 3 inches. The perforated distribution pipe was placed on the rock and leveled. Additional rock was added to completely surround the pipe before the top ~8 inches of peat was put in place. The distribution pipe network consists of six A-inch diameter perforated pipes, each 40 feet long and interconnected at each end. Additional peat was added for the surrround (Figure 2). The peat mound effluent is discharged into a gravel-lined infiltration trench running a distance of 120 feet by using a perforated pipe. Bird Site Prior to installation of the peat mound system at this site, the conventional septic tank system had failed because of the high watertable and poor soil percolation. Since a three bedroom home is situated on this lot a field size of 480 square feet was constructed (Figure 3). Peat Leachfields page 6 The bottom of this mound was also lined with Visqueen plastic. An S-inch layer'of sand was placed on the liner and the A-inch diameter perforated underdrain pipe embedded in the sand. Two and one-half feet of peat were added above the sand. The peat was trenched and lined with distribution pipes embedded in rock and covered with an additional inches of peat. A sampling portal was placed in the underdrain pipe one foot'from the periphery 9f the.'liner (Figure The peat mound effluent was discharged from the underdrain into a 7-foot wide infiltration trench which runs perpendicular to the treatment field for a distance of 60 feet. Water Qualit[ Test Results The effectiveness of the two peat mound beds was demonstrated by water quality tests performed over a one-year period of time. Water samples collected from septic tanks and the peat mound portals located at the edge of the leachfield, were tested for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids, nitrate-nitrogen, Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, pH, fecal and total coliform bacteria, color, turbidity, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Water quality tests were conducted according to Standard Methods5 k significant Peat Leachfields page ? difference in water quality was found between the peat leachate and the untreated septic tank effluent for BOD, COD, NO3-N, Kjeldahl N, total P, fecal and total coliform bacteria, color and dissolved oxygen. The percent improvement in water quality of the peat mound leachate was dramatic for most parameters (Table 1), being similar to wastewater which has undergone tertiary treatment6. The results of the total s.u~pended solids tests are an enigma with relatively high values occurring in the peat effluent. This anomaly can be explained by the nature of the peat used to construct the mounds, which contained very fine inorganic clay that was flushed out as effluent percolated through the systems. Both peat mounds are quite porous. Clogging or plugging of the interstices, with the suspended solids present in the septic effluent, was not at all ~oticeable. In all probability, once adsorbed, the organic solids are readily utilized as a substrate for aerobic microorganisms. Freezing of the mound systems, even though the ambient air temperature was well below 0° C for appreciable periods of time, was never a problem. A series of thermistor probes buried in the mound systems monitored the peat temperatures in the environs of the perforated pipe. Subterranean peat mound temperatures never dropped below freezing. During the winter season, an insulating blanket of snow approximately Peat Leachfields page 1/2 to 2 feet in depth covered the mounds. No discernable difference was observed between the quality of the peat effluent in either system on a seasonal basis. The mounds, in which the temperature fluctuations were not extreme, proved to be as effective during cold weather as during warmer weather. The nitrate-nitrogen levels in the pear'mound leachate are higher than the federal stasdard for. public drinking water. This is to be expected since nitrification of organic nitrogen and ammonia would occur by microbiological activity in the mounds. Under aerobic conditions, these' reduced forms of nitrogen would be oxidized to nitrate. To prevent the nitrate-rich leachate from entering the groundwater, a means may have to be devised to reduce the level of nitrate before discharge into the soil. This can be accomplished by several methods. If bacteria have a carbonaceous food source available that increases the carbon-nitrogen ratio and conditions are anaerobic, the bacteria will break down the nitrate to nitrous oxide .and