On September 28, 2009 the Virginia Department of Health published their proposed Alternative Onsite Septic System, AOSS, regulations for public comment. There was a 30 day comment period that closed on October 28th 2009. On Friday, November 6, 2009 the Department of Health posted the comments. The comments and emergency regulations were posted on the VDH website for your review (they have since been taken down). There are 187 pages of comments from designers, regulators, manufacturers, environmental groups, consultants, and homeowners. Some of the comments are so technical in nature that I fear the resolution would require a multi year experimental program. Many comments are interesting.
Amelia McCulley of Albemarle County states that enforcement of noncompliance will be critical. The Emergency Regulations read:
“The Board, commissioner, and Department may use any lawful means to enforce this chapter, including voiding a construction or operation permit, imposition of civil penalties, or criminal prosecution.”
To ensure the successful implementation of the Emergency Regulations, the regulations need to be clear in the operating requirements for homeowners and the failure to comply with the operating requirements requires clearly spelled out appropriate fines and penalties the department of health is willing and able to invoke. Criminal prosecution of a homeowner for lack of an Operation and Maintenance contract is unlikely to be pursued. Therefore, As Amelia points out the necessary staffing, tools and procedures will need to be in place to assure that enforcement can occur as needed.
Ted McCormack of the Virginia Association of Counties strongly endorses the provisions of 12VAC5-613-110 that require all AOSS owners to maintain an ongoing relationship with an state-licensed AOSS operator, and further, to have the AOSS visited on a regular basis… In addition, current and prospective staffing reductions at local health departments mean that regular operator visits of AOSS by licensed professionals may be the only way the commonwealth will ever know that the systems are functioning properly. “ He concludes that the protections, the performance and laboratory sampling and monitoring provisions must not be weakened under any circumstances, and in some instances, should be increased. His argument is that the costs of maintaining, monitoring and regulating the AOSSs should be born by the property owner.
Scott York of Loudoun County supports annual maintenance and inspection requirements. “Unlike traditional septic tanks, AOSS are complex machines with components that must be properly maintained in order to continue functioning according to system design. Annual operator inspection reports filed with the health department will not only ensure that each AOSS is properly functioning, but it will also lead to improved maintenance as problems are identified during the required site visit and pointed out to the homeowner. Annual inspections and better routine maintenance will decrease the incidents of catastrophic system failures, which can cost many thousands of dollars to fix.” Because the costs of repairing a complete system failure are so high, Loudoun County goes on to suggest the Health Department to develop a requirement for the owner, designer, installer, manufacturer or operator to post a performance bond or other form of financial surety in order to cover the costs of major system failures in the event that routine maintenance and inspections are not enough to prevent such failure.
For the single family homeowner the requirements of the Emergency Regulations are about, ensuring and that these systems perform to protect public health and the waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For single family homes the typical homeowner cannot afford a gold plated regulatory system with every potential system and regulatory failure, monitored for, tested for, and insured against on the homeowner’s nickel. As was pointed out by the PEC, even waste water treatment plants, may not provide adequate protection of the waters of the state from man. We as a state could not afford the infrastructure necessary to be monitor and verify performance and operation, and the homeowner can not afford it all. The Department of Health needs to determine the reasonable compromises that will protect public health and the environment in a less than perfect world. Controlling the density of septic systems and the required inspections and maintenance will go a long way in ensuring the protection of public health and the waters of the state. It is a start.
Showing posts with label Operation and Maintenance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Operation and Maintenance. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Virginia’s Emergency Alternative Onsite Septic System Regulations Comments 1
On September 28, 2009 the Virginia Department of Health published their proposed Alternative Onsite Septic System, AOSS, regulations for public comment. There was a 30 day comment period that closed on October 28th 2009. On Friday, November 6, 2009 the Department of Health posted the comments. I was a little surprised to see both my comments and what I thought was a personal e-mail to Alan Knapp posted as comments. Nonetheless, I learned a lot reading through the comments and was really pleased with all the sheer number of people who participated in the regulatory process. The comments and emergency regulations are posted on the VDH website for your review. There are 187 pages of comments from designers, regulators, manufacturers, environmental groups, consultants, and homeowners. Some of the comments are so technical in nature that I fear the resolution would require a multi year experimental program. Many comments are interesting.
