EPA Launches Program for Septic Systems

Last week was a busy one for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They launched “SepticSmart,” a new program encouraging homeowners to properly care for and maintain their septic systems. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 25% of U.S. households have septic systems, and it is believed by regulators that most are not properly maintained. That is more than 26 million homes whose household waste may not be properly treated by natural processes because the septic systems are not managed and maintained properly and are predominately not regulated. EPA controls the treatment of the rest of the nation’s human and household waste directly by point source regulations and permits, but at this time can only encourage proper behavior in septic system owners.

The number of households with septic systems is large and growing, approximately a third of all new homes have septic systems. EPA has become increasingly concerned over the impact of nutrient contamination into bays and estuaries and is looking for ways to reach individual homeowners. The SepticSmart program is also directed to health departments and environmental groups with recommended actions and outreach pointing out “(a)cross the country, local environmental groups, health departments, and governments face the challenges posed by improperly maintained and failing septic systems. EPA seeks to assist these local agencies in promoting homeowner education and awareness.” Improperly maintained septic systems are reported to be the largest cause of contamination to private drinking water wells, but that tends to be an extremely local phenomena (the well you are most likely to impact is your own or your next door neighbor’s). In addition, more than a third of homes with septic systems do not have drinking water wells because of the problem of contamination. The big concern that the EPA has is nutrient contamination from septic systems.

Nutrients primarily nitrogen and phosphorus are needed by plants and animals to survive, but when too many nutrients make their way into local rivers, streams and bays, they can overwhelm the ecology and create conditions that are harmful to estuary grasses and aquatic life. Excess amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are the main cause of the Chesapeake Bay's poor health and the reason that EPA has created the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Over the past quarter century the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased, but the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded from their natural ecology. As a result, US EPA has taken control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated TMDL to restore the local waters.

While EPA has no authority to regulate septic systems within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, they can indirectly, by requiring states to include septic system management in the compliance plans called Watershed Implementation Plans or WIPs. The TMDL allocates a pollution budget among the states which will decrease over time and the states have to issue and have EPA accept WIPs that meet EPA standards or the EPA will lower the MS4 and Wastewater Treatment Plants allowed nutrient output to meet the goal. That is the most expensive method of compliance, costing billions more than other acceptable strategies. According to the EPA model of the Chesapeake Bay, septic system account for 4.5% of the nitrogen released to the Chesapeake Bay. It is probable that in other watersheds in the country that have excess nutrient pollution (like the Mississippi River and delta) that septic systems contribute a similar amount of nutrient pollution.

There are very few septic regulations in the nation and EPA does not at this time have authority to regulate non-point sources of contamination. There have been several bills before congress that would expand the Clean Water Act, but none have so far passed and in reality there is great difficulty in regulating individual homeowners and controlling the way they operate their septic systems. Septic systems are a suburban and rural, where monitoring of individual homeowner operation and maintenance of septic systems and oversight are difficult. EPA has instead effectively used the TMDL and WIPs each of the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and Washington DC were required to develop and have approved by EPA to push for improvements in septic systems. The Virginia WIP had $1.6 billion in improvements in septic systems and Maryland had $3.7 billion (these of course will be paid for by the homeowners). The states in turn will have to find ways to reach homeowners with septic systems and behaviors that can be regulated. It would be very difficult to ban garbage disposals in private homes, or regulate what you can flush down the toilet, pour down the drain, or how many loads of laundry can be done in a day. However, it is easier to require more frequent pump outs of septic tanks and track that behavior. There are a multiple of sins in operating a septic system that can be compensated for by pumping a tank every 3 years.

Using Your Water Well as a Standing Column Well for Geothermal

Adopted from Orio 1999

Through the Virginia Department of Health I received a contact from a homeowner interested in installing a ground source heat pump utilizing his current drinking water well as both a water supply well and a standing column thermal exchange well for the geothermal heat pump. He apparently had run across this idea in some materials by Carl Orio. In truth, Mr. Orio is the man.  Mr. Orio has been working with geothermal heat pumps since 1974 when he founded WESCORP. Since that time he has expanded his knowledge and experience about geothermal heat pumps leading the way and is the co-author of practically everything including the New York City "Geothermal Heat Pump Manual" and ASHRAE funded research papers.

