Laserfiche WebLink
b. "Altcmativc/Expcrimental" Systems <br />i. Surface Discharge Systems <br />- Typically a packaged home-use individual treatment <br />plant. <br />- Surface discharge not approved in Minnesota. <br />- Disposal of effluent in winter is a severe problem, may <br />also be a problem in summer. <br />- High indiv idual system cost. <br />- Ongoing individual plant maintenance required. <br />ii. Aerobic Tank Systems <br />- Claim to provide adequate treatment to allow drainfield <br />size reduction. <br />- To date. MPCA/UM have not fully approved drainfield <br />size reduction concept. <br />- Drainfield must still meet the 3-foot separation <br />requirement, which cannot be met on many properties <br />except by standard mouiKl sytem technology. <br />- Ongoing maintenance required, <br />iii. Conforming design/substandard capacity/holding tank <br />- Concept is to use substandard capacity but conforming- <br />location drainfield to its maximum capacity, then <br />overflow into a holding tank (for re-entty to drainfield <br />in off-peak hours, or for hauling away). <br />- Concept assumes a small conforming trench drainfield <br />can be constructed, which is not the case on many sites; <br />not a viable system when drainfield is a mound. <br />- This has been used as a short-term retro fit in Orono <br />(by adding holding tank to existing system) in <br />developed ares where no other options exist or until <br />sewer is available, but is not a long-term solution. <br />None of the above methods are considered as viable alternatives <br />to sewer for the reasons noted. <br />c. Holding Tanks <br />- Technically feasible for most sites. <br />- Permanent maintenance requirement can become a problem and <br />a burden. <br />- High maintenance cost leads to restricted lifestyles not <br />acceptable to most residents.