SepticSmart Week

When homeowners flush and don’t think about their home’s septic system, it can lead to system back-ups and overflows, surfacing sewage in your yard which can be expensive to fix, polluted local waterways, and risks to public health and the environment. Nonetheless, Virginia like many states has struggled to try to get homeowners to properly maintain their septic systems, both conventional and alternative. Homeowners fail to see or simply ignore indications that their septic systems have failed, do not pump their tanks at appropriate intervals and do not comply with inspection and maintenance regulation for alternative systems. While the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) holds meetings and struggles for solutions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched the first annual SepticSmart Week, September 16-20, 2013 to encourage homeowners to get “SepticSmart.”

The United States has made tremendous advances in the past 35 years to clean up our rivers and streams under the Clean Water Act by controlling pollution from industry and sewage treatment plants. In order to continue to make progress in cleaning up our rivers and streams EPA has turned their focus to control pollution from diffuse, or nonpoint, sources. According to EPA, nonpoint source pollution remains the Nation's largest source of water quality problems. EPA has stated nonpoint source pollution as the reason 40% of our surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming. To continue to improve the quality of the surface and groundwater in the United States, the EPA has wants to expand its programs to include control and oversight of non-point sources of contamination and has used methods such as the Chesapeake Bay Totals Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits for sediment and the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen.

Nonpoint source pollution occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants, nutrients, sediment and carries them to streams and on into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or percolates into the ground and groundwater. Agriculture, forestry, grazing, septic systems, vehicles including cars, trucks, trains, boats, urban runoff, construction, physical changes to stream channels and land surface, and habitat degradation are potential sources of nonpoint source pollution. Careless or uninformed household management also contributes to nonpoint source pollution. Unfortunately, we did not do enough to control pollution from diffuse, or nonpoint, sources- from our homes and living.

Non-point source contamination has always been under the oversight of the states, and the nature of the sources of this contamination make it very challenging for even state and local regulatory agencies to make any progress. EPA has used the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to force the states to develop plans to manage and reduce nonpoint source pollution. In the past public and private groups have developed and used pollution prevention and pollution reduction initiatives. One example is the Soil and Water Conservation Districts that help educate citizens about their watershed and assist farmers in implementing best management practices and other nonpoint pollution controls using cost share dollars from the state and developing nutrient management plants. Nonetheless, more than environmental education activities seems necessary to get citizens to implement the best practices and low impact development strategies and control their own sources of nonpoint pollution starting with the most basic maintenance and care of their septic systems.

Simply pumping out your septic tank would be a good start at reducing nonpoint pollution, but homeowners just don’t do it. EPA and the Virginia Department of the Environment (through the VDH) have struggled with the challenges of better management of septic systems. There are more than 26 million septic systems in the United States, representing almost a quarter of all U.S. households. It is assumed that in Virginia a fairly rural state that at least a quarter of households use a septic system to treat their wastewater. Proper septic system care and maintenance is vital to protecting public health and preserving valuable water resources and the environment, but has been difficult to achieve.

In Virginia alternative septic systems, called AOSS, are regulated, but compliance with the regulations has been poor. The VDH has been holding stakeholder meetings to develop recommendations to increase homeowner and private sector participation in their program which requires an annual inspection of a system (by a licensed operator), regular maintenance and regular pumping of the tank.

Taking the steps recommended by the EPA for SepticSmart Week would be a great start at reducing nonpoint pollution of our waters. Homeowners can do their part by following these SepticSmart tips:

1. Protect It and Inspect It: In general, homeowners should have their traditional septic system inspected every three years and their alternative system inspected annually by a licensed contractor and have their tank pumped when necessary, generally every three to five years. 
2. Think at the Sink: Avoid pouring fats, grease, and solids down the drain, which can clog a system’s pipes and drainfield.
3. Don’t Overload the Commode: Ask guests to only to put things in the drain or toilet that belong there. For example, coffee grounds, dental floss, disposable diapers and wipes, feminine hygiene products, cigarette butts, and cat litter can all clog and potentially damage septic systems. Flushable wipes are not flushable and do not break down in a septic tank.
4. Don’t Strain Your Drain: Be water efficient and spread out water use. Fix plumbing leaks, install faucet aerators and water-efficient products, and spread out laundry and dishwasher loads throughout the day and week. Too much water at once can overload a system if it hasn’t been pumped recently. 
5. Shield Your Field: Remind guests not to park or drive on a system’s drainfield, where the vehicle’s weight could damage buried pipes or disrupt underground flow.

