Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

ApS · 01-06-2010, 09:44 AM

Most of the information on this particular system is in the previous link.

The manufacturer promises a very clean leachate, but at the cost of relatively-frequent pumpings and having an electric compressor that must run all the time. Though the concept is a good one, I've owned only one house in New Hampshire so I'd defer to those who have the latest in NH-approved systems.

Since many of Winnipesaukee's islands don't have the space for pumping away to any great distance—and because of the need for biennial maintenance, this system may not be suitable for DES' approval in certain locations.

From the link:

The left chamber is the standard anaerobic part, the center chamber is the aerobic one, and the third is the resulting "clear" leachate. It's my guess that the leachate could be pumped away to a remote dispersal field without the additional cost of a macerator-type pump.

01-06-2010, 09:44 AM	#17
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 6,028 Thanks: 2,285 Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts	Above My Pay-Grade, but... Most of the information on this particular system is in the previous link. The manufacturer promises a very clean leachate, but at the cost of relatively-frequent pumpings and having an electric compressor that must run all the time. Though the concept is a good one, I've owned only one house in New Hampshire so I'd defer to those who have the latest in NH-approved systems. Since many of Winnipesaukee's islands don't have the space for pumping away to any great distance—and because of the need for biennial maintenance, this system may not be suitable for DES' approval in certain locations. From the link: The left chamber is the standard anaerobic part, the center chamber is the aerobic one, and the third is the resulting "clear" leachate. It's my guess that the leachate could be pumped away to a remote dispersal field without the additional cost of a macerator-type pump.