Though standing column wells have been around since the advent of geothermal heat pump systems, only  recently are they receiving  more attention because of their superior performance in regions with suitable hydrological and geological conditions (Orio 1994, 1995, 1999; Yuill and Mikler 1995; Spitler et al. 2002) and limited horizontal space.  According to a paper by Mr.  Orio et al. in 2005 there were only about 1,000 standing column well-geothermal heat pump installations in the United States. Standing Column Well systems are groundwater heat pump systems that use groundwater drawn from wells in a semi-open loop arrangement. The ground heat exchanger in these systems consists of a vertical borehole that is filled with groundwater up to the level of the water table. Water is circulated from the well through the heat pump and back to the well in an open loop pipe circuit. The standing column can be thought of as a cross between a closed-loop vertical well system and an open-loop groundwater source system. The systems identified by the paper are in the colder climates of the northeast and west where air heat exchangers could not do the job, but a geothermal system can function in the extreme cold. In a survey of existing systems the most significant parameters were found to be well depth, rock thermal/hydraulic conductivity, and bleed rate.

During much of the year, the standing column systems operate by recirculating water between the well and the heat pump. The water is drawn from the bottom and returned to the top of the water column. However, during extremecold or hot periods they can “bleed” some water from the well to maintain thetemperature range of the standing column well by inducing groundwater flow into the well.  This causes groundwater to flow to the column from the surrounding formation to make up the flow. This serves to cool the water column during heat rejection in the summer, and warms the column and surrounding ground during heat extraction in the winter, thus restoring the well-water temperature to the normal operating range and improving the system performance. A bleed is especially important in the colder climates where the loss of temperature in the well could result in freezing of the system in extreme cold. In warmer climates an excess of temperature in the well during the hottest days would only result in a loss of efficiency since the temperature increase would still result in water significantly below the ambient temperature.

Most of the existing standing column installations are located in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest in heating-dominated residential and light commercial applications. The vast majority exist in the northeastern Appalachian region including Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and the northwestern states. Because air heat exchangers have improved in efficiency so much in the last few years and the heating demands in Virginia and the rest of the south are much less than in the Northeast, ground source heat exchangers have been less popular in the south.

The home owner who contacted me lives on the Occoquan Reservoir right around the fall line in the coastal plain of Virginia, to be entirely accurate, the homeowner actually lives just west of the fall line and within the harder bedrock of the Piedmont. The Fall Line so named because the meeting of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain is marked by a line of waterfalls. The Fall Line is really a zone rather than just a narrow line. The rapids and waterfalls characteristic of the Fall Line extend up to a mile wide in some locations. The waterfall on the Occoquan River near Lorton has been "dried out" by the construction of the dam that created the Occoquan Reservoir, but still marks the line. You can see the exposed rocks at the Fall Line by walking upstream from the town of Occoquan when the path is open. The geology at the home is most likely a layer of generally unconsolidated, inter-bedded sands and clays, underlain by bedrock.

The homeowner’s well is 450 feet deep with the pump at 400 feet.  The well is probably that deep because that is what it took to find an aquifer just west of the Fall Line. That is not a good well for this water rich region of Virginia, but groundwater is not equally distributed throughout the region.  The water level in the well is about 35 feet from the surface creating water storage within the well of over 2,000 gallons.  The water storage has served to produce a consistent supply for the house since the well is reported to recharge at only 5 gpm- not really enough to run a household.  This is a non-robust aquifer and they drilled 450 feet to reach it. This well may indicate the difficulty of locating a well on the property or replacing the well if it is damaged. As a Virginia Master Well volunteer, my first reaction is always that the drinking water well is sacred and should not ever be risked especially in a location where there was difficulty with drilling a producing well. The homeowner is aware of this concern.

The groundwater aquifer recharges this well at 5 gallons per minute. This aquifer is not robust, even a 10% bleed at 0.6 gallons per minute would consume over 800 gallon per day. However, a bleed is not necessary. The thermal demands are not as high in Virginia as Maine and other parts of cold New England and the actual use of water by the household is probably 100-150 gallons a day. The use of the water for the heat exchanger is non-consumptive (it will be returned to the well at the 4-6 gallons a minute that it is drawn) and since the water in the well will turn over in less than a week and be constantly diluted with recharge, any impact from the metal portion of the heat exchanger should be negligible. The only true potential contamination would be a leak in the heat exchanger allowing the gallon or so of ethylene glycol to contact the well water and that should be carefully watched.

