As a member of the Sewage Handling Disposal Advisory Committee I have advocated the elimination of Treatment Level 3 status. There is little likelihood manufactured treatment units achieve a BOD or TSS of <10mg/l consistently under long term operation and realistic field conditions. And yet each have been shown to attain 30mg/l TSS & BOD, and substantial reductions in pathogens, benefiting the long term acceptance of treated effluent into native soil or engineered media. These treatement systems have a history of sustained reliable service in improvement to real property. However TL-3 provides no appreciable improvement, the committee approved a motion to communicate our concerns regarding this issue to the Commissioner of Health.

The cost of TL-3 listed equipment is not balanced by improvement in performance or reduction of risk. It is questionable whether TL-3 provides substantial (>20mg/l) margin of improvement over TL-2 effluent. Or whether VDH has shown this distinction to be statistically sound. The manufacturers protest over the pass through cost to the consumer of additional testing is well founded.

Secondary effluent (TL-2)  is readily achievable and suitable for disinfection meeting the EPA/DEQ discharge quality standards. This should be a practical and attainable standard for dispersal into the soil under the oversight of a licensed designer, and can be assured under oversight of a licensed operator.

VDH should have abundant sampling reports (under 12VAC5-613-100, 120) to prove this assertion, it is unfortunate we cannot rely upon the release of compiled statistical evidence in discussion of future regulations. If these testing protocols were not intended to be punitive the data should have been already been released to the public. The Regulation ought not be used to grant competitive advantage to any party. It seems unusual that VDH wished to invoke greater oversight and scrutiny of specification for products which have been tested and certified by independent authorities.

The AOSS Regulations pertaining to product review and approval might be viewed as fostering anticompetitive practices, creating barriers to market entrance for proprietary products and their specification by licensed professionals. In aggregate these should be viewed as burdensome regulations.