Report - 6/22/2010
FACTOIDS, QUESTIONS, MUSINGS
On the care and keeping of
your septic system.
Some do’s
and don’ts:
·
If you can avoid it, don’t use your
garbage disposer.
Organic solids, i.e. food waste, stop the enzyme action in the tank
and are very bad for the long term functioning of the system.
Just pretend you don’t have one.
Do as our mothers and grandmothers did - drain off liquid
waste and bag the rest for garbage pickup.
·
Don’t pour melted fats such as
butter, shortening, and meat fats such as bacon grease or broiler
drippings down the drain.
Any fat that is solid when cold and liquid when warm is a
no-no. Wipe grease off
pans with a paper towel, or pour grease into a paper cup and
refrigerate until solid and then dispose of it in the trash.
·
Dawn liquid is your best friend.
It’s what rescue teams are using to dissolve and remove oil
sludge from the birds and turtles.
For hand washing pots and pans, Dawn will help dissolve and
break up fats and oils and help prolong drain field life.
These fat and oil deposits are the primary reasons drain
fields become clogged and fail.
(We do not receive any compensation for this recommendation!)
·
Dumping buckets full of
anti-bacterial cleaning solutions down the house drain kills the
bacterial action in the septic system that dissolves solids.
Dump the bucket instead onto the driveway or on top of a
brick walkway, or stone path and let it evaporate.
The bonus is no weeds and cleaner concrete, not likely to
grow algae.
·
The natural flow of rainwater runoff
and water from gutter downspouts should be directed away from or
around the drain field.
Excessive water sinking from the surface into the drain field will
interfere with its functionality.
SB550: Statement of Legislative Intent
Cautions EPA against “one size fits all” Nutrient Water Quality
Standards. (Lines
4432-4478)
In the interests of keeping the heavy hand of the
EPA from setting and enforcing rules that are unnecessary and
damaging rather than helpful, SB550 makes the following statements:
·
“The
establishment of numeric nutrient criteria in a manner that fails to
take into account site-specific factors may result in criteria that
lack adequate scientific support and cause unintended environmental
and economic consequences.”
Editor’s Note:
This was the same argument we used trying to convince our agencies
that a “one size fits all” performance based treatment system (PBTS)
remedy promoted in ’09 was inadequately supported by appropriate
science and would cause unnecessary economic consequences.
·
“The
total maximum daily load program is the best mechanism for
establishing numeric nutrient standards for nutrient-impaired
waterbodies and restoring nutrient-impaired waterbodies.”
Editor’s Note: Maybe.
The Department of Environmental Protection/Basin Management
Action process used a pristine spring in an uninhabited area of the
Ocala National Forest as the benchmark to declare that the Wekiva
Spring was “impaired.”
Last
year, a FDEP/Basin Management (BMAP) representative stated that the
“difficulty is not in the identification, but in quantification
of nitrate load from the various nitrate sources in the spring shed.”
How do you justify setting nitrate reduction targets for a
specific source if the base number is in question?
As an
example: The BMAP pie
chart allocates a 3% nitrate contribution for atmospheric
deposition. Other
highly respected sources state the number BMAP is using may be
underestimated by as much as a factor of 2, and it may be higher
than that. (Hazen
& Sawyer, Memorandum, May 23, 2007) The same BMAP representative
said their goal is to “achieve a balance between what is known (the
various sources), and what is less well known (the precise % of
nitrate load contributed by each source.) “
If this is the best we can do is strive for a “close enough”
balance, and there is 3% to play with, we vote for taking another 3%
away from the septic number. That
would leave the septic contribution at near zero.
·
“The
(EPA’s)January 2010 proposed water quality standards fail to
incorporate, and may undermine, the state’s science-based total
maximum daily loads program....and, will have severe economic
consequences on the state’s agriculture, local governments,
wastewater utilities, ……small businesses and residents living below
the poverty level or on fixed incomes.’
Editor’s note:
That argument about the severe
economic consequences is a valid one. We said that loud and clear to
our state agencies when they pushed for performance based septic
systems, and have voiced similar concerns to FDEP at the BMAP
meetings. For the most
part, our similar argument fell on deaf ears.
Had it not been for our legislators, the taxpayers of this
state would have gone down for the count.
We hope the FDEP has better luck with the EPA than we did
with that rationale. By
the way, FDEP, the severe economic consequences fall on those above
poverty level too, as increased tax burdens coming from all levels
of government increase on businesses and residents.
As for the science argument, we have watched this process
enough to know, EPA,
FDEP, and DOH have more energy invested in advancing an
agenda than they do in making sure the logic and the science is
sound.
PLANT A TREE!!!!
From
the website
www.allnativeflora.com.
“Trees absorb many nutrients from the environment, including
nitrogen from storm water.
Each tree in an urban area can capture up to 10 lbs of
pollutants per year, including nitrogen dioxide, sulfer dioxide,
carbon monoxide, ozone and other particulates.
It can lower city temperatures up to 20 degrees F, and may
reduce energy bills by up to 25% by the time a tree reaches 25 years
of age.”
FACTOID:
According to the Department of Health, the average per capita
septic contribution of nitrogen is 10 pounds. For every 10 pounds of
nitrogen removed by performance based systems, 8 pounds of nitrogen
is released into the atmosphere by the electric company producing
enough energy to run the system. Atmospheric
nitrogen is re-deposited to waterways by precipitation and
lightning. Net gain - 2 pounds.
Or, the homeowner could use one less bag of fertilizer per
year and achieve the same nitrogen reduction. Or, plant a tree.