My interest in the article focused on the service interval they were saying is necessary to keep these types of systems operation because, according to the service provider:
"If these systems are not properly maintained, they could release raw sewage, which is known to spread disease."
Apparently it is necessary for the service provider to visit the system several times per year to keep it from releasing its load of raw sewage. The article goes on to say:
"Getting people to understand the importance of maintaining their septic system. Aeration systems need consistent maintenance. On average, homeowners need to service their systems two times a year. Serving the motor in your septic system is just as important as servicing your car. The motor will last longer without expensive repairs."
To be clear, I am not faulting the service provider. They obviously an provide an important service to the people that have these systems. I was, however, amused by their candor regarding the necessity of the service requirements because the potential for surfacing raw sewage sure doesn't sound like a very powerful selling point making me want to run out and spend $12,000 for one of these things.
As I read the article I compared Eliminite system service requirements to the service requirements being discussed for the aerobic systems.
First, an Eliminite system rarely needs "service." State regulations generally require advanced onsite systems receive periodic maintenance visits based on a model developed by NSF, at minimum, two visits per year for the first two years and annual visits thereafter.
In Montana, ATU's are required by the State DEQ to recieve twice the number of O&M visits required for Eliminite technology. If an ATU is installed in Montana, the State DEQ requires four visits per year for the first two years and 2 visits per year thereafter.
First, an Eliminite system rarely needs "service." State regulations generally require advanced onsite systems receive periodic maintenance visits based on a model developed by NSF, at minimum, two visits per year for the first two years and annual visits thereafter.
In Montana, ATU's are required by the State DEQ to recieve twice the number of O&M visits required for Eliminite technology. If an ATU is installed in Montana, the State DEQ requires four visits per year for the first two years and 2 visits per year thereafter.
Eliminite systems receive an inspection and inspections are quite a bit different from service. If the effluent pump, for example, has reached the end of its long life, it is simply replaced with a new effluent pump. Inspections generally involve looking the system over, reading the dose counters in the control panel, taking a wastewater sample for lab analysis and cleaning the effluent filter. The whole operation takes about 30 minutes and is a "clean" operation (No tyvek suits).
The idea that if the ATU septic system will release raw sewage if it is not serviced regularly should send owners and regulators running from these things. Aerobic Treatment Units usually are built in a single tank. The building sewer dumps its entire load into this tank and the air blower forces air into the sewage. If the air blower fails or if the volume of air is insufficient to stabilize the sewage or if someone in the house uses some anti-bacterial soap, or does an additional load of laundry, or if the weather is cold or if the owners horoscope said it was going to be a bad day, the ATU stops working. When this happens, whatever comes in goes straight out. And it is not uncommon to see ATU's permitted with a surface water(river, stream, creek) discharge.
In an Eliminite this condition simply cannot exist. If the recirculation pump experiences a malfunction, the control panel activates an alarm. If the problem is not corrected, the system will not allow any further discharge of wastewater. The system provides several days of storage giving the service provider time to get to the site and correct the problem. Additionally, the wastewater enters the Eliminite after having been partially treated through a septic tank. So in the worst case scenario, the system would function as a normal septic tank and drainfield.
Most of the ATU manufacturers do not require that a septic tank precede the aeration tank. This means that, in order to sell these things cheap, they omit the single most reliable component of any onsite system, the septic tank.
Owners of onsite wastewater treatment systems generally do not enjoy paying for service visits. If you look at the cost of ATU's in, for example, Maryland, where the prices for "Best Available Technology" are listed on the department of environment website, it's not difficult to understand why owners don't want to continue to keep pouring money into their septic sytstem.
We have had some systems where for whatever reason the service contract was not renewed. It was good to find that after almost five years of no visits, the system serving two homes was still functioning (It hadn't caused an Ebola outbreak) and the sample showed a total nitrogen concentration of under 10 mg/L. ATU's could not meet this standard if the president of the company built his house over the thing with it exposed in his living room and fed it a hormone-free vegan diet of alfalfa sprouts and tofu.
When we developed Eliminite in the 1990's there were no requirements for maintenance contracts in the state. (These came later on at the prompting of manufacturers of other systems because they knew that in order for their system to have a prayer of operating, there were going to have to be governmental regulations in place forcing owners into a service contract. In fact I heard recently that one of the manufacturers that sells systems in Montana routinely turns homeowners into the state enforcement department if they don't renew their service contract. How is that for service after the sale?!) We decided to develop a reliable system who's operation did not depend on the services of a full time septic nanny. We have data showing systems operating for years without service that once they were visited and checked were still were operating correctly and removing 75%+ of the total nitrogen load to the system. This is what I mean by reliability.
I think the reason manufacturers and service providers advocate unreliable systems is because they reap the monetary benefit of a perpetual maintenance contract. This idea is not unlike the concept of planned obsolescence. Think about it, the cell phone company will give you the phone if you sign the contract. For the ATU's however, the owner gets to pay dearly for the contraption while the state holds the threat of hard time in a septic gulag over their heads if they don't agree to a perpetual maintenance contract. What a business model.