nitrogen gas which escapes into the atmosphere. A small special subterranean chamber may have to be added to the design of the mound systems for denitrification purposes. We are rather optimistic about the longevity of the peat mound systems. At this point it is difficult to say Peat Leachfields page 9 with certainty how long they will operate effectively until the peat may have to be replenished. However, after a period of one year, no appreciable degradation or problems in operational efficiency have been noted. Laborato~[_Peat Column In an attempt to understand the field processes an experimental peat column was maintained in the laboratory in a constant temperature refrigerator at SoC. Raw sewage obtained from the Rabbit Creek site septic tank was pumped through the peat column at a loading rate comparable to that of the field peat mound (0.76 gal/day/ft2)· The peat column leachate was sampled biweekly and analyzed for the same chemical parameters as the field study (Table 2). The results were quite similar to those of the field peat leachate in that there was also a significantly improved water quality in comparison to the untreated sewage. The flora and fauna of the lab peat column was assessed by examination of the organisms using conventional microscopy and standard microbiological plating techniques. No soil invertebrates such as protozoa, annelids or nematodes were found. The microbiological plating tests isolated a single fungus, Rhizo~us, a common household mold and possible contaminant. There were several species of bacteria isolated, however. Peat Leachfields page 10 The surprising paucity in the fauna and flora of the column has led the investigators to believe tha~ physical and chemical processes are primarily responsible for the improvement in the water quality of the leachate. Sum~EZ Current work with 2 pilot peat mound systems in rural Anchorage has shown that in marginal areas with inadequate soil drainage, thes'e innovative systems perform exceptionally well. The ability of the peat to improve the quality of the wastewater before discharge into the underlying substratum is remarkable. The quality of the peat leachate is similar to wastewater which has undergone tertiary treatment. This work is significant in that it indicates that peat mound systems could be of benefit in virtually all parts of rural Alaska. In many bush communities and native villages, septic systems of any kind are virtually absent. The use of peat mounds could significantly reduce water pollution in these areas and improve the health and living conditions of the areas' residents. Peat Leachfietds page References Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 1983. Peat commercial feasibility analysis. Division of Energy and Power Development, 2 vol., 362 p. Anchorage, AK. Dachnowski-Stokes, A.P. 1941. Peat resources in Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bull. No. 769. Washington, D.C. Municipality of Anchorage 1977 Municipal Cede, Wastewater Disposal Regulations. Dept. 'of Health and Human Services Chapter 15.65. Anchorage, AK. Rock, C.A., J.L. Brooks, S.A. Bradeen and E.E. Woodard. 1982. Treatment of septic tank effluent in a peat bed. In Proc. 3rd Natl. Symp. on Ind. and Small Comm. Sewage ~eatment. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Publ. 1-82. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. American Public Health Association. 1981. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 15th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Culp, R.L., G.M. Wesner and G.L. Culp. 1978. Handbook of advanced wastewater treatment, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 632 p. Peat Leachfields page 12 Parameter BIRD SITE RABBIT CREEK SITE Septic Peat Peat BOD (mg/1) 169 131 3 12 191 COD (ms/l) 386 !82 29 Z28 329 Temp (°C) 5.8 13.1 4.7 13.2 7.7 13.1 Color A03 !242 180 !251 294 !173 Fecal coliform (#/100 ml) lxlO6!3xlO6' 11 ~36 4x106!8x106 Total coliform 06 (#/100 mi) 5xl !6x106 2x10416xI04 6x107!lx108 NO3-N (mg/1) 2.4!3.2 14'8!9'1 4'2!2'6 Kjeldahl-N (mg/1) 64.7!18.3 6'0i2'8 53'4i26'5 Total P (mg/1) 1.3!0.7 0'3!0.3 1'3!0'7 pH 7'8!0'6 6'7!0'4 7'5!0'3 Dissolved 02 (mg/1) 0.08!0.26 3'4!2.2 Turbidity (NTU) 49125 49~48 71152 Suspended solids (mg/t) 92190 '1411248 58134 Conductivity (mhos/cm) 574!289 504~330 525!337 4 +2 24 +21 53 Z43 1'07 +195 3xlOS+lxlO6 16.2+6.4 0.5!0.5 8;4!2.2 5.3!2.2 82+110 572+206 Table 1. Comparison of septic water quality to peat mound leachate. Each figure represents an annual mean value of monthly readings + the standard deviation. Peat Leachfie!ds page 13 Parameter Laboratory Peat Column Septic Tank Effluent BOD COB Temp (°C) Color Fecal coliform (#/100 ml) Total coliform (#/~00 ml) NO3-N (mg/1) Kjeldahl-N (mg/1 Total P (mg/1) pH Turbidity (NTU) Suspended solids Conductivity (mhos/cm) 6 + 0 171 + 11 82 + 30 250 + 177 4+o 4+0 124 + 53 2611 261 2+2 3 x 103. 