The Fairfax County James J. Corbalis Jr. Water Treatment Plant

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 I went up to Fairfax County near Herndon to see the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant, the newer of the two Fairfax Water treatment plants and visit with Melissa Billman, the Water Quality Laboratory & Regulatory Compliance Manager and Jeanne Bailey, the Public Affairs Officer for Fairfax Water. Combined they have more than half a century experience in Water Treatment Pants and Compliance and were kind enough to take the time to share their knowledge and experience. Fairfax Water is one of the 25 largest water supply companies in the nation supplying drinking water to 1.7 million Virginians, 900,000 of whom reside in Fairfax County. Twenty percent of all Virginians who are served by public water get their water either directly or indirectly from Fairfax Water. Loudoun Water, Prince William Service Authority, Virginia American Water, the town of Herndon, Fort Belvoir, and Dulles airport all obtain some or all of their water from Fairfax Water.

The Corbalis Water Treatment Plant also houses the Fairfax Water Quality Laboratory built in 2005 and using the state-of-the-art gas chromatography and laboratory equipment that reminded me that I studied chemistry in the Stone Age. The Water Quality Laboratory tests 15,000 samples of water each year and tested for 67,000 parameters including 3,240 samples tested throughout the year for coliform bacteria alone. Each and every month 270 samples are tested for coliform bacteria for the Virginia Department of Health, VDH.  All this testing is done to ensure that the water delivered to  their customers meets or exceeds all regulatory standards and that the water supply delivered to their 1.7 million customers is the best possible drinking water with today’s knowledge and technology.

The Water Quality Laboratory monitors the water from the Potomac River and Occoquan Reservoir throughout the water treatment process and at various points in the distribution system for almost 300 parameters including the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA primary and secondary contaminants for which there exist maximum contaminants limits and also for a list of emerging contaminants such as Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs), Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) that have been found in water nationally. Fairfax Water tests their source and treated waters for a list of 25 substances, hexavalent chromium and perchlorate have recently been added to the list. In 2011 Fairfax water found minuscule traces (parts per billion or parts per trillion) of 2,4-D, TCEP, DEET, Monensin, Simazine, Atrazine,hexavalent chromium and perchlorate in the finished water.

The technology used for chemical analysis has advanced to the point that it is possible to detect and quantify nearly any compound known to man down to less than a nanogram per liter or parts per trillion (1/1,000,000,000,000). The guiding principal of toxicology is that there is always a dose below which no response occurs or can be measured. So if the concentration of the contaminant was low enough there would be no toxic reaction and a trace amount of a substance does not necessarily represent a health risk. Fairfax Water as one of the largest (top 25) water utilities in the nation gathers and provides some data to federal and state regulators that may determine the future changes in the SDWA. In the meantime, research has shown that using the combination of ozone and granular activated carbon filtration that is used by Fairfax Water is very effective in removing broad categories of personal care products and pharmaceuticals as well as the more dangerous Cryptosporidium organism from the source water. Though, no method of filtration is 100% effective all the time.

