What will we have to do with these treatment systems when the city sewage lines are run in the next few years?  Will we still be required to pay these high bills for maintaining them or will it just go into the sewage since its not running out into the open?  There really needs to be some kind of program to help with the cost of the maintenance or at least someone local who can do the service.

i have been maintaining my treatment system for over 20 yrs. the health dept. has been testing and monitoring it as long as i have had it. and i thank them for that very much,because it saves me a great expense. they tell me that it test very well,no problems.

now, you tell me that i am forced under a fine that i will have to hire a contractor to do the maintainence and monitoring.

the new sewer line that was run to yuma school runs just on the other side of the ridge from my house by the road its around 1/2 mile. i was told that it would get me when they did stage two. no one knows when that will be. iguess when they can get the money.

money is my problem too.i can't afford a contractor!

my sys. is simple to maintaine,but expensive. i pull the areator around every 2 months to clean the shaft. i check every week and add tablets both chlorine and dechlorine. and about every year i have the bearings replaced in my aerator motor at cost of around $100.00. i buy tablets aruond once a year. for 25# it cost around $140.00 each bucket. and i have been getting it pumped out every two to three yrs. at a cost of aruond $300.oo .at times i have had to barrow money to buy these things,at least my labour is free!

i am on a fixed income and its not alot and my wife is a waitress.we have to watch every dime. if i am forced to pay a contractor, it will cost me money that i don't have. i can do the maintainence myself as i dont get paid for my labor.

i have just barrowed $2500.00 to make improvements. two risers and tabletsand work needed on my car and house.

i just want you to know what i am faced with.

i have contacted each of these recommened contractors,(recommened by the letter sent 4/24/2013 signed john hyder).all these contractors are out of my area. if there was a problem it would take too long to get here, anyway i could take care of it myself, and would,nt have to pay travel time.(s.e.p.t.i.c.inc. haysi va. $100.00 just to come out.).theres southwest evironmental consulting, would not tell me where they were located, just somewhere in tn. he said he was not contacted by anyone and would call me back , but never did! simon and associates,inc. blacksburg va? they told me to try someone closer , alot of travel time! too expensive. y&y  will sign contract for $250.00 for 2 yrs. but does no testing, will charge to come out and do maintainence , could not get price. suggested maybe do my own maintainence.i contacted emi to do monitoring was told $50.00 for 2 test and was not sure if more was needed . cost to come get sample not sure how much.

 i hope you can see my problem. i try to do the right thing but money is a real handycap for me and my wife. i would appriceate it if you could find a better  and cheaper soulotion. i hope what i have wrote might help.

Type over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 wordsWe had, in the past, maintained the system ourselves, and kept it in good order, save for a time or two when the aerator broke down, and we had to wait to get it repaired or replaced. We supplied the Health Department with our schedule of aerator cleaning (quarterly) and tablet replacing (every 2-3 weeks), and had the tank pumped every couple of years.

Recently, the Dept. insisted that we purchase a maintenance contract, which we did. It seems like a lot of money just to say that if something goes wrong, we will call on a contractor, which we would have done anyway.

Now a monitoring contract?? From what I read in the document, we are now going to be required to find some qualified persons to test the system (it wasn't clear how often) and report to the Dept.?  Isn't that what the Dept. is supposed to do?

Who is qualified besides the Health Dept.? A previous letter indicated that we would be charged $75 to inspect the system. Is that in effect?

 It is expensive enough to purchase tablets, clean the tank, and keep the equipment running, without paying for contracts, as well.

I currently do the routine maintenance on our sewer plant. I check it weekly, add tablets when needed, clean the motor  every month, have the  system pumped at a cost of $750 every  2 to 3 years. I take a field sample to EMI in Norton, VA once a year and they send it off for testing, send me the results and I in turn take a copy of the results to the Scott County Health Dept in Gate City, VA. I keep records of everything that is or every has been done to our system.      Everything that is done to the plant  is noted in a notebook that I keep. The Scott County Health Department comes once a year and also checks our system and I have their reports as well as the reports from every field sample we have ever taken. We buy Norweco declor and chlorine tablets which is expensive ($150.00 per bucket), we pay $65.00 to have the  field sample tested (if it needs to be retested add another $65). All of these costs add up! I cannot see why I must get a maintenance contract when all they will do is charge me $250 to write a letter stating they will do maintenance on the system IF I call them and tell them what the problem is. Believe me if there is a problem with my system I do call them and have it repaired, (yes, I have all of the receipts to back this up) so why should I have to have a contract that will cost me $250 for doing nothing except send me a letter stating that they will come and do maintenace on the system at my request.  I will still have to do all of the regular maintenance on it, keep  detailed records and pay out $250 to boot!  I don't need any additional costs added on to my sewer plant operation, especially when nothing is done to earn the $250.  I live within 1/2 mile of the Duffield sewer plant, (it is even on  the same road that I live on and we can't get sewer because there are no sewer lines run on our side of the road, unbelievable!  Give me a break, I can't afford anymore cost added to an already expensive system!  If we could get public sewer believe me we would in a heartbeat! Please rethink adding more fees onto an already expensive system to maintain. I live on a limited budget and just can't afford anymore fees.