239. + 367 '94 x 103* 6.90 + 3.25 4.19 + 5.74 3.9 + 1.7 55.5 +_ 40.6 0.42 + 0.25 2.68 !' 1.17 0.3 7.4 _+ 0.1 5.25 + 3.35 95 _+ 66 O* 254* 160 + 42 343 + 4 Table 2. Comparison of septic water quality to laboratory' peat column leachate. Each figure represents a mean value + standard deviation. Those values indicated by an ~sterisk represent a single sample. RABBIT CREEK HEIGHTS SITE BEDROOM DWELLING septic tank- lift station disposal. trench P EAT MOUND 16' O' x4 Figure 1. Peat mound drainfield in relation to 4-bedroom dwelling and infiltration trench at Rabbit Creek Heights subdivision (Scale 1 in. = 20 ft.) BIRD SITE disposal trench PEAT MOUND 16'x 30' 3-BEDROOM DWELLING septic lift tank station N Figure 3. Peat mound drainfield in relation to 3-bedroom dwelling and infiltration trench at Bird Creek in Delak subdivision. (Scale in. = 20 ft.) A FIELD REPORT ON THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PEAT SYSTEMS IN ALASKA by Joan L. Brooks (Research Associate, Department of civil Engineering, university of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469 phone (207) 581-.2182 BACKGROUND At the request of Jewel Jones, Commissioner of Health and Social Services, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, I agreed to supervise the installation of two peat systems for on-site treatment of septic tank effluent. Ms. Jones, in a conference call, said that Mary Frohne would be her representative and that Mary would be the person I would have direct contact with on all aspects of the project. In conversations and a letter to Mary I requested the following: 1) sites were to be evaluated, soils mapped, and all per~its approved, and copies sent to me prior to my departure for Anchorage; 2) a licensed engineer would review, sign and seal my suggested design work; 3) adequate time.be provided to meet with the excavator or contractor and the licensing agency personnel prior to the beginning of construction; 4) and that I be provided with a sample of the peal to be used in the systems at least a month prior to my departure for Alaska (this sample was to be shipped overnight in a chilled and insulated container to enable me to evaluate the microbial population in the peat). I also suggested that I should give a seminar to the engineering community on my research and nine years of experience with peat systems. Mary Frohne assured me that there was.no problem with any of my requests and that they would be met. In return for my consultation on the peat'systems and a brief report on suggested testing and possible future ~esearch I.would receive a consulting fee and have all e~penses pai'd. A signed contract was to be in my hands prior to my departure from Maine and the fee would be given to me after the peat systems were in place and prior to my departure from Alaska. Mary asked if ! would be willing to stay at her home instead of a hotel in order to keep the costs of the project as low as possible. In return, Mary said she would see that I had the opportunity to see some of the sights in Alaska at no expense to myself, if I could stay for a week or two after the peat systems were installed. After a number of calls from Mary it became clear to me that there were conflicting opinions in Anchorage about the proposed project. The contract was delayed and I would receive it when I reached A~chorage. At the time of this writing I still have not received a contract, nor have I ever seen any of the.paperwork normally required for installation of an experimental on-site wastewater treatment system. I did receive a sample of the peat ~o be used in the 'stems and determined it w~ mainly r'eed-~edge peat anu not sphagnum peat as I ha~ used in the past. I was not able to run certain microbiological tests because the sample was not refigeratsd during its extended time in transit. After examining the peat samples I notified Mary that certain levels in the peat deposit appeared useable in the peat systems if prepared properly and explained what was needed as to texture and moisture content. SITE EXA/~INATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE PEAT SYSTEMS Upon my