  

After Melissa Billman showed us the laboratories and their equipment, Jeanne Bailey led the plant tour. Ms. Bailey once worked in this plant, starting when the plant was brand new and delivered 50 million gallons of water a day in 1982. Now the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant can deliver 225 million gallons of water a day and is planned to be expanded to 300 million gallons a day years from now when the fourth and final phase of the plant is finally built. The plant was conceived and planned to be built in phases.  The Corbalis plant is the newer of the two Fairfax Water Treatment Plants. Water from Fairfax Water is distributed through approximately 3,200 miles of water mains to the county’s homes and businesses. On average, Fairfax Water produces 160 million gallons of water per day from both the Corbalis plant and the Griffith plant. The combined total capacity of both plants is 345 million gallons/day. The system must be sized to deliver the peak demand on a 100 degree day when everyone is doing laundry and watering their lawns and everything else we do with water on hot summer days.  To ensure the continuation of water supply during droughts, Fairfax finalized a regional drought response plan in 2001 that included a low flow allocation agreement with the members of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB. In addition, Fairfax bought the rights to 14 billion gallons of water from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir. 

The Corbalis Plant draws its water from the Potomac River four and a half miles away. There are two water intakes-one near the shore and the other mid-stream, which ever intake has better water quality is the one that is used.  Bars and giant screens on the pipes are used to prevent the intake of trash, debris and fish. Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is added to the water at the intake to control taste and odors, remove color, prevent biological growth within the water treatment plant, and remove iron and manganese. The raw water is then pumped to the Corbalis plant where is treated in a series of slow and elegantly simple steps to produce clean and clear drinking water. 

  

Once at the plant the water is pumped to the first of a series of water chambers where the pH is adjusted by adding either caustic soda or sulfuric acid and the primary coagulant, polyaluminum chloride. This coagulant is used to remove small particles of dirt suspended in the water by causing them to stick to one another aided by the coagulant polymer. The water moves from the first water chamber where it is well mixed through a series of chambers (which are really just a series of open rectangular water pools) with slower and slower mixing to allow the particles to coagulate into larger and larger particles until dirt floc is formed. Finally, the water arrives in the sedimentation basins that are not mixed at all and the floc is allowed to settle to the bottom of basins by gravity where they are removed. The floc is thickened by the addition of a polymer, filtered, dewatered by pressure and ultimately used as a lovely agricultural soil amendment.

The next step in the water treatment process is ozonation, the infusing of the water with ozone gas and the first of two disinfection steps. This step was added at the Corbalis plant in 2000 and used this way is still very much leading edge in water treatment technology. Ozone is highly effective in eliminating the Cryptosporidium bacteria and other naturally occurring microorganisms present in water. Unlike ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection systems, there is no re-growth of microbes after ozonation. This step improves the taste and smell of the water. Ozonation also reduces the formation of trihalomethanes (chlorine breakdown products) because of the reduction of organic materials in the water before chlorination. Fairfax water converts liquid oxygen to ozone by an electrical discharge field created within a series of tanks. Viewed just right, you should be able to see the purple corona during the process, but I did not see it.

Ozonation is followed by filtration through granular activated carbon and sand. One cup of GAC has the surface area of about 25 football fields (1,300,000 square feet). Billions of pores in GAC absorb the organic substances removing them from the water and is very effective in removing biological and physical impurities that occur in broad categories of personal care products and pharmaceuticals as well as the more dangerous Cryptosporidium organisms from the water. Slow flow through the filter tanks improves the effectiveness of the filtration. The filter water wash, all runoff from the plant and the water from the dewatering process are reclaimed and returned to the raw water control chamber.

The final steps in the water treatment process is the second disinfection, fluoridation and the addition of a ammonium hydroxide to adjust the pH slightly to prevent corrosion of piping and fixtures in customer  homes to prevent the leaching of lead into water. Nine months of the year Fairfax Water uses chloramine as the final disinfection step. However, during April, May and June of every year Fairfax Water flushes the entire 3,200 miles of water main and uses chlorine during that time to disinfect the delivery network. Flushing the water system entails sending a rapid flow of water through the water mains. As part of the flushing program, fire hydrants and valves are checked and cleaned. Flushing of the water distribution system is performed to remove sediment in pipes and helps to keep fresh and clear water throughout the distribution system. Chlorine is used as the disinfectant during this time so that after the system is flushed, a chlorine residual is maintained in the distribution system to provide a persistent disinfectant to prevent the re-contamination of water before your water tap.

