| 
|
Part One
By Elizabeth Dietzmann
We all agree that the best onsite technology in the world is not good if it is not maintained, right? Well, recently I heard about an operations and maintenance (O&M) program that sounded ideal. It was comprehensive and seemed ideally designed to actually maintain what I knew to be reliable, high-functioning systems. A local installer was going to act as the O&M provider for the onsite systems he installed. The systems came from a well-known manufacturer who provided excellent training and technical support and pushed O&M. In fact, the installer had set up a separate company to service the systems. This seemed ideal, because as the installer he would have the most detailed knowledge of each particular system and a strong incentive to do a good job so that local builders would be happy with the systems and the O&M business would grow. Each system was supposed to have a signed maintenance agreement with the O&M provider for an initial term of two years that would cover the entire system, including the dispersal area. This sounded very encouraging to me because so many O&M agreements cover only the technology and leave out the dispersal area.
A copy of the maintenance agreement was supposed to be on file with the local health department along with an as-built design of the system. In addition, copies of these documents were supposed to be recorded with the local recorder of deeds in the county where the system was located. This was significant because the homeowner maintenance agreement was supposed to include language that guaranteed the O&M provider and/or manufacturer access to the system for O&M and effluent sampling and notified the homeowner that the system would require ongoing maintenance by a qualified O&M provider. In effect, the maintenance agreement would act as a set of additional deed restrictions, running with the land and putting the homeowner on notice that this was an advanced treatment system and that certain conditions would apply. For this reason it was important to have the maintenance agreements filed on record. The initial maintenance agreement was entered into with the contractor, who included the two years of O&M in the closing costs, and the O&M agreement was then to be passed on to the homeowner at closing.
I had the opportunity to visit several of the systems with the manufacturer after most of the homes had all been occupied for several months to a year and the O&M program was ostensibly ticking along nicely. Because of my interest in O&M and onsite system management, the manufacturer was kind enough to let me tag along to look at some of the executed maintenance agreements and visit sites. That’s when some of the problems started to surface (no pun intended). First, we couldn’t find the systems. OK, obviously we could find the tank and the treatment components, but we couldn’t locate the drain fields. Repeated phone calls to the installer–O&M provider and a trip to the system designer’s office and the recorder of deeds quickly led us to the conclusion that the as-builts were a lovely fantasy. Not only that, the installer couldn’t really recall where he had built what he had built. This became clear after more repeated phone calls to the installer garnered vague directions to walk a certain number of feet out to one corner of the backyard. This started to sound a little suspicious, since supposedly the installer had been maintaining the system for several months. I asked point blank about the O&M agreements and as-builts and was told that the installer was in the process of entering them all into a special database and that either they would be filed with the appropriate authorities later or that had been done so the problem must be with the local offices.
This scenario was repeated at almost every residence. The fun really started when homeowners who happened to be at home during the day came outside and inquired as to who we were and what the heck we were doing in their backyards. Suffice it to say that I never did meet a homeowner who knew anything about a signed maintenance agreement or any requirements for his or her role in maintaining the system or who was aware that supposedly we had access to their property. It turns out that none of the maintenance agreements was ever filed anywhere. In fact, after getting my hands on a blank maintenance agreement, I realized that it failed to include any language at all with regard to setting up access easements or informing the homeowner that the system was going to require ongoing maintenance.
Luckily many of the systems were fitted with remote monitoring devices (RMDs), also known as telemetry devices, as part of the control panels, so I know that that the mechanical functionality of the systems with RMDs was being tracked. In fact, despite the confusion over the O&M, the systems were all functioning properly—a testament to the robustness of the technology! Many of the homeowners did indeed have the phone number for the installer/service provider and some of them recalled having seen a service vehicle at their residence. Emergency calls had been answered. However, none of the homeowners I spoke with had any idea that they were going to have to pay to have O&M performed at some point in the future. One slightly confused lady did not even realize that she wasn’t connected to the “city” sewer! (Admittedly, she was very confused.) This was obviously a nightmare for the manufacturer, who to its credit stepped in and worked diligently to resolve the situation. A tremendous amount of time and effort had to be spent in order to make sure that the backlog on O&M was addressed and that a reliable system was put in place for the future.