arrival in Anchorage I was met by Mary at the airport and taken directly to the office of Lee Reid whom I was given to understand has done the preliminary work on the sites selected for the project. We had a brief discussion on the sites but I must admit ! was not at my best due to the 13 hour flight and the time change. On Thursday morning Mary introduced me to the Nielsen Brothers who would be doing the excavation and actual construction of the systems. We then went to the field to view both sites. The one site is located at Rabbit Creek Heights and the other at Bird. When we reached each site Mary,tqld me where she felt the system should be located on the ~roperty. I'was not shown any paperwork on property lines, distances to'wells, elevations, etc. Mary. told me what these parameters were and asked how I wanted to design the systems. After viewing the two sites Mary took me to see the site where the peat was being excavated. This was the location of a subdivision which is now under the control of six banks. One of the bankers, Dean Cooke of the United Bank of Alaska, met us at the site for discussion about the peat and its suitability for this project. Bub Nelson of Nielsen Brothers was excavating peat for project use. I showed Bub how to recognize the type of peat which I fee! will work best here. I also pointed out what material to avoid using in any future systems. On Thursday evening I gave a seminar to a number of engineers from private and regulatory~sec~ors, the homeowners of one of the test sites, and several others, on my experiences with peat systems. A number of good questions were raised by the audience following my presentation. However, these same questions indicated there was a strong difference of opinion as to how this project was being handled, or should have been handled. I tried to make it clear that I am an impartial outsider in this issue and was only here to share what expertise I have concerning past experiences with peat~systems. Rabbit Creek Heights- Some peat was on site and had been prepared by breaking up the clumps, spreading and drying the wet peat, and removing the larger roots, and woody materials. This peat was stacked to the rear of the proposed peat field area in a windrow. A pile of broken brick, crushed block and broken bags of cement which had hardened was stockpiled at the Dite to be used f ~ the layer of sand.require underneath ~ne peat'in the syste~.. There was also a stockpi~_ of peat which had not been prepared as above but it could be used for the surround. This site is located directly on peat, between the right side of the house and a gravel road. On the far side of the road a ditch which is classified as a stream. This road intersects with the road which runs in front of the house. There are ditches on both sides of this road which are classified as streams. At present it appears that the current system is in a state of failure. I was told 'the owner is using a septic tank as a holding tank. I saw evidence of a ~igh ground water table, and that at some time the untreated septic tank effluent has daylighted on the property. Stakes were already in place on what was to have been the outside dimensions of the peat system. Because the water table is near the surface of the ground it was necessary to construct the system as a mound completely above ground. The existing slope of the site also made it somewhat difficult to construct. ~ was told this was a three bedroom home with a design requirement of 150 gal/bedroom, Because.the peat I have'used will effectively treat lgpd/sq.ft. I moved the stakes so that the bed would have a surface of 16 f~ X 30ft (480 sq.ft.). Mary wanted to discharge the treated effluent directly into the undisturbed peat below the bed-and had already placed some of the broken block within the bed area."Although subsurface disposal of the treated effluent directly under the peat field has been shown to be acceptable in M~ne, for this project it was more prudent to line the system ~nd include an underdrain with a sample port so that monitoring of the effluent may be accomplished in such a way that the results can be compared with my previous work. I also feel strongly that an underdrain design allows collection of a more representative sample of the treated effluent, and thus more accurate results may be obtained. Dan Roth and Steve Morris of th~ municipal On-Site Services Program were on site for the construction of both this and the system at Bird. Their presence was invaluable to