Building the plant in phases has allowed Fairfax water to modify their water treatment process and stay in the forefront of water treatment. Yet, Fairfax Water delivers water to their customers significantly below the national average cost of water, has the lowest retail water rates in the region and has a repair and replacement program that responds not only to the water main breaks, but is designed to replace the entire water supply and distribution system ever 75 years. Many thanks to Melissa and Jeanne for their time and a very interesting afternoon. 

Potomac Watershed Roundtable Meeting: The Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan, and septic regulation in Virginia

The most recent meeting of the Potomac Watershed Roundtable was in Warrenton, VA at Lord Fairfax Community College on January 7th 2011. The session addressed the Chesapeake Bay strict pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandated by the EPA and the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) to achieve the mandated reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution.

The revised WIP also reduces the rate of growth in on-site sewage disposal systems, or septic. The stated intension is to raise the costs to operate a septic system through regulation which would make clustered systems or community systems more competitive and raise the overall cost of building and maintaining homes. The cost of constructing housing would increase in the area in response to these requirements. Though according to the Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, it is not intended to limit regional growth, the requirements cannot help but impact housing costs and availability.

In addition the revised WIP proposes to require the offset new system loads through an expansion of the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program. The Commonwealth intends to implement amendments to Virginia Department of Health regulations for alternative systems which are currently a bit in limbo because of the temporary emergency regulations that the department of health has done little to enforce in much of the Commonwealth and are set to expire on April 7th 2011, but can be extended for 6 months.

The proposed amendments to the current Emergency Regulations that require all single family alternative onsite sewage systems, AOSS, continue to have professional operators certified by DPOR to operate and maintain the AOSS in accordance with the operating permit, and visited by the operator as specified in the operation permit (typically once or twice a year for preapproved commercial systems) and finally an annual maintenance report submitted to the regulators by the operator. In addition, sampling at startup to confirm proper functioning of the system and every five years for those systems put into operation after the date of the enabling legislation and not grandfathered, like mine.

In addition to those requirements the new legislation requires a minimum 50% reduction in delivered nitrogen for all new small alternative onsite systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed resulting in an effective delivered load to the edge of the project boundary of 4.5 lbs TN/person/year. Single family home AOSSs are about to get very expensive in the Cheseapeake Bay Watershed if the regulations are enforced.

As Bob Marshall pointed out a few days ago, the civil penalty regulation establishing a uniform schedule penalties for violations of onsite sewage and alternative discharging sewage treatment system regulations. was withdrawn. There will be little or no enforcement. Those who ignore the law will not suffer any consequences. There seems to be very little follow through on the part of the VDH to even inform the public of the regulations.

The Potomac Watershed Roundtable of nine counties, six towns and cities, the six soil and water conservation districts and various stakeholders including interested citizens was at a loss of how to incorporate these requirements into their programs. If these regulations are necessary and appropriate, then they should not be voluntary. The public should be informed and simple and reasonable penalties established. The public comment period on these changes closes on February 4th 2011. There will be a public hearing on January 25th 2011 at 10 AM at the James Madison Building at 109 Governor Street in Richmond, VA.

New Septic Regulations for Alternative Septic Systems in Virginia

The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Regulations published on November 16, 2009 by the Virginia Department of Health were approved by Governor McDonnell on April 6, 2010, and are now in effect.

The emergency regulations implement the 2007 legislation and require professional operators certified by DPOR to operate and maintain all alternative on site septic systems, AOSS, including those of single family homes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. While I object to routine sampling requirements for functioning single family AOSSs, and I feel there should be provisions within DPOR regulations for homeowners to become qualified to operate and maintain their own systems; overall I believe that these regulations are good and will ensure the proper functioning and operation of existing and future AOSSs in Virginia, The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System Regulations despite their flaws will serve to protect the waters of the state and public health, and will set a higher standard of performance for these on site systems.