Thomas Crow of the Fairfax Co. Health Department points out that “In the initial stages finding an operator for home owners will be difficult and expensive. There are very few operators for a home owner to choose from in today’s market. We suggest providing an effective date for this paragraph to allow time for the infrastructure to be built to meet the demand.” He goes on to suggest that Emergency Regulations require that “…operating permits must be renewed every five years by the Health Department. We believe that requirement is necessary because local Health Departments lack the staff necessary to adequately provide oversight to the program as described in the regulations. Requiring a renewable permit will make it ensure that the Health Department is able to evaluate each AOSS at least every five years.” So, every year the Health Department will have to issue or renew operating permits complete with sampling for 20% of all AOSS in the state and every new system built. I do not think that will alleviate the staffing issue. Furthermore, if the operating permit lapses is the occupancy permit voided or must the homeowner begin pump and haul until such time that the department of health renews the permit. I think the idea of outside licensed operators and computer systems was intended to automate compliance someday, not create a system where the VDH needs to manually review and issue a new permit for an ever growing number of systems each year.
Scott Fincham also of the VDH points out that according to his reading of the regulations “Low Pressure Distribution System’s will be considered Alternative (AOSS) and thus require maintenance and monitoring.”
W. Todd Benson of the Piedmont Environmental Council points to the USGS research on the Potomac River that identified intersexed fish. Researchers identified the presence of endocrine disruptors. “Evidence is mounting that trace levels of prescription drugs in rivers and streams may be harming fish, tadpoles, frogs, mussels and oysters. Obviously, the same constituents in the solid and liquid waste stream of conventional waste water treatment works should be expected in AOSS effluent. One might assume that the risk posed by and individual AOSS is the same or better than individual, traditional septic system and, therefore, the permitting of individual AOSSs should be allowed. But the assumption of no greater harm dissipates as the systems grow in size.” Emerging chemicals of concern will be an issue to septic systems, AOSS, clustered systems and sewage treatment plants in the future. It is unknown which of these systems will prove most protective of human health and the environment. Soil filtration may prove to be more effective that point source release. There is still much research to be done in this emerging area of investigation. Todd is correct when he states “These regulations are prepared without any analysis of or attention to the problem of endocrine disruptors or other chemicals of concern.” The PEC recommends that all AOSSs other than individual AOSSs should be banned.
Several different investigations within the Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey studied the relationship between wastewater treatment plants, other chemicals, and the impacted fish. The study Todd refers to found the problem of endocrine disruption in fish to be widespread in the limited study area of a portion of the Chesapeake Water Shed, but increased in proximity to and downstream of the wastewater treatment plants. Chemical sampling that took place along with the fish sampling found higher concentrations of wastewater chemicals near the wastewater plants. Pesticides currently used in agriculture were detected at all locations. Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals at all locations their specific source is not yet known. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the US FW and US GS have embarked on further studies.
Anish Jantrania, Ph.D., P.E, a former VDH employee, is a supporter of the clustered systems and today makes his living designing and operating those systems. I should give him the opportunity to counter the PECs recommendation against clustered systems, but as always Anish’s comments are way beyond my knowledge base, but he does state “It is important that Lab Sampling be required for ALL types of AOSS, large and small, at frequency that does not create undue financial burden on either type of AOSS… It’s all about Performance WITH Verification.” I like the philosophy which would allow the regulations to evolve with the knowledge base. However, I am still thinking about that, after all, for at least the single family homeowner the requirements of the Emergency Regulations are intended to ensure that these systems perform to protect public health and the waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For single family homes the typical homeowner cannot afford a gold plated regulatory system with every potential system and regulatory failure, monitored for, tested for, permitted and re-permitted on the homeowner’s nickel. As Todd elegantly points out, highly regulated point source generators, waste water treatment plants, may not provide adequate protection of the waters of the state from man. We as a state could not afford the infrastructure necessary to monitor and verify performance and operation, and the homeowner can only afford essential protections to protect public health and the environment, not those that make a regulator's life easier. The Department of Health needs to determine the reasonable compromises that will protect public health and the environment in a less than perfect world.
Thomas Crow of the Fairfax Co. Health Department points out that “In the initial stages finding an operator for home owners will be difficult and expensive. There are very few operators for a home owner to choose from in today’s market. We suggest providing an effective date for this paragraph to allow time for the infrastructure to be built to meet the demand.” He goes on to suggest that Emergency Regulations require that “…operating permits must be renewed every five years by the Health Department. We believe that requirement is necessary because local Health Departments lack the staff necessary to adequately provide oversight to the program as described in the regulations. Requiring a renewable permit will make it ensure that the Health Department is able to evaluate each AOSS at least every five years.” So, every year the Health Department will have to issue or renew operating permits complete with sampling for 20% of all AOSS in the state and every new system built. I do not think that will alleviate the staffing issue. Furthermore, if the operating permit lapses is the occupancy permit voided or must the homeowner begin pump and haul until such time that the department of health renews the permit. I think the idea of outside licensed operators and computer systems was intended to automate compliance someday, not create a system where the VDH needs to manually review and issue a new permit for an ever growing number of systems each year.