me in that could consult with them immediately whenever I had any questions about local regulations concerning on-site systems. In addition to their advice, they also provided most of the manual labor during construction of the fields. If all of the proper paperwork had been completed beforehand as I had requested, and I had had the opportunity to spend time with the on-site services personnel and the excavator prior to construction, everything would have gone much more smoothly. It took much longer to construct the system than I feel is necessary. But under the circumstances I don't think anyone could have done it in less time. The excavator was more than cooperative and was also working under somewhat adverse conditions. During construction ~ learned the home was actually :'~ ' .rated for four b~ ~ooms instead of three. Fo ~nately the work had not progressea too far at that point and chere was ample room to extend the end of the field to 40 feet, making the area 640 sq.ft. The system was constructed on top of the existing peat with no undue disturbance of the surface vegetation. A liner of visqueen was placed on the surface and the sides were built up to hold this liner in place. The liner extends approximately two feet up the sides and ends of the system. A layer of broken block was then placed on the liner and hand-picked to remove large pieces of brick and block. The underdrain (4in. perforated pipe) was bedded in the broken block and extended through the membrane with solid pipe. A sample well was constructed by placing a X connection in the solid pipe, capping the bottom, and extending the top above ground where it was covered with a removable cap. Approximately three feet of prepared peat was added above the porous material and then ditched.to receive the rock and distribution pipes. As each line was dug out rock was placed on the bottom to a depth of about 3 in. and perforated pipe was placed on the rock and leveled. Additional rock was added to the depth of the pipe before the top 18'in. of peat was put in place. The distribution network consisted of six 4 in. diameter perforated pipes, each 26 ft. long and interconnected with solid pipe at each end. Pipes were lain 2.5 ft. on center with approximately 2 ft. between the outer pipes and the limits of the peat. Additional peat was added for the surround. Work stopped at the end of a rather long day on Friday, July 10, 1987, with half of the distribution pipes in place at Rabbit Creek Heights. On Saturday morning the entire crew returned to finish putting in the'distribution pipes and adding the top 18 inches of peat to the system. The peat system was then complete with the exception of some grading of the surround. Other work which.remained included adding more perforated pipe beyond the sample well for final disposal of treated effluent into the.existing ditch behind the house, · covering this pipe with rock, installation of a new two chamber septic tank which will include a lift station, installation of the pipe from the lift station to the dlstrlbutl n network in the peat field, and setting the 'pump to dose the system with a maximum of 0.5 gal/linear foot of perforated pipe within the field. The owner is having a new well installed which will be located more than 100 ft. from the treatment field. The owner said the existing ditxh behind the house will eventually be filled in. I advised her to extend the perforated discharge pipe in this ditch for at least 100 feet if possible before it surfaces to ground level, and to bed the pipe in rock. It was at this point that the entire crew moved down to Bird to begin the process once more. '~"Bird site--When M~ ' and I visited this site ~ Thursday she snowed me where sh~ expected to put the field. £ had some concerns as to what would, really be the best spot for the system. The test pit was located outside of the proposed field area. A utilities pole with underground connections to the house and across the street to another house was located in the center of the lot. There is a 20 foot right of way from the road according to Mary. Also there is a steep slope at the left side of the property. Mary showed me the location of property lines and the well. We measured the distance from the well and discussed the location of the treatment field further. There was a very large tree located just at the edge of the 100 foot separation distance from the well and even though the owner had volunteered to take it down I hoped we could save it if at all