Single family homeowners with alternative systems need to comply with these new regulations. Every owner of an AOSS must hire a licensed operator to operate and maintain their system as evidenced by a contract. This portion of the regulations should ensure that these systems are properly operating and protecting the waters of the state. The other requirements of the regulations will all be handled by the licensed operator so the most important step is to hire a licensed, and qualified operator. Since there are no provisions in the regulation for a homeowner to become qualified to maintain their own system even homeowners who work for the Department of Health, are Professional Engineers or in other ways might be capable of and interested in operating or maintaining their own system, there is little a homeowner can do to reduce the costs associated with this regulation. Perhaps when the final regulations are developed they will be less burdensome for the single family homeowner and allow for a homeowner to become licensed to operate their own systems.

Effective July 1, 2009, Virginia law required that soil evaluators, installers, and operators of on site sewage systems must be licensed by the Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals at the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR). The new regulations require the same operation, maintenance, sampling, record keeping behavior in single family home owners as required of clustered systems of up to 39,999 gallons per day. These regulations require that for single family homes, in addition to being operated and maintained by a licensed operator, have samples and taken by a licensed operator every five years (or at the operator’s discretion after an incident) and analyzed at the homeowner’s expense and maintain an operating manual and records on site.

Here are the basics of the new regulations:
Owner responsibilities. The owner of an AOSS must:

Maintain a relationship with a licensed operator as evidenced by a contract.

Have the AOSS operated by a licensed operator;

Have a licensed operator visit the AOSS at the frequency outlined below;

Minimum Operator visit frequency for AOSS up to 1,000 gallons per day of average daily flow:
Initial Visit must take place within 180 calendar days of the issuance of the operation permit Regular Visit after Initial Visit -Every 12 Months


Have the licensed operator collect all samples required by the regulation and have the analysis performed by an accredited laboratory;

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR AOSS under 1,000 gallons per day :
1. The Flow must be Estimated (The basis for this estimation is unknown since the licensed operator is only on site one day a year unless there is an incident)
2. BOD and TSS- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years
3. TRC, Contact Tank (if there is one)- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years
4. Fecal Coliform- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years

Keep a copy of the log provided by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located, make the log available to the Department of Health upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the log to any future owner;

Keep a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) on the property where the AOSS is located, make the manual available to the Department of Health upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M Manual to any future owner. For existing systems they will have to have their licensed operator create an O&M Manual.

The Cost to the Homeowner of Septic Regulations in Virginia

On Thursday, August 20th, 2009 the fourth and final meeting of the Virginia Department of Health “Alternative On-site Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations Ad Hoc Committee” took place. I have participated 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 on-site sewage systems. The regulations must go into effect no later than April 6, 2010 and must also contain Operation and Maintenance requirements for alternative on-site sewage systems.

Today, alternative on-site septic treatment systems are designed to be state of the art, meeting EPA's treatment standard one. This exceeds the standards for sewage treatment plants and replenishes existing groundwater systems. These alternative on-site systems can be more sustainable to the surrounding ecosystem than sewers and centralized waste treatment and are certainly less expensive for the homeowners in sparsely populated areas. However, the systems need to work properly and these newer alternative systems with multiple tanks, compressors and various parts require consistent maintenance to continue working properly. The US EPA has found that adequately managed decentralized waste water treatment systems are a cost effective long term option for meeting public health and water quality goals in less densely populated areas. So, let’s manage them correctly, exactly the goal of the Virginia legislation. What will this cost the homeowner? Of course the final cost will be determined by the exact scope of the regulations, but to give you some idea of what this means to your pocket book I have spent some time pricing out the services.