I mentioned the Peoples Republic of Maryland earlier. They are having quite a time with their onsite program right now. Their governor has decreed that onsite system are the scourge of the planet and must be stamped out at all costs. Maryland's department of the environment has identified, on pretty scant data, a set of systems designated as Best Available Technology (BAT). They should seriously consider dropping the "Best"because these systems are merely, "Available Technology." We participated in two studies (government run, third party, long term) with a system Maryland claims is "Best" and in both studies, the manufacturer of that system pulled their "Best" system out because it was failing so miserably. These systems were the recipient of special favors award in Maryland because the state gifted the manufacturer special consideration regarding the treatment results from the system. After the system was approved, they figured out they weren't working. I think the original approval required a total nitrogen limit of 20 mg/L but after it was apparent there was no way the systems could meet this standard, the regulators in Maryland rewrote the approval allowing that system to discharge 35mg/L. Maryland apparently doesn't require compliance samples anymore and I would bet that most of those system are not meeting the 35 mg/L standard. What confuses me is, if the 20 mg/L standard was developed to protect the Chesapeake Bay, who or what is the the 35 mg?L standard intended to protect?
The idea that if the ATU septic system will release raw sewage if it is not serviced regularly should send owners and regulators running from these things. Aerobic Treatment Units usually are built in a single tank. The building sewer dumps its entire load into this tank and the air blower forces air into the sewage. If the air blower fails or if the volume of air is insufficient to stabilize the sewage or if someone in the house uses some anti-bacterial soap, or does an additional load of laundry, or if the weather is cold or if the owners horoscope said it was going to be a bad day, the ATU stops working. When this happens, whatever comes in goes straight out. And it is not uncommon to see ATU's permitted with a surface water(river, stream, creek) discharge.
In an Eliminite this condition simply cannot exist. If the recirculation pump experiences a malfunction, the control panel activates an alarm. If the problem is not corrected, the system will not allow any further discharge of wastewater. The system provides several days of storage giving the service provider time to get to the site and correct the problem. Additionally, the wastewater enters the Eliminite after having been partially treated through a septic tank. So in the worst case scenario, the system would function as a normal septic tank and drainfield.
Most of the ATU manufacturers do not require that a septic tank precede the aeration tank. This means that, in order to sell these things cheap, they omit the single most reliable component of any onsite system, the septic tank.
Owners of onsite wastewater treatment systems generally do not enjoy paying for service visits. If you look at the cost of ATU's in, for example, Maryland, where the prices for "Best Available Technology" are listed on the department of environment website, it's not difficult to understand why owners don't want to continue to keep pouring money into their septic sytstem.
We have had some systems where for whatever reason the service contract was not renewed. It was good to find that after almost five years of no visits, the system serving two homes was still functioning (It hadn't caused an Ebola outbreak) and the sample showed a total nitrogen concentration of under 10 mg/L. ATU's could not meet this standard if the president of the company built his house over the thing with it exposed in his living room and fed it a hormone-free vegan diet of alfalfa sprouts and tofu.
When we developed Eliminite in the 1990's there were no requirements for maintenance contracts in the state. (These came later on at the prompting of manufacturers of other systems because they knew that in order for their system to have a prayer of operating, there were going to have to be governmental regulations in place forcing owners into a service contract. In fact I heard recently that one of the manufacturers that sells systems in Montana routinely turns homeowners into the state enforcement department if they don't renew their service contract. How is that for service after the sale?!) We decided to develop a reliable system who's operation did not depend on the services of a full time septic nanny. We have data showing systems operating for years without service that once they were visited and checked were still were operating correctly and removing 75%+ of the total nitrogen load to the system. This is what I mean by reliability.
I think the reason manufacturers and service providers advocate unreliable systems is because they reap the monetary benefit of a perpetual maintenance contract. This idea is not unlike the concept of planned obsolescence. Think about it, the cell phone company will give you the phone if you sign the contract. For the ATU's however, the owner gets to pay dearly for the contraption while the state holds the threat of hard time in a septic gulag over their heads if they don't agree to a perpetual maintenance contract. What a business model.
I mentioned the Peoples Republic of Maryland earlier. They are having quite a time with their onsite program right now. Their governor has decreed that onsite system are the scourge of the planet and must be stamped out at all costs. Maryland's department of the environment has identified, on pretty scant data, a set of systems designated as Best Available Technology (BAT). They should seriously consider dropping the "Best"because these systems are merely, "Available Technology." We participated in two studies (government run, third party, long term) with a system Maryland claims is "Best" and in both studies, the manufacturer of that system pulled their "Best" system out because it was failing so miserably. These systems were the recipient of special favors award in Maryland because the state gifted the manufacturer special consideration regarding the treatment results from the system. After the system was approved, they figured out they weren't working. I think the original approval required a total nitrogen limit of 20 mg/L but after it was apparent there was no way the systems could meet this standard, the regulators in Maryland rewrote the approval allowing that system to discharge 35mg/L. Maryland apparently doesn't require compliance samples anymore and I would bet that most of those system are not meeting the 35 mg/L standard. What confuses me is, if the 20 mg/L standard was developed to protect the Chesapeake Bay, who or what is the the 35 mg?L standard intended to protect?
No comments:
Post a Comment