| 
|
To Alarm or Not to Alarm—That Is the Question
Part Two
By Elizabeth Dietzmann
One of the most striking things I first observed as a relative newcomer to the onsite water treatment world was the deep fragmentation that appears to permeate the onsite industry. At first I thought this impression was merely a function of my previous utility experience. My original background is in potable water (rural public water supply districts), and one of the striking things about the drinking-water business is its uniformity and consistency. You can go to any state rural water association meeting and the presentations will be virtually identical. The folks in the drinking-water business are universally concerned about things like disinfection byproducts, source availability, and distribution. When the EPA attempts to implement a new drinking-water arsenic standard, for example, water system managers react in a similar manner, regardless of what state in which the system is located. And working on the design of drinking-water systems is also relatively non-controversial. No experimental technology approval is needed from state regulators. No special sampling requirements have to be negotiated. No big technology choices face the water board. Just let the engineer do the calculations, figure out the storage and water pressure issues, and go. Usually one of the most heated controversies is over what color to paint the water tower (seriously—I had one water system board member resign because as a graduate of a rival high school he did not want the local high school logo painted on the new water tower).
Eventually, I just came to accept that every state had a different regulatory process for approval of onsite systems and that different or even multiple state agencies might have to sign off on a permit (if a permit was even required) depending on whether it was an advanced treatment system, a traditional septic system, a clustered system over 3,000 gallons per day (gpd), or a clustered system over 10,000 gpd, whether or not nutrient removal was required; whether phosphorus or nitrogen had to be removed; or whether it was point discharge or drip dispersal. The list goes on. Heck—every county had a different process for that matter. And then there were the heated debates over technology and testing standards. And that didn’t even include the time and energy spent on the whole big pipe–versus–small pipe debate. I actually came to enjoy going into a new geographic area and figuring out all the players and learning from regulators how things were handled locally. But then, I like solving puzzles. It was certainly never boring, and it was a great business development tool! By the time I ended up explaining the complex regulatory and technology issues facing a developer or a community that wanted to use onsite systems, be that clustered or individual, they were only to happy to hire me.
Recently, however, I was attempting to describe the onsite industry to the group of attorneys at AquaLaw with whom I will be working in Richmond, VA (this is the shameless self-promotion portion of the article). AquaLaw handles “big pipe” clients and after about 20 minutes one of the guys asked me if there is anything the onsite industry does agree on. I quickly answered “management.” Boy was I surprised to learn how wrong I was. We in the onsite industry do all agree that onsite systems have to be managed just like big pipe systems (at least we have spent the last several years saying that). We may disagree about whether drip is better than discharge, whether the soil does a better job of treating effluent than the “black boxes,” or if aerobic treatment units are better than recirculating sand filters, but we do all agree that management is essential. So we all agree on management, right? Well we do agree that management is necessary. But we definitely do not agree on how to accomplish management. Partly that may be because there are no national requirements for management, like there are in the water industry or in the “big pipe” industry. The EPA created the Voluntary Management Guidelines, published in 2003, which outline the five models of management. That makes management of onsite systems look straightforward, logical, and practical. You have to keep in mind, however, that these are guidelines and they are broad guidelines at best. And the word guidelines is another way of saying “recommendations.” Until the EPA promulgates rules for the required management of onsite systems, local governments will continue to be left to weather the political backlash and economic burden of managing millions of existing onsite systems. And the onsite industry will continue to struggle to develop under the burden of a dizzying array of some state and mostly local regulatory programs that purport to manage both clustered and individual onsite systems.
So where does that leave us now? Well, a few states like Arizona and New Mexico have implemented statewide permitting programs for individual onsite systems. A few states like Virginia and Florida are implementing statewide databases of individual onsite systems. But the majority of the management occurs at the local level, and it has become increasingly apparent to me that even at the local level—no, especially at the local level—we cannot agree on exactly how to manage individual onsite systems.Right now it looks like the battle is shaping up between the remote monitoring device (RMD) faction and the comprehensive database faction. The RMD folks are focused on the O in O&M—the ongoing mechanical functionality of the system. Some manufacturers like Orenco have their own RMDs, which they have spent much time and money developing. Orenco’s VeriComm system is a sophisticated piece of equipment, which, according to Orenco’s Jeff Ball, tracks 176 data points and uploads this system performance information to Orenco’s database. Other manufacturers like Bord na Mona have contracted with third-party companies to manufacture a simpler RMD in order to meet regulatory requirements in states like North Carolina, which requires that the actual system flow be tracked in order to ensure that the design capacity of the system is not exceeded in large coastal homes called “rental machines.” According to John Payne at Bord na Mona, another reason the company is now installing RMDs on control panels is because some states like New Jersey only require O&M providers to visit systems fitted with RMDs once a year, instead of the usual two to four times a year.
Most of these RMDs send electronic information about the system component performance to a database, thus tracking high-water alarms and visits to the system, and they also generate messages to the O&M providers about system alarms. These databases may or may not be accessible by local regulators, and in any event, the RMD is often technology specific, so the local regulator would only have data on that manufacturer’s systems. The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) also entered the onsite system monitoring business in 2005, after selecting RMSYS Inc. to manufacture an RMD that can theoretically be installed on any treatment system. The NSF’s generic RMD works in conjunction with a proprietary database. The concept here is that a local government will mandate the use of the NSF RMD on all onsite systems or maybe on certain categories of onsite systems such as commercial or advanced treatment. The O&M provider will then be required to purchase and install the RMD on each system and pay an access fee to the NSF for use of its database, which logs the visits made to each system by the O&M provider and tracks system alarms. The local government then has free access to the database and can monitor the systems by tracking the visits to each system by the O&M provider, as well as generating notices, reports, and other management documents. Admittedly, the NSF program does not truly track what an O&M provider does at each system—just that he/she was “onsite” (no pun intended) for a certain period of time and/or that an alarm went off and was reset.
For that matter I am not sure any RMD provides proof of exactly which human being is present at the onsite system and exactly what activity he/she is performing. That in a nutshell is the main argument that the comprehensive database faction has against RMDs. According to Scott Carmody of Carmody Systems Inc., developer of one of the earliest and most widely used comprehensive databases, high-water alarms are just bandages or crutches used to defer maintenance (that is some sort of mixed metaphor that even I can’t unscramble!). From the comprehensive database perspective, in order to put the M into O&M you have to communicate with O&M providers and track what actual work they are doing. Managing onsite systems through the use of a comprehensive database focuses on monitoring via service provider reports rather than component operational data. Kit Rosefield of Accredited Septic Monitoring in California has recently debuted an electronic version of the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment O&M checklists, which can be used with a smart phone in order to record exactly what maintenance tasks should be and are performed on a system. (I should note that last year, the EPA also introduced TWIST, The Wastewater Information System Tool, which, according to www.epa.gov, is “an off the-shelf, user-friendly management tool that will allow state and local health departments to effectively inventory and manage small wastewater treatment systems in their jurisdictions. It is designed to track information related to homes and facilities served, permits, site evaluations, types of systems, inspections, and complaints.” I haven’t been able to get one of the CDs yet, and I do not know of any communities that are using it. It looks like a database though.)
Scott Carmody has been working with Monroe County, FL, for a few years now implementing the county’s comprehensive database for the management of onsite systems in the Florida keys. According to the local government officials involved, they are extremely happy with the program. Phase I involved all advanced treatment systems, which were initially tracked via construction permits. Phase II involves all existing septic systems, which are being identified via GIS and incorporated into the database. Instead of worrying about advanced treatment system performance, they focus on monitoring the service provider reports, which are based on the manufacturer’s O&M requirements for each system. As Carmody told me, the local government decided that alarms were not needed so long as the systems were being serviced and the service reports were being filed.
I haven’t decided yet which I like better—the comprehensive database or the RMD management approach. I am not so sure that either approach really solves the O&M problem. There are two main reasons why I cannot make up my mind. The first is that neither approach really addresses the bottom line—effluent quality. All the service provider reports and high-water alarms in the world won’t tell you if a treatment system is producing quality effluent. The second is that neither approach addresses the underlying issue of O&M service provider training. All the O&M checklists and site visit records in the world won’t help you if the person performing the O&M doesn’t have some kind of standardized training. I have been mulling over these issues and talking to some folks who “know some stuff about some stuff,” as one of my water system board members used to say. I’ve been asking how, when, where, and why questions about effluent testing and service provider training, and the resulting opinions are as diverse and fragmented as the onsite industry itself. Stay tuned.
Elizabeth Dieztmann is an attorney in Rolla, MO.
OW - May/June 2007 |