possible. Mary also indicated that the owner wished to keep the driveway in its present location. I observed an uncovered septic tank with dirty water surfacing around it and then flowing off in a ditch to the side of the property. I was told this was only gray water. Mary did not know where the existing treatment field was located, but thought it was directly between the tank and the road, but did not know how it was constructed. On this site I had been told the soils were such that a larger area was required per bedroom and I laid out a tentative area for the field to the left of the utilities pole. When the decision was made to line this system, it was possible to decrease the field size to 16 ft X 30 ft. as this was a three bedroom house. With a ground water table located at 5.5 ft it was possible to put at least part of this system within the ground and still maintain a 4 ft separation from the bottom of the field. Prior to my arrival the ~wner had taken a week of his vacation time to prepare 'the peat which was stocked on 'site. He had spread it out all over his front ~ard to dry,.broken it up, and removed all woody materials. When Bub Ne~lson arrived at the site he had a much better idea of what was going to happen and was able to stack the prepared peat where it would be available easily during the actual construction. Once again because Dan and Steve'were on site I was able to consult with them on the best location for the system. The owner was most cooperative and said there was no problem with moving his driveway, or anything else we wanted to do. He also volunteered to assist in any way he cDuld during construction on Saturday. However he would not be able to be with us during the week as he works on the North Slope. A_n excavation was made between the utilities' pole and the existing drive. This was then lined with Visqueen. An 8 inch layer of sand was placed over the membrane and the 4 inch perforated underdrain was then bedded in this sand. Two and a half'feet of pe~ were added above the sand ~fore work stopped for the day. Be~ure Bub left the site he co~=red the stockpile of prepared peat with plastic. The peat field was also covered with plastic to protect it from rain until Monday when work would resume. On Monday the crew again assembled and the distribution pipes were bedded in rock and covered with an additional 18 in. of peat. A sample well was placed in the underdrain pipe about one foot from the liner. When the soils were being excavated from the area for the peat system a large vein of sand was observed at approximately the two foot level. Oral history of the site indicated there had been a ridge which ran along this property line and it was possible this sand would be adequate for the acceptance of the treated effluent from the field. A decision was made to discharge this effluent into a 7 ft wide trench which ran parallel to the property line and perpendicular to the treatment field. Two 4 in perforated piped were placed 4 feet on center with 1.5 ft from pipe to side walls. These pipes were placed over 6 in of rock,~ covered with 6 in of rock and then Typar before being backfilled with spoils. A test well was also installed to m0nito~ the level of the ground water. This also allowed Dan and Steve to do another soil profile adjacent to the trench. When we finished at the end of the day the treatment field and the disposal trench were complete and a 500 gal lift station had been delivered. Bub Neilson was to return on Tuesday to install the lift station, connect the feed line to the distribution network, cut the driveway, and do the finish grading. This system went in easier than the first for several reasons: the excavator was able to place materials where he wanted them, sand was used under the peat unstead of material used in the previous field (required much'less time and labor to put in place), part of the system was in ground which made it easier to line and build side walls, and there was a better understanding of the process as a whole. RECOM/~ENDATIONS Thermocouples should be placed in both fields a minimum of four depths below the surface: just above the distribution pipes, just below the distribution pipes, o~e foot below the distribution pipes, and two feet below the distribution pipes at the sand/peat interface. If funding is available, useful information could be obtained by placing thermocouples in mineral soils about 20 feet from the peat field at the same depths from the surface as above. .I would strongly ecommend