Inspections of existing subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are vital components of the SSTS industry and help protect the environment and human health. An inspector’s “compliant/noncompliant” designation is relied on by local government units (LGUs), SSTS professionals, realtors, property owners, and prospective property owners. Due to the reliance on inspection results, it is beneficial for all SSTS professionals to be reminded of the difference between a noncompliant SSTS and an SSTS with concerns. First, a reminder of the three categories of noncompliance identified in rule.
1. Imminent threat to public health and safety
Minn. R. 7080.1500 Subp. 4(A) identifies what an imminent threat to public health and safety is in the following excerpt:
“At a minimum, a system that is an imminent threat to public health or safety is a system with a discharge of sewage or sewage effluent to the ground surface, drainage systems, ditches, or storm water drains or directly to surface water; systems that cause a reoccurring sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment; systems with electrical hazards; or sewage tanks with unsecured, damaged, or weak maintenance hole covers. A determination of protectiveness for other conditions must be made by a qualified employee inspector or licensed inspection business.”
If what is discovered during the inspection of an existing SSTS is not identified in the description above, the SSTS is not an imminent threat to public health and safety.
2. Failure to protect groundwater
The next category of noncompliance is “failure to protect groundwater" described in Subp. 4(B). In short, it indicates that an SSTS is noncompliant due to failure to protect groundwater if one or more of the following conditions are present:
- The drainfield lacks the required amount of vertical separation
- A tank leaks below the operating depth
- The SSTS uses a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, leaching pit, or other pit
- The SSTS was not abandoned in accordance with R. 7080.2500.
If what is discovered during the inspection of an existing SSTS is not one of the four items mentioned above, the SSTS is not a failure to protect groundwater unless an inspector feels the issue qualifies under the following provision from Subp. 4(B):
“A determination of the threat to groundwater quality for other conditions must be made by a qualified employee or licensed inspection business.”
3. Operating permit compliance
Minn. R. 7080.1500 Subp. 4(C) states:
“The ISTS must be operated, meet performance standards, and be managed according to its operating permit.”
Therefore, an SSTS that is not operated according to its operating permit is considered to be noncompliant. It is important to note that operating permits are unique and that the requirements contained in an operating permit will likely exceed the compliance criteria for the first two categories of SSTS noncompliance outlined above.
SSTS with concerns
The MPCA often hears questions surrounding other circumstances discovered by inspectors while performing inspections. It is important to note that while some circumstances may not be ideal, rule and statute do not allow the inspector to issue a notice of noncompliance for circumstances that are not identified in Minn. R. 7080.1500 Subp. 4 unless the circumstances have caused other conditions to exist that fall within the three categories of noncompliance identified in the rule.
The following list contains examples of concerns that an inspector may find while inspecting an existing SSTS:
- The baffles are broken and/or missing
- A pump, float, or alarm has failed or there is no alarm
- The maintenance hole is not above the surface
- The tank has inadequate insulation
- The tank leaks above the operating depth
- There is an item (i.e. decks, sidewalks, etc.) on top of the tank or drainfield
- The tank or drainfield are buried “too deep”
- The tank or drainfield does not meet all required setbacks (i.e. too close to wells, property lines, etc.)
- There are no cleanouts/inspection pipes or the cleanouts/inspection pipes are broken
- The drainfield has an inadequate amount of topsoil cover
- Part of the vertical separation zone has soil containing 35-50% rock fragments
- The existing SSTS is undersized for the dwelling it serves (i.e. a 3 bedroom dwelling with a 2 bedroom SSTS)
These concerns should not be ignored; however, as standalone concerns, these items are not sufficient reasons to designate an existing SSTS as noncompliant during an inspection. This is because compliance criteria are established in rule and statute and cannot be amended by local ordinances or inspectors. To that end, we sometimes hear of LGU ordinances requiring additional tasks to be performed at the time of a compliance inspection. For example, an LGU ordinance may require the maintenance hole to be extended above the surface with a riser at the time of a compliance inspection. This is allowed to be in an ordinance. It has no bearing on the official compliance status of the SSTS based on state rule. Failing to add the riser would be a violation of the ordinance that the LGU would need to pursue.
If an inspector observes one or more of the concerns listed above they should investigate the SSTS further to determine if the concern has caused a rule-defined noncompliance condition. For example, if an inspector finds a pump is broken, the inspector needs to determine if the broken pump has caused or allowed sewage to back-up inside the dwelling or to come to the surface of the ground. If it has, the SSTS is an imminent threat to public health and safety.
Record concerns
While an inspector must determine the compliance status of an existing SSTS based on the three noncompliant categories in this article, the MPCA also encourages inspectors to note any concerns or otherwise important facts about the SSTS on their inspection report even if the observations do not meet the criteria for issuing a notice of noncompliance.
For example, if an inspector finds that an existing SSTS has ponding effluent in two of the three trenches, it is highly recommended that the inspector notes this in the report and explains the significance for the homeowner. While this is not required when issuing a certificate of compliance or a notice of noncompliance, it helps those relying on the inspection results to make informed decisions. Furthermore, noting observed concerns on the inspection report enhances the credibility of the inspector and the SSTS industry.
Questions on differentiating between compliance criteria and concerns should be directed to MPCA compliance and enforcement staff.
|