Scott Fincham also of the VDH points out that according to his reading of the regulations “Low Pressure Distribution System’s will be considered Alternative (AOSS) and thus require maintenance and monitoring.”
W. Todd Benson of the Piedmont Environmental Council points to the USGS research on the Potomac River that identified intersexed fish. Researchers identified the presence of endocrine disruptors. “Evidence is mounting that trace levels of prescription drugs in rivers and streams may be harming fish, tadpoles, frogs, mussels and oysters. Obviously, the same constituents in the solid and liquid waste stream of conventional waste water treatment works should be expected in AOSS effluent. One might assume that the risk posed by and individual AOSS is the same or better than individual, traditional septic system and, therefore, the permitting of individual AOSSs should be allowed. But the assumption of no greater harm dissipates as the systems grow in size.” Emerging chemicals of concern will be an issue to septic systems, AOSS, clustered systems and sewage treatment plants in the future. It is unknown which of these systems will prove most protective of human health and the environment. Soil filtration may prove to be more effective that point source release. There is still much research to be done in this emerging area of investigation. Todd is correct when he states “These regulations are prepared without any analysis of or attention to the problem of endocrine disruptors or other chemicals of concern.” The PEC recommends that all AOSSs other than individual AOSSs should be banned.
Several different investigations within the Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey studied the relationship between wastewater treatment plants, other chemicals, and the impacted fish. The study Todd refers to found the problem of endocrine disruption in fish to be widespread in the limited study area of a portion of the Chesapeake Water Shed, but increased in proximity to and downstream of the wastewater treatment plants. Chemical sampling that took place along with the fish sampling found higher concentrations of wastewater chemicals near the wastewater plants. Pesticides currently used in agriculture were detected at all locations. Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals at all locations their specific source is not yet known. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the US FW and US GS have embarked on further studies.
Anish Jantrania, Ph.D., P.E, a former VDH employee, is a supporter of the clustered systems and today makes his living designing and operating those systems. I should give him the opportunity to counter the PECs recommendation against clustered systems, but as always Anish’s comments are way beyond my knowledge base, but he does state “It is important that Lab Sampling be required for ALL types of AOSS, large and small, at frequency that does not create undue financial burden on either type of AOSS… It’s all about Performance WITH Verification.” I like the philosophy which would allow the regulations to evolve with the knowledge base. However, I am still thinking about that, after all, for at least the single family homeowner the requirements of the Emergency Regulations are intended to ensure that these systems perform to protect public health and the waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For single family homes the typical homeowner cannot afford a gold plated regulatory system with every potential system and regulatory failure, monitored for, tested for, permitted and re-permitted on the homeowner’s nickel. As Todd elegantly points out, highly regulated point source generators, waste water treatment plants, may not provide adequate protection of the waters of the state from man. We as a state could not afford the infrastructure necessary to monitor and verify performance and operation, and the homeowner can only afford essential protections to protect public health and the environment, not those that make a regulator's life easier. The Department of Health needs to determine the reasonable compromises that will protect public health and the environment in a less than perfect world.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Regulations for Alternative Septic Systems Part 2
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 the second meeting of the Virginia Department of Health “Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations Ad Hoc Committee” took place. I am a participant in the process representing the homeowner’s point of view. Legislation approved in 2009 (HB 2551, Acts of Assembly, 2009, Ch 220) requires the Board of Health to promulgate emergency regulations to establish performance requirements and horizontal setbacks necessary to protect public health and the environment for alternative onsite sewage systems. The regulations must go into effect no later than April 6, 2010 and must also contain Operation and Maintenance requirements for alternative onsite sewage systems.
This past Thursday’s meeting focused on reviewing the form and content of regulations of other states. The meeting focused particularly on existing regulatory schemes which varied more in format and detail than in basic approach. The meeting began with Operations and Maintenance schemes from the Virginia Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association and North Carolina. The requirements of the two programs was not vastly different, the true difference was in presentation. The North Carolina program clearly and simply presented the program so that any homeowner who looked up the regulation would understand that annual inspection and maintenance of the program was required. This was very clear and straight forward. I feel that regulatory requirements that are easy to identify and understand are essential to make an Operation and Maintenance program work. My own efforts at identifying what I needed to do and what was recommended I do were very instructive. Really, I needed to be an engineer with a regulatory background to figure it out. The conflicting responses I received from potential service providers were not helpful in identifying the regulations at that time.