An important design feature to convert the existing well to a duel purpose well is the pump for the well will have to be replaced with a variable speed pump that can deliver at least 12-15 gallons per minute. A variable pump is needed because the pump will now serve two purposes. When the heat pump is operating it requires flow at 4 or 6 gallons per minute and the well must also be able to respond to the household needs an simultaneously pump to the pressure tank. There will have to be a duel switching system to trigger the pump. The heat exchanger has to be able to trigger the pump and lower demand when it shuts off and the pressure tank needs to be able to trigger the pump to either turn on or increase flow. There also has to be a valve trigger to open or close the valves to the pressure tank or heat exchanger.  Typically a standing column well needs to be 250-500 feet deep depending on the bleed. This well at 450 is perfectly sized for a 4-5 ton system and the recharge rate at 5 gallons per minute is really below the ideal level for a household, but this household has two residents so, their daily water demand is low.

The return line to the well should be buried at 6-8 feet below grade to reduce heat loss or gain when returning the water to the well. The return line should deliver the water within the water table in the well to avoid introducing turbulence induced mixing in the well column to allow the length of the well to provide adequate time for the temperature of the returned water to return to normal well conditions which for this well is about 50 degrees F. In addition, the homeowner will have to obtain an Underground Injection Control, UIC, Individual Permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The EPA issues its UIC Permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, and implementing regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 124, 144, 146, 147, and 148 and has some experience issuing permits for geothermal standing column installations in other parts of the country. In Virginia the EPA Region 3 manages the program and will walk the homeowner through the Class V permit process filling out the inventory data required for the homeowner. Their single requirement is a monitor to identify if there is a leak in the system coil that could release, according to the EPA, ethylene glycol into the homeowner’s well though they do not require regular reporting on the monitoring. The EPA representative explained that they are just trying to save the well owners from themselves. A Virginia Department of Health permit is not required, but plumbing permits are required on a county level. 

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. 

The Final Alternative Septic Regulation in Virginia

The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Regulations went into effect April 7, 2010 and expired on October 6th 2011. It was anticipated that the final regulation would replace them without a gap in regulation; but Governor McDonnell did not sign the final regulations until October 20th 2011. The Board of Health will publish the regulations on November 7th 2011 and they will go into effect 30 days later, so there will be a 60 day gap in regulation which in the end is meaningless. Homeowners had only recently received letters informing them of the now expired emergency regulations, but the requirements under the final regulations are almost the same as outlined by the Board of Health Letters sent to homeowners this past spring. So as a homeowner with an alternative septic system in Virginia you will need to be in compliance with the regulations.

The final regulations list the homeowner responsibilities as section 140 of the regulations.12VAC5-613-140. Owner responsibilities.
It is the owner's responsibility to do the following:
1. Have the AOSS operated and maintained by an operator;
2. Have an operator visit the AOSS at the frequency required by this chapter;
3. Have an operator collect any samples required by this chapter;
4. Keep a copy of the log provided by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located in electronic or hard copy form, make the log available to the department upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the log to any future owner;
5. Follow the O&M manual and keep a copy of the O&M manual in electronic or hard copy form for the AOSS on the property where the AOSS is located, make the O&M manual available to the department upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M manual to any future owner; and
6. Comply with the onsite sewage system requirements contained in local ordinances adopted pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (§ 10.1-2100 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9VAC10-20) when an AOSS is located within a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area.

Have your AOSS operated and maintained by a licensed operator. As a homeowner if you are not licensed by the DPOR you are not allowed to maintain nor operate you own AOSS. The Virginia code requires the owner of an AOSS to have that system operated by a licensed operator, so you need to hire one of them to operate and maintain your system. That amounts to at a minimum one visit a year, but may be more depending on the type of system you have. The cost of my septic contract increased by 25% after the emergency regulations were approved by the Governor. The operator (or someone who works for the license holder) will visit your home inspect, test and service the components of your system and will file a report on line with the Virginia Department of Health certifying the results.

