Part one in a multipart series
Morgantown, W.V., April 9, 2002 -- A recent issue of Pipeline magazine featured facts about gravelless and chamber soil absorption systems.
These highlights are being reproduced in a series of articles that explains how these systems differ from conventional drainfields and their advantages and disadvantages.
Because they are simple, stable and inexpensive, subsurface soil absorption fields (also called drainfields or leach-fields) usually are considered to be the best method for treating and dispersing effluent from septic tanks and other onsite wastewater treatment systems.
Residents and health officials in small communities and rural areas are familiar with conventional septic tank/drainfield systems, their advantages and their limitations.
One limitation of conventional onsite systems and a reason some potential homesites fail to qualify for onsite wastewater permits, is the quantity and quality of land needed for the drainfield. Depending upon the drainage patterns, soil characteristics and topography of the lot, homesites sometimes lack enough suitable land for installing conventional drain filed beds or trenches.
Property owners facing land limitations may hear claims that certain alternative drainfields require less land to provide the same level of treatment as do conventional systems. While it is true that gravelless and chamber systems have advantages and can perform at least as well as conventional drainfields, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several state health agencies stop short of endorsing land area reductions for these systems. This is due to a lack of scientific evidence that less land is needed with these systems under specific site conditions.
Pipeline magazine is published by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, Tel: 800-624-8301.
Coming up next in series: Conventional Gravel-Filled Drainfields.