I, like many members of the group, liked the idea of an operating permit that was issued when the system was first installed (spelling out the Operations and Maintenance requirements) and then had to be renewed by each successive home owner. The positives of a renewable operating permit was that each time the home changed hands the alternative septic system would have to be tested and the new owners would be informed of their responsibilities. I thought this was great until Allen Knapp of the VDH clearly pointed out to me the administrative quagmire that would result if the Virginia Department of Health were required to track all real estate transactions. Administrating such a program would be nearly impossible without vast resources to track the real estate market. Reflecting on his comments I realized that it would be unlikely that a bank or other lender would close on a loan for a property without a valid operating permit for the alternative septic system. Thus, unfortunately, a renewable operating permit for an alternative septic system is not a viable solution to ensuring that these systems continue to function over time and are properly maintained. Clear communication and consumer education will have to be cornerstones of the regulations.
For system performance requirements the group focused on a proposal from Anish Jantrania a former Virginia regulator and currently an engineer with Northwest Cascade, the Arizonian regulations and a light brush with the North Carolina performance regulations. Anish’s proposal was entirely qualitative while the Arizona regulations presented by Colin Bishop a former Arizona regulator and currently with BNM-US, the manufacturer of Pruaflo systems. The Arizona approach was entirely quantitative and encompassed 129 pages of detail. Since I am not a system designer of septic systems, but simply a user I learned a lot from the discussion of these two approaches. The essential point was how much leeway to allow licensed engineers in their designs. The Arizona approach was very much like snapping together a system with sized and regulated components. This is very much a Lego approach, plug and play. The qualitative approach was far more dependent on engineering judgment and practice and susceptible to abuse by the unscrupulous. After listening to various points of view I think the qualitative system design approach is most appropriate for the clustered alternative systems. The single family home applications should possibly be more tightly regulated because of the variation in use and maintenance of systems by different home owners. The regulations need to ensure that any failure by these individual systems would be contained on the homeowners own lot. Tightly constricted numeric performance requirements are best for this segment. I look forward to seeing where the VDH takes these regulations. Given the short time frame I question if they would have time to develop the scope of the Arizona regulations.
This past Thursday’s meeting focused on reviewing the form and content of regulations of other states. The meeting focused particularly on existing regulatory schemes which varied more in format and detail than in basic approach. The meeting began with Operations and Maintenance schemes from the Virginia Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association and North Carolina. The requirements of the two programs was not vastly different, the true difference was in presentation. The North Carolina program clearly and simply presented the program so that any homeowner who looked up the regulation would understand that annual inspection and maintenance of the program was required. This was very clear and straight forward. I feel that regulatory requirements that are easy to identify and understand are essential to make an Operation and Maintenance program work. My own efforts at identifying what I needed to do and what was recommended I do were very instructive. Really, I needed to be an engineer with a regulatory background to figure it out. The conflicting responses I received from potential service providers were not helpful in identifying the regulations at that time.
I, like many members of the group, liked the idea of an operating permit that was issued when the system was first installed (spelling out the Operations and Maintenance requirements) and then had to be renewed by each successive home owner. The positives of a renewable operating permit was that each time the home changed hands the alternative septic system would have to be tested and the new owners would be informed of their responsibilities. I thought this was great until Allen Knapp of the VDH clearly pointed out to me the administrative quagmire that would result if the Virginia Department of Health were required to track all real estate transactions. Administrating such a program would be nearly impossible without vast resources to track the real estate market. Reflecting on his comments I realized that it would be unlikely that a bank or other lender would close on a loan for a property without a valid operating permit for the alternative septic system. Thus, unfortunately, a renewable operating permit for an alternative septic system is not a viable solution to ensuring that these systems continue to function over time and are properly maintained. Clear communication and consumer education will have to be cornerstones of the regulations.
For system performance requirements the group focused on a proposal from Anish Jantrania a former Virginia regulator and currently an engineer with Northwest Cascade, the Arizonian regulations and a light brush with the North Carolina performance regulations. Anish’s proposal was entirely qualitative while the Arizona regulations presented by Colin Bishop a former Arizona regulator and currently with BNM-US, the manufacturer of Pruaflo systems. The Arizona approach was entirely quantitative and encompassed 129 pages of detail. Since I am not a system designer of septic systems, but simply a user I learned a lot from the discussion of these two approaches. The essential point was how much leeway to allow licensed engineers in their designs. The Arizona approach was very much like snapping together a system with sized and regulated components. This is very much a Lego approach, plug and play. The qualitative approach was far more dependent on engineering judgment and practice and susceptible to abuse by the unscrupulous. After listening to various points of view I think the qualitative system design approach is most appropriate for the clustered alternative systems. The single family home applications should possibly be more tightly regulated because of the variation in use and maintenance of systems by different home owners. The regulations need to ensure that any failure by these individual systems would be contained on the homeowners own lot. Tightly constricted numeric performance requirements are best for this segment. I look forward to seeing where the VDH takes these regulations. Given the short time frame I question if they would have time to develop the scope of the Arizona regulations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)