Have an operator review the operation of the system at the frequency required by the regulations. The frequency of your required maintenance is actually on your AOSS operating permit, which you have probably never seen. Do not worry, if you have an “off the shelf” system it is probably once or twice a year. Typically, the manufacturer obtained general approval for commercially available AOSS (and that is most systems), the maintenance schedule is given in the standard homeowner’s manual (the link to that is below in the next section). My system operating instructions detail system inspections and adjustments every six months and filter cleaning every three months. The operator is required to perform the required system maintenance, fill out and file forms with Environmental Health detailing the operation and condition of the system and compliance with the required maintenance schedule. The operator is required to file a report (on-line) for all visits. A little note, if your system was custom designed by an engineer, you could have significant additional operating, maintenance and sampling requirements.

Have an operator collect any samples required by this chapter. Laboratory sampling is not required for any small AOSS with an installed soil treatment area that is sized for septic tank effluent and complies with the requirements of 12VAC5-610 for septic tank effluent. In addition to regular maintenance and inspection, all systems installed after April 7, 2010 and whose systems have a secondary treatment and is not exempted by the above statement are required to have a grab sample of sludge taken and analyzed for BOD and, if disinfection is required, fecal coliform once every five years. Systems installed before April 2010 are grandfathered and do not require sampling. Expect to pay at least a couple hundred dollars for this. Yes, it would be cheaper if you took the samples yourself, but you are not allowed to.

Keep a copy of the maintenance log provide by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located. Every time the operator visits your system to maintain and/or inspect it, they are required to fill out a form with the Virginia Department of Health on their on-line reporting system and send you or give you a form indicating what service they provided. I file all of these in a notebook with the Operations Manual, but my service company e-mails me the invoice/log entry so I have all items electronically stored.

Keep a copy of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual for the AOSS on the property, make it available to the health department on request and transfer the O&M Manual to any future owner. All manufactures of systems approved in Virginia have created O&M Manuals that you can access on line and print. You can download the manual and save it or you can print it out. I know this is the biggest waste of paper ever, but I found it easier to actually skim through the manual in print. It does give some useful tips on how to properly use your system. All the manuals from the standard state approved systems can be accessed at this link. (Go outside and read the name and model number off your system. It is on the power/circuit boxes bolted to the house.)

Comply with the local ordinances for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act when an AOSS is located within a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Once a system is built, the responsibilities for the owner are to have the system pumped out at a minimum every five years. Here is a little tip, systems are less likely to back up into your basement or percolate out of the drain field if you pump them out frequently. In practice the licensed operator should inform you when your system needs to be pumped out and certainly the Board of health will send you a letter.

These are now the final regulations for O&M of alternative septic systems. Compliance is simple, but expensive. Identify the type of system you have, print the manual, then identify a licensed operator in your area and hire them. (Check reference and comparison shop, cost is not always indicative of quality in an inefficient market.) I have found by reviewing the AOSS survey performed for the Department of Health that these systems tend to need regular component replacement or repair, so good response time for a system alarm or failure is important.

While alternative septic systems are a bit more complicated that traditional septic systems they can allow the safe development of environmentally sensitive areas. However, it is widely accepted, but not well documented that improperly managed septic systems contribute to major water quality problems. In 2003 EPA reported that 168,000 viral and 34,000 bacterial illnesses occur each year from drinking water contaminated by waterborne pathogens from fecal contamination due primarily from failed septic systems. Proper maintenance of septic systems (both traditional and alternative) is essential for protection of public health and local water resources. Unfortunately, while you and I responsibly manage our septic systems, (exercise, maintain a healthy weight, eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily, save for retirement, etc.), many homeowners are unaware of how septic systems work and what is necessary to maintain them.

One method to deal with this problem was to eliminate all but the most basic systems in the most geologically favorable locations (reduce percolation rate tolerances and design the systems as conservatively as possible). The other method was to regulate, control and track. Establish system performance and monitoring and maintenance requirements, establish a tracking system and operating permits for compliance monitoring, and establish penalties and enforce the program. As a society we collect taxes, we license, register, and inspect cars; now we permit, register and inspect/maintain a septic system. Legislation approved in 2008 (Va. Code § 32.1-163.6) chose which path Virginia would take. That legislation required the Virginia Department of Health to accept designs from professional engineers for alternative septic systems that comply with standard engineering practice, any performance requirements established by the Board, and horizontal setback requirements necessary to protect public health and the environment. In response to that legislation, several localities banned alternative septic systems to protect the groundwater in their communities. Finally, the Virginia legislature stepped in again and required the Board of Health created the emergency regulations (and ultimately the final regulations) to address three issues for AOSS; performance standards, horizontal setbacks, and Operation and Maintenance necessary to protect public health and the environment from AOSS failure or poor design.