that samples be c 'lected of both influent to, and ~ffluent from, each of the _~o peat systems once each month for a full year. Tests should include suspended solids, BOD5, pH, fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen (DO), and nitrate nitrogen. Temperature of influent and effluent should be recorded i~mediately prior to sample collection. A sample of each month's effluent should be retained for visual comparison of the color change over time. In addition to the above, I recommend that all samples be collected by an independent contractor. Sample wells must be evacuated within 12 hours prior to sample collection to remove any material trapped in the wells which could contribute to erroneous results. Testing of the samples should follow Standard Methods. At the end of a full year of testing an evaluation will have to be made as to whether to continue the tests or not. I should point out that my experience has been the peat systems tend to improve with age and I would not be concerned if the first month or two the effluent did not meet the standards for BOD5 or suspended solids. If the local peat proves acceptable, and f~nding is available, I would recommend installing at least two systems without liners. These would have to be sized according to code and could be tested by placing a series of slotted and wrapped pipes below 'the peat and outside the limits of the field on the downslope side. Future systems must go through the permitting process prior to construction. Having the proper paperwork in hand would make it easier for the excavator to do his job. It would also eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of anyone from agency to owner about what is required or e×Dected and exactly where individual respons'ibili~ies lie. SUMMARY Two experimental on-site peat systems have been installed and a testing regime ~has been recommended. Both systems have lift stations.and are lined with an underdrain and contain a sample well. Influent to the systems may be collected from the septic tanks or the lift stations. Final disposal of treated effluent is subsurface in rock filled trenches. Recommended tests include BOD5, DO, TSS, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Fecal coliforms, and pH. Temperatur~ of influent and effluent should be monitored. Thermocouples should be placed at various depths within the peat system to monitor temperature. If possible a duplicate set of thermocouples should be placed in mineral soil approximately 20 feet from the peat system. The systems took longer to construct than expected. The major reason was the lack of written plans and the fact that many '"~decisions had to ~ made in the field during ~nstruction. Many delays could' have ~een avoided had I received jopies of site evaluations, plans, and permits as agreed upon. The Nielsen Brothers are to be commended for their excellent work under what,I am sure, were sometimes trying conditions'. The lack of documentation and my unfamiliarity with the municipal codes would have made it virtually impossible for me to make competent on-site decisions, had it not been for the assistance of Dan Roth and Steve Morris of the Municipal On-Site services Program. Their assistance was invaluable to me and to the success of the project and I appreciate the fact that their superiors allowed them to spend several days with me in the field, especially on such short notice. with any experimental system it is absolutely necessary that fUll communication, backed up by written documentation, be maintained with all parties involved from the beginning of the project. I cannot stress too strongly that proper procedure be followed in the future. In conclusion may I say that this has been a very interesting experience. I expect the peat systems to function adequately. I request that a copy of all the paperwork and the as-builts be sent to me as they become available. ALASKA eF,v,iROFIF[leFITAL COFITROL S BL IFIC. ~nqin~erin§ 6 ~nuironmen~d S~u&~s co~:bii:atZou of pnysi<::a: mr, asu:'eme::ts, review:::S of so:]s :o:~:' tire Frohne, Dub X,?ilse:: (the excavator), the Nunicipa]ity of h:'t<horage engineers !::['o:'::atJe:: obtained is as good as one can expect fro:: a g:'ou:. Ia$: satin:lied it is: realJ?t]c. The mn::i:d :is wi:hin !0 feet of the south lot trine. It :s wfth:n fO0 fee: of the road ditch on Robert Drive. The bed is set 2 feet above groundwat:er as recorded on the soils test. The bottom is plastic lined. The m,::und eysl:e~ is 44 feet from the stream but it is 2 feet below the stpea!l:. There is no danger of ill:' sysle:, i,':::'e:' g(:~[ng i:~to the stream. A fecal coliform test of :!re cU':ck wal:er on J:'.:y 2, :988, was i:egative. :?,e F-. ..... an, the svsten: on the lot line set. back ,.