Loudon County currently requires annual inspections and maintenance contracts for alternative systems, so that at least in Northern Virginia, there is a market for the various services. In addition, § 32.1-164 of the Code of Virginia requires Virginia Board of Health to begin an O&M program for alternative septic systems that is based on the manufacturer’s operation and maintenance instructions, local requirements, or state rules and policies whichever is most stringent. These requirements went into effect on July 9th 2009 and remain in effect until final regulations for O&M of alternative systems are in place. Thus, throughout the state there are septic installation and service companies that have been certified by various manufacturers and currently offer the inspection and operation and maintenance service. Though prices seem to be higher for Northern Virginia and Virginia Beach than other areas I checked, prices from a qualified firm tend to range from $400-$680 annually with a 25% discount available if a group of neighbors get together to negotiate a contract or the HOA negotiates contracts for 10 or more homes. Travel time is a big factor in overall expenses to the service company. That expense translates into an annual operating expense of about $40-$50 a month for sewage. If you have an alternative septic system, make sure that the firm you deal with is certified by either the county or the manufacturer to service your type of system. I did have one firm that quoted a price of $1,750 annually!! When I questioned the price, they told me that I had a “buried tank” that would have to be dug up each year. This was nonsense; I have three tanks with surface ports that can be plainly seen and the man was standing in my yard when he handed me the quote. There are no four tank systems.

There is another area of potential expense that was discussed at the final meeting of the Virginia Department of Health “Alternative On-site Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations Ad Hoc Committee,” should there be end of pipe monitoring for single family home systems. This end of pipe monitoring includes several related items: laboratory sampling of end of pipe effluent, laboratory sampling of groundwater, and field sampling/testing. Let me address groundwater first, it is impractical under any circumstance. Sampling of groundwater for compliance monitoring is impractical because without installing at a minimum three monitoring wells and potentially many more it would be impossible to determine if a groundwater aquifer were contaminated and the costs of not only the well installation and sampling but water analysis would be astronomical. In addition, leaving monitoring wells on-site in perpetuity for ongoing sampling would open potential pathways of contamination to the groundwater.

For end of pipe sampling there was some support for the requirement for single family homes from the VDH and some of the engineering community. As Anish Jantrania of Northwest Cascade put it “I would argue that the regulatory requirements for O&M should be set such that they do not become the driver in decision-making process for selecting which approach to take for designing land-based effluent dispersal system. This mainly applies to the requirements/frequencies of effluent quality sampling and lab analysis. If effluent quality sampling is going to be required at some frequency for large systems then it must be required at a reduced frequency for single home system!” The VDH was attracted to the idea of sampling end of pipe as a method to develop a database of the functioning of the systems. As someone who actually went through the expense of sampling the third tank in my alternative septic system just to find out if the system functions properly I am well aware that the cost could be between $350 and $400. The actual analysis costs $240 but to have a company come out and draw the sample according to protocol, ice and deliver the sample to the laboratory for analysis can cost up to $150 more. I thought long and hard about that expense, but in the end I wanted to make sure that at least on a typical summer day my system was operating within design parameters. It was. Since there are no regulatory consequences for single family alternative systems sample results adding an expense to the homeowner to level the playing field or collect data was something I argued against at the meeting. There are potentially economies of scale in clustered systems and that would help level the playing field.

The group did not vote in favor of routine end of pipe sampling for single family homes for approved technologies. However the group was in favor of field sampling. Where field sampling and laboratory analysis was thought to be potentially beneficial was for approving new technologies into a state or for "unproven" or unique designs. Having to routinely sample individually engineered designs would put these systems at a disadvantage. Joel Pinnix made a very powerful argument for the effectiveness of the individually engineered systems and their potential superiority for the out of the box or off the shelf systems. Then went on to say “There is no place in a regulatory process for data gathering. If VDH wants to gather data for informational purposes, then they should do so by getting a grant and performing a scientific study. There is certainly a role for VDH to conduct or fund studies of alternative systems, but the Emergency Regulation is not an appropriate mechanism to gather data for informational purposes.” Colin Bishop of BMN-US pointed out to me in a communication yesterday there is a role for field sampling and possibly laboratory sampling in extreme circumstances. Operation and Maintenance service providers will routinely perform field checks such as Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, pH, etc. with field testing equipment. Field tests can be performed for just a few dollars and are extremely helpful in identifying a problem if a system seems "upset" and there is a need further troubleshooting.

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.