This legislation denied localities the ability to restrict use of AOSS in their counties, expanding property rights. However, the legislation also protects public health, the waters of the state and the environment because it requires all AOSS be properly designed, meet minimum performance standards and be properly maintained and spells out what that entails. It is believed by regulators and manufacturer that proper operation and maintenance of these systems will ensure that all AOSS function as designed. It is hoped that uniform regulations throughout the Commonwealth will facilitate homeowner awareness and compliance with the regulations. The full text of the regulations can be read at this link.

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.

Commonwealth of Virginia HB 332 Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems-Improving the Emergency AOSS Regulations

On October 28, 2009 the Virginia Department of Health published their long awaited and needed Emergency Alternative Onsite Septic System, AOSS, regulations after public comment. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that these more effective treatment systems are designed and installed appropriately and maintained in a manner to allow them to function properly to be protective of the environment and public health.

For single family homes the new Emergency AOSS regulations require that these tested and approved systems are installed with conservative horizontal set backs, are operated and maintained by a licensed operator, grab samples taken by a licensed operator every five years (and analyzed by an EPA certified laboratory), and an operating manual and records need to be maintained on site.

HB 332 maintains the essential point of the regulations that these effective AOSS are maintained in a manner that makes them function properly for the protection of the environment and public health. However, this bill prevents the Department of Health from requiring routine sampling and analysis of single family AOSS with flows of less than 1,000 gallons a day. The sampling required under the Emergency Regulations was without technical merit or standard protocol. The sampling was statistically invalid, and potentially counter productive to the safety of the system. Developing an effective sampling protocol is impossible because the end of treatment for many AOSS systems is below ground surface and above groundwater. A monitoring well would remain dry and incapable of being sampled. Even if there were a way to sample the effluent at the end of treatment, testing of a septic system operation at a single point in time every five years can be impacted by volume, load, temperature and humidity and is not representative of overall performance. Results from a single test taken every five years can be expected normally to vary from acceptable overall average results and so are statistically misleading and not representative of sound sampling methods.

HB 332 also creates a provision in the law allowing for a homeowner to become trained to operate their own system. This would minimize the burden on many homeowners who are currently fully capable of operating and maintaining their systems or who can be trained to do so and is more in keeping with Virginia’s history and traditions of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Self regulation is a proven and effective model that can work here. Also, HB 332 would allow all Professional Engineers, registered environmental health specialists/sanitarians, authorized onsite soil evaluator or wastewater works operators licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia to operate and maintain their own single family AOSS without further training.

Finally, HB 332 requires all field technicians working for a licensed operator to be trained to an adequate level to properly maintain the AOSS. This is to prevent licensed operators from hiring untrained and unqualified workers to respond to mandated demand and creates a minimum level of knowledge necessary for anyone working on an AOSS to ensure that these systems are maintained according to manufacturers’ guidelines.

Commonwealth of Virginia HB 332 Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems; Routine Testing-Looking for Support