I am not accusing the installer–O&M provider of anything more nefarious than gross negligence and poor business management. In fact, the installer is no longer affiliated with that particular manufacturer and to my knowledge is no longer an O&M service provider. And the manufacturer has worked harder than ever to make sure that its O&M providers have good business models to follow and are reliable. But the entire incident just makes me more convinced than ever that O&M is the real barrier to long-term acceptance of onsite systems and that O&M of onsite systems is a really different animal than O&M of clustered systems.
We are all familiar with the EPA’s 1997 Response to Congress on Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems, which identified the barriers to implementation of decentralized technology. As stated in various ways and in various follow-up EPA studies, notwithstanding the fact that both individual onsite systems and clustered systems are based on proven and viable technology that protects public health and the environment, regulators are reluctant to approve their use unless they are maintained. The EPA’s 2004 Handbook for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems follows up on that theme with the Management Models for Decentralized Systems. But in those documents management of both individual and clustered systems are kind of lumped together and addressed on more of a continuum, with higher levels of clustered management required in more fragile environmental areas. I am not sure that this is an acceptable approach any longer. There is actually a huge gap between maintenance of individual onsite systems and maintenance of clustered systems because of the very nature of the systems.
I have repeatedly been told by folks like Jeff Snowden of Snowden On-site Systems Inc. in Austin, TX; Kit Rosefield of Accredited Septic Monitoring in Mi Wuk Village, CA; and Scott Carmody of Carmody Data Systems Inc. in DeForest, WI, that I have finally figured out the fundamental difference when it comes to the management of individual onsite systems as opposed to clustered systems: the ownership of the system and the fact that each individual onsite system must be individually serviced. You will have to forgive me for stating the obvious, but I have had some experienced service providers and data management experts beating this into my head recently! I understand how to manage clustered systems. I spend much of my time focusing on that as part of my practice. And while it can be complicated, ultimately you are dealing with centralized management and ownership of the decentralized clustered system. It looks like a mini-utility. Generally people who have their homes connected to a clustered system accept the fact that they will have to pay a monthly user fee, normally tied to their water usage in order to have “sewer service.” O&M funds and capital replacement funds are set aside, and a service provider maintains the collection and treatment portions of the system.
That will never be the case with individual onsite systems. Each onsite system requires a separate hands-on visit, and this factor combined with the homeowner wild card (unless forced to do so, most homeowners do not want to have to pay to have a system maintained) makes this corner of the industry ripe for neglect, mismanagement, abuse, and, frankly, fraud. Ask any really committed onsite service provider and he will tell you that it is far more difficult to manage individual onsite systems. There are logistic, technical, psychological, and economic challenges that simply do not occur in the management of clustered systems.
According to Snowden, Rosefield, and Carmody, and numerous others in the onsite industry, the O&M scenario I outlined above is nothing compared to some of the underhanded and outright illegal practices that go on in the onsite O&M business. One onsite myth (kind of like an urban myth) is that in one state that requires O&M with remote monitoring, a local O&M provider quotes homeowners two prices: one price if the homeowner will go out and push the button that sends a signal to show a service call was made and another higher price if the O&M provider actually has to make the trip out in person. So maybe a coherent regulatory structure for both certification of O&M providers and mandatory inspections would solve many of these problems. Well, Texas has required manufacturer’s certification for O&M providers and mandatory maintenance agreements for secondary treatment systems and mandatory reports on systems that surface discharge since February 4, 1997, and—surprise, surprise—according to Snowden it makes very little difference. The regulations are by and large not enforced at the county level, and while many counties struggle to enforce them, it is expensive and time-consuming. This means that in Texas, O&M providers are really not regulated. The bad guys have a license to steal and the good guys are viewed as bad guys because they try to force homeowners to follow design guidelines and collect a realistic and fair amount of compensation for their services. And if things are mixed up in Texas, you can only imagine how confused the rest of us are! There is a strong trend in the industry, as encouraged by the EPA to deal with the O&M problem through both certification of providers and remote monitoring programs. In the January/February 2006 issue, this magazine ran an article on the various credentialing programs that are evolving for O&M providers and installers. It also looks like there are some interesting monitoring solutions being implemented in Texas and Florida. I will be discussing the possible confusion and overlap in credentialing programs in the next couple of columns. And, yes, I will be talking about RMDs and their role, if any, in O&M of individual onsite systems; they’re stirring up quite a hornet’s nest, I am told. Got an opinion? Feel free to start giving me your input now at edietzmann@earthlink.net.
Elizabeth Dieztmann is an attorney in Rolla, MO.
OW - May/June 2007 |