-',' ' ¥ t affe,'.'t any futu:'e de::e'_.opev.:en: to the south as the:?e is a 60 foot pot. d maser;fen'. The o,,'era]: area'of the bed system is sn:::]ler than the attacbe<: Inspeel'or",; repots silm:s'. Tile overf!o:< of the peat o:: the lot line bas boo:: removed. 0:: Lire seco:friary absorption area there is <' 40 foot seciion of aol::d p!pe the bed before it becomes an absorption ayes. Tile system heEl'.rs a: 85 fca north and ~:' significantly lower thai: the Robert Drive ditch. There was al: old ditch cut through tho peat in which the secnndarT a~ea was built. Surrounding peat areas are 4 O fe,t deep. The ditch was filled with I--l.'2 to 2 feet of broken concrete block and sand. On top of this. tho excavator placed 2 feet of sewer rock and then the 4 inch perforated pipe. More rock was pl,:ced over it. The width was 6 feet. The pressure line from t}lp lift pump was placed ir. the edge of the d5tch system. The effective area of this system would b~ a'.:alugous to a 5 foot wide trench with 2 foot of rook. Peat appea::'s to b~ as po:ous as sand, or 150 sqaare feet per bech'oom. The secolldary 1200 UJesl 33rd Auenu¢, Suite B · Anch0roqe, Alasko e95o3 · (907) 276-1361 Tile absorption area for the syste~:: ]s not level. It dm-~-', not appea~' that this is no evidence of tim pipes fl~ollt the bed b~c ..... ~=, ui' ' appears .. -,, . . a foundation drai -;, ~*~. u~.~,x easemen[ at the north There !~ an cu~fa!] ~ ' 'n lot line. This founcat:cn drair: is so:~d [jpo from the hnuse to the dj' '~' 'there is !it:tlc water coming out of the p~pe. The owrmr of the prope~tb' go!n=,o' to f~i ....... o~m:' the outfal! j,,~ to ~v'e':~' .... ~,~zi,.o..~,, From the Jnformatlon obtained it: appears tha; the st, stem as J~:sta]!ed has some .-~' of Anchorrt2-e Coc~ t,, n:~ variances from the requirements of the hun:c~,~ity - .... bazar6. I therefore request that the following be !. Tile mound distance front tile lot lin~~ be wa.iw'd to 2 feet. 2. The secondary absorption area to be apltroved a'~' it exists. 3. The distance from the road ditch to the system be approved at 43 feet and the absorption system at 85 feet. 4. A permit numbe~ be assigned to this system aud entered in the appropriate place on the as DL~J!t. If you have any questJoI~s, please ]et me know. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Environmental Health Division 825 "L" StreeL Anchorage, Alaska 99502, Telephone 264-4720 ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND/OR WELL INSPECTION REPORT N~me DISTANCES Phonets} Perm,, No No o, ...,oom. WELL Lot Block JSubd~v, ,o / / / Township, Range, Sechon AS-BUtLT DIAGRAM tShow location of well. sephC sys[em', prope~y hnes, Ioundahon, -- ~//A' ~ 3 ~ 5 / dnveway, waterbod,es, etc) TANK8 U TYPE OF SYSTEM Depth to pipe bottom from Total deplh from odgmal grade Gravel length ~0 ET /~ Total absorphon area ~ )islance betwee~ lines ~¢ /, ¢ . instatler Date Installed ~ PRIVATE ~ OTHER (Identifv~ Classlhca[ion (A,B,G) Tote Depth [ Cased to ~le: [f¢ -- ENGINEER'S SEA~ Dale , / I / / Municipality of Anchorage DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 825 "L" Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99502-0650 SOILS LOG -- PERCOLATION TEST PERFORMED FOR: ,,,[~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION:_/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DATE PERFORMED: ~-~.~,'/~r-e~- .a~'~,,~-- Township, Range, Section: 7'~//L/ ,~: ...~,~ E / SLOPE SITE PLAN i WAS GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED? /~¢ 5. S L IF YES, AT WHAT Depth to Waler A(te~ ', o ~ Monitorino? '¢' ..% Da~e:. Gross Net Reading Date Time Time Depth to Net Water Drop 17 18 19- 20 PERCOLATION RATE (minutes/inch) PERC HOLE DIAMETER COMMENTS PERFORMED BY: ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE AND MUNICIPAL GUIDELINES IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE DATE 72-008 (Rev. 4/85) 'rEST RUN BETWEEN -- FT AND FT ~ /, I~.~ C~ CERTIFY THAT THIS TEST WAS PERFORMED IN . ALASKA ,~n~. ~N¥IBONMENTAL CONTag/~ 1200 %I~ST 81~HD A¥1~NUI~, ~UIT~ B SUPPLEMENTAL SOILS INFORMAl'ION 7-)I 1 1 2 2 3 pc z.""/ 3 4 ~. (~'/-) , ~'~+ ' 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~. 20- 13 14 15 16 17- 18 19 20 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20