As previously stated, the high degree of failure of OSDS necessitates that systems be inspected regularly. This can be accomplished in several ways. Homeowners can serve as monitors if they are educated on how to inspect their own systems. Brochures can be made available to instruct individuals on how to inspect their systems and the steps they need to take if they determine that their OSDS is not functioning properly. Trained inspectors, such as those in Maine, also can aid in identifying failing systems.

State or local officials should also develop a program for regular inspection. By using utilities and wastewater management programs or agencies, the costs can be kept minimal. At a minimum, systems should be inspected when the ownership of a property is changed. If, prior to the transfer of ownership, the system is found to be deficient, corrective action should be taken. States and localities can also indirectly assess whether OSDS are failing through surface water and ground-water monitoring. If indicator pollutants (e.g., pathogens) are found during the course of monitoring, nearby OSDS should be inspected to determine whether they are the primary source of the indicators. USEPA (1991) has presented a method for tracing effluent from failing septic systems. This method could be followed as part of an indirect inspection program to locate failing systems.

OSDS are not maintenance-free systems. Huang (1983) stated that half of OSDS failures are due to poor operation and maintenance. Most septic tanks are designed so that wastewater is held for 24 hours to allow removal of solids, greases, and fats. Up to 50 percent of the solids retained in the tank decompose naturally by bacterial and chemical action (Mancl and Magette, 1991). However, during normal use, sludge accumulates on the bottom of the tank, leaving less time for the solids in the influent to settle. When little or no settling occurs, the solids move directly to the soil absorption system and may clog (Mancl and Magette, 1991). Consequently, periodic removal of the solids from the tank is necessary to protect the soil absorption system.

Management options for OSDS maintenance include (NSFCH, 1989):

• Maintenance via contract;
• Operating permits;
• Private management systems; and
• Local ordinances/utility management.

• Capacity of the tank;
• Flow of wastewater (based on family size); and
• Volume of solids in the wastewater (more solids are produced if a garbage disposal is used).

Table 4-24 shows an estimate of how often a septic tank should be pumped based on tank and household size. The Arlington County, Virginia, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance requires that all septic tanks be pumped at least once every 5 years.

Alternative OSDS may have maintenance requirements in addition to septic tank pumping. These maintenance requirements are discussed in the descriptions of the systems presented in Management Measure V.A.

Improperly functioning systems are usually the result of failure of the soil absorption field. Several practices are available to retrofit these failing systems so that they operate properly. The most common reason for failure of the absorption field is hydraulic overload. Jarrett and others (1985) and other researchers have had good success in retrofitting failing systems by combining the construction of backup soil absorption fields with water conservation measures. A backup absorption system is constructed so that water can be diverted from the primary absorption system. The primary system is rested, and in many cases biological activity will unclog the system and aerobic conditions will be restored in the soil. Scheduling is then done to alternate the use of the primary and backup systems (e.g., use of each system 6 months of the year), so that systems in marginally permeable soils can continue to operate properly. Garbage disposals should be eliminated, and low-volume plumbing fixtures should be installed in cases where the absorption field has failed in order to reduce total pollutant and water loads to the field. (Refer to discussion in Management Measure V.A.)

In some cases, either because of improper siting (e.g., inadequate separation distance, proximity to surface water, poor soil conditions, or lack of land available for a backup absorption system) or the inadequacy of conventional OSDS to remove pollutants of concern, the above retrofit practice may not be feasible. In these cases, alternative OSDS, constructed wetlands, filters, or holding tanks may be necessary to adequately protect surface waters or ground water. Descriptions of these systems and their respective effectiveness and cost are provided in Management Meausre V.A.

As stated previously, even properly functioning conventional OSDS are not effective at removing nitrogen. In areas where nitrogen is a problem pollutant, existing conventional systems should be retrofitted to denitrification OSDS to provide adequate nitrogen removal. Several systems such as sand filters and constructed wetlands have been shown to remove over 50 percent of the total nitrogen from septic tank effluent (see Table 4-21 (31k)). Descriptions of these types of systems and their effectiveness and cost are presented in Management Measure V.A.

Conventional OSDS are usually very effective at removing phosphorus. However, certain soil conditions, combined with close proximity to sensitive surface waters, can result in phosphorus pollution problems from OSDS. In such cases the use of detergents containing phosphates may need to be discouraged or banned. Low-phosphate detergents are commercially available from a variety of manufacturers with negligible increases in cost. Eliminating phosphates from detergent can reduce phosphorus loads to OSDS by 40 to 50 percent (USEPA, 1980).

As presented in Table 4-22, eliminating the use of garbage disposals can significantly reduce the loading of suspended solids and BOD to OSDS. Total nitrogen and phosphorus loads may also be slightly reduced because of decreased loadings of vegetative matter and foodstuffs. Eliminating garbage disposals can also reduce the buildup of solids in the septic tank and reduce the frequency of pumping required. Reduction of the solids also provides added protection against clogging of the soil absorption system.

Organic solvents used as septic system cleaners are frequently linked to pollution from septic systems. Many brands of septic system cleaning solvents are currently on the market. Makers of these solvents, which often contain halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons, advertise that they reduce odors, clean, unclog, and generally enhance septic system operations. Manufacturers also advertise that cleaning solvents provide an alternative to periodic pumping of septage from septic tanks. However, there is little evidence indicating that these cleaners perform any of the advertised functions. In fact, their use may actually hinder effective septic system operation by destroying useful bacteria that aid in the degradation of waste, resulting in disrupted treatment activity and the discharge of contaminants.

In addition, since the organic chemicals in the solvents are highly mobile in the soils and toxic (some are suspected carcinogens), they can easily contaminate ground water and surface waters and threaten public health. Research on the common septic system cleaner constituents (methylene chloride (MC) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which are listed on EPA's priority pollutant list and for which EPA's Office of Drinking Water has issued health advisories) has shown that application rates recommended by the manufacturer have resulted in high MC and moderate TCA discharges to ground water.

This issue is discussed further in the pollution prevention section.

This practice is discussed in the pollution prevention section (Section VI).