We have been operating our jet plant system for over 20 years.  My husband has a great understanding of how this system operates.  The company that installed the plant has always been at our disposal when we need help with maintenance and/or repairs.  When we learned that there may be changes in the law which would require us to purchase a maintenance contract in order to continue running our system I was dismayed.  First of all, we do not have many companies in the area who service these units.  Second, we are still going to have to do the routine maintenance ourselves.  We will have to pay someone to inspect a couple of times a year but who doesn't perform any real services.  When speaking to our installer they told me the contracts are essentially a payment to insure that we have someone available to do repairs in case we have issues.  We do - we have the company who installed our system just a phone call away but we only have to pay them for actual services performed.  The goal should be that when system owners whose monitoring doesn't meet criteria (possibly two times in a row) then they would have to purchase this service contract.  Please do not punish those of us who have continually had good inspections and never had problems.  We want to run our system correctly and be good stewards of the environment.  What we do object to is having the cost of running our system so high that we would not be able to afford it, especially as we are approaching retirement age.

I pay around $500/year to maintain my ATU unit and have it tested. My contractor is certainly licensed by the state and does an excellent job. I should NOT have to pay an additional $75 for VDH to do inspect my unit. If they want to inspect it, that is great. I respect the fact that they want to ensure that diseases are not being spread. However, I already pay plenty to maintain my unit!  This additional fee is a tax! I already pay my taxes. 

I don't think that the health department should be permitted to charge a fee to inspect my ATU unit after already paying a licensed contractor to maintain the unit throughout the year. 

I would like to oppose the maintenance contract.   There is no reason for it.   If you have a contract with an authorized agency to test your system once a year, then the VDH comes and tests once a year and you keep records of every tablet and the date you add to the system - why do you need it??   No one wants to contaminate the streams, but EPA regulations are becoming too burdensome for ordinary folks to live with.

Before adding more cost to the folks with alternative systems, how about spot checking traditions septic systems to see how long since they have been pumped and if they are working properly.  If they do not operate properly, that sewage goes directly into the watershed untreated.

Many of us agree with those who oppose the $75 annual inspection fee that VDH charges.  In fact, we believe the annual visit by VDH should be optional, not mandatory.  This would be more consistent with the onsite sewage system program requirements under the AOSS Regulations.  We've turned this program over to the private sector.  Let them have it.

Alternative Discharging systems that are not operated properly can and do pose a greater risk to public health and the environment since they discharge sewage effluent directly to the surface of state waters and drainways leading to state waters. Humans, pets, insects, etc. can be exposed to this effluent so assurance that these systems are operated and maintained properly is critical.

VDH is charged with protecting public health and the environment and do so by inspecting and assuring these systems are in compliance with minimum regulatory requirements by conducting at least an annual inspection with follow-up inspections when necessary and by evaluating operation and testing data submitted by operators.

That being said, § 32.1-164.E. of the Code of Virginia which requires VDH to charge a $75 fee for an inspection is out dated and should be recended. § 32.1-164.E. of the Code of Virginia  states: “Further a fee of $75 shall be charged for such installation and monitoring inspections of alternative discharging sewage systems as may be required by the Board…”

Legislators ammended the Code of Virginia to require civil penalities for violations to VDH’s regulations which states: § 32.1-164.E J. “The Board shall establish a uniform schedule of civil penalties for violations of regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection B that are not remedied within 30 days after service of notice from the Department…”

Homeowners who operate and maintain their systems in compliance should not be charged and fee for an inspection and those who fail to do so should be dealth with in accordance with the law.

This program, based on my experience, allowed poor people or people with family owned land with poor soils or oftentimes both, to live on the property.  This is a good thing. Unfortunately,  I have also observed few well maintained systems with disinfection  in particulary neglected. Lack of o+m is due, in my opinion, for two reasons: the owner is not held  accountable for compliance with effluent limits and limited dollars to spend on o+m.

Assurance that systems are operating properly must be required or significant public health problems will occur.  I suggest  VDH allocate resources to local health departments to perform inspection services to make owners  accountable for their systems.  When problems are observed, VDH will have an opportunity to educate the  homeowner on the need to properly operate the system, assist  him/her to locate an operator and  alternative funding sources for low income owners..

As a minimum, technically equivalent to the professional engineer.

or a licensed onsite soil evaluator, licensed soil scientist  or professional engineer