A new bill HB 332 Alternative onsite sewage systems; routine testing is being carried by Delegate Bob Marshall and is looking for support please contact your Virginia State General Assembly Delegate and Senator and urge them to support and or co-patron it. The bill is currently in House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee. Let’s work together to get this change done to improve the Alternative Onsite Sewer System regulations. The summary of the bill is below, but the full text can be accessed at the Virginia General Assembly site.
Alternative onsite sewage systems; routine testing; who may test. Prohibits the Department of Health from requiring that owners of alternative onsite sewer systems with flows of less than or equal to 1,000 gallons per day and serving a single-family dwelling provide analyzed samples of effluent on a routine and recurring basis. The Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals must develop licensure for (i) employees or agents of licensed operators and (ii) owner-operators of an individual single-family dwelling that have demonstrated the competence and knowledge to operate, monitor, and maintain their own alternative onsite sewage system. Any professional engineer with a current license in the Commonwealth may elect to be deemed an owner-operator without the demonstration of further competence.
On October 28, 2009 the Virginia Department of Health published their Emergency Alternative Onsite Septic System, AOSS, regulations after public comment. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that these more effective treatment systems are designed and installed appropriately and maintained in a manner to allow them to function properly to be protective of the environment and public health. The US EPA states in the “Volunteer National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered Treatment Systems” that improper design, construction, installation, operation and/or maintenance are the source of onsite waste treatment failures. The EPA estimates that 29-30% of Virginia households have septic systems and that 8% of theses systems are AOSS.
For single family homes the new Emergency AOSS regulations require that these systems are installed with conservative horizontal set backs, are operated and maintained by a licensed operator, grab samples taken by a licensed operator every five years (and analyzed by an EPA certified laboratory), and an operating manual and records need to be maintained on site. The HB 332 maintains the essential point of the regulations that these effective AOSS are maintained in a manner that makes them function properly for the protection of the environment and public health. However, the bill prevents the Department of Health from requiring routine sampling and analysis of single family AOSS with flows of less than 1,000 gallons a day. The sampling required under the Emergency Regulations was without technical merit or standard protocol. Developing an effective sampling protocol is impossible because the end of treatment for many AOSS systems is below ground surface and above groundwater. A monitoring well would remain dry and incapable of being sampled. Even if there were a way to sample the effluent at the end of treatment, testing of a septic system operation at a single point in time can be impacted by volume, load, temperature and humidity and is not representative of overall performance. Results from a single test can be expected normally to vary from acceptable overall average results and so are statistically misleading and not representative of sound sampling methods.

The bill also creates a provision in the law allowing for a homeowner to become trained to operate their own system. This would minimize the burden on many homeowners who are currently fully capable of operating and maintaining their systems or who can be trained to do so and is more in keeping with Virginia’s history and traditions of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Self regulation is a proven and effective model that can work here. Also, HB 332 would allow all Professional Engineers licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia to operate and maintain their own single family AOSS without further training. Finally, the bill requires all field technicians working for as licensed operator to be trained to an adequate level to properly maintain the AOSS. This is to prevent licensed operators from hiring untrained and unqualified workers to respond to mandated demand and creates a level of knowledge necessary for anyone working on an AOSS.

Alternative Septic Regulation and the Virginia Single Family Homeowner

Here are some additional thoughts on the proposed Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Regulations as they pertain to single family homeowners. These regulations were published September 28, 2009 by the Virginia Department of Health and the comment period is open until October 28, 2009.

The proposed regulations implement the 2007 legislation and require professional operators certified by DPOR to operate and maintain all alternative onsite septic systems, AOSS, including those of single family homes. The Virginia code requires the owner of an AOSS, to have that system operated by a licensed operator, as defined in § 32.1-163, and visited by the operator as specified in the operation permit. Effective July 1, 2009, Virginia law requires that soil evaluators, installers, and operators of onsite 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). For the interim regulations nothing can be done to change that. However, the proposed regulations go on and 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. This serves to add to the profitability of the licensed operators and the expenses for the homeowner without benefiting public health or the environment.

The proposed testing requirement is not authorized or required by statute and is useless. Laboratory testing of a septic system at a single point in time can be misleading. Operating performance is impacted by volume, load, temperature and humidity, and a single sample is not representative of overall performance. These approved AOSS have already been tested to demonstrate an acceptable operating average performance over a period of time and range of conditions. The authorizing statute requires regulation of the operation and maintenance of AOSS but does not authorize or require testing or reporting unrelated to this purpose. An AOSS that is operated and maintained by a professional operator meets the requirements in the law and protects the environment. Regular inspections and maintenance should serve to identify systems that are not functioning properly.

The requirement for operation and maintenance by a licensed operator favors operator over homeowners, and does not require certification by the manufacturer of all approved systems for implementing operation and maintenance programs. Effectively, licensed operators unqualified to maintain a particular system can contract with homeowners to operate and maintain the system. This bias is compounded by the record keeping, and evidence of maintenance contract requirements making it extremely difficult to change operators. The DPOR and VDH do not give homeowners any tools to evaluate operators, yet tie the homeowner to the operator by the requirement to “Maintain a relationship with an operator.” Before a contract expires the homeowner is required to have another one in place.

Finally, a home owner is required to 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 upon request and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M Manual to any future owners. The requirements for the manual are listed in the proposed regulations, and appear to be another profit center for the licensed operators to provide these manuals to homeowners. Since the homeowner is not allowed to operate or maintain their systems themselves a manual is a useless pile of paper conveying little information to untrained reader. A simple diagram of the system, physical location of the components and a list of components, their manufacturer and their function would suffice for single family systems. This short information brochure would more likely to be read and understood by the homeowner and could serve as an educational tool and be useful in shopping for a licensed operator.

The success of the regulations in protecting the environment and public health will depend on the compliance of the AOSS owners. For the individual homeowner the regulations should be clear, fair and easily understood by a layman reading them. Compliance with the regulations will suffer if they are, or are perceived, to be excessively costly or burdensome and without benefit to public health and the environmental. Though I believe there should be a method for a homeowner to become licensed to operate their own systems, these approved AOSS need to be annually inspected and properly maintained by professional or trained operators. A monthly cost for a maintenance contract of around $40 will be perceived as an additional cost like a property tax, but is manageable. The other portions of these regulations make the cost to the homeowner too high without providing additional protection to public health and the environment.

Commonwealth of Virginia Proposed Septic System Regulations

On September 28, 2009 the Virginia Department of Health published their proposed Alternative Onsite Septic System, AOSS, regulations for public comment. The window for public comments closes on October 28, 2009. The comment period is closed.


The proposed regulations implement the legislative mandate of 2007 and require professionals operators certified by DPOR to operate and maintain all alternative onsite septic systems, AOSS. The Virginia code requires the owner of an AOSS, to have that system operated by a licensed operator, as defined in § 32.1-163, and visited by the operator as specified in the operation permit. Effective July 1, 2009, Virginia law requires that soil evaluators, installers, and operators of onsite 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). Prior to July 1, 2009, Virginia law did not require a license to practice as an onsite sewage system operator. DPOR’s regulations for licensing operators does not have any sort of exemption or modified certification for homeowners, but should. It is irrational that home owners can operate direct discharge septic units, but the legislation requires that all single family AOSS units be operated and maintained by a licensed operator.

In their proposed regulations the Virginia Department of Health did not have the option of allowing homeowners to operate and maintain their own systems without modifying the DPOR licensing requirements. The legislation passed in 2007 required that licensed operators perform these tasks. The Department of Health, fully aware of the problem, did not attempt to develop an alternative certification for homeowners, instead they choose to propose that single family home AOSS (under 1,000 gallons per day) be required to be operated by a licensed operator, maintained by a licensed operator and sampled. These are the same requirements that are used for AOSS units processing up to 39,999 gallons per day. These requirements combined are far in excess of what is required to ensure that these systems function as designed. It is to be noted that most single family homes operate at far fewer than 1,000 gallons a day.

The requirement for operation and maintenance by a licensed operator favors operator over homeowners, and does not require certification by the manufacturer of all approved systems for implementing operation and maintenance programs. This bias is compounded by the record keeping, and evidence of maintenance contract requirements making it extremely difficult to change operators. I am not give any tools to evaluate operators, yet sa a homeowner I am tied to the operator by the requirement to “Maintain a relationship with an operator.” Before a contract expires the homeowner is required to have another one in place. Finally, a home owner is required to 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 upon request and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M Manual to any future owners. The requirements for the manual are listed in the proposed regulations, and appear to be another profit center for the licensed operators to provide these manuals to homeowners. A simple diagram of the system and a list of components and their function would suffice for single family systems. The question is why the VDH is proposing such punishing regulations for single family AOSS that go beyond the need to properly maintain these systems, but serves as a profitability act for the licensed operators.

Alternative onsite septic 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 onsite 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. Rather than attempt to educate the homeowner and offer cost effective solutions to ensuring that AOSS are maintained properly, the VDH has proposed three layers of oversight within the regulations that are likely to result in avoidance of compliance and potentially abandonment of the technology. The VDH is treating low volume single family home AOSS the same way as clustered systems. Is this the best answer for Virginia?

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 4

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. It is the goal of the Virginia Department of Health to promulgate the regulations in the third quarter and have them go into effect before the end of the year.

For the final meeting, members of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Department of Health made a full court press to pull together and wrap up the process. I for one found the meeting and the materials provided both thought provoking and satisfying. The Committee was able to come to a consensus thanks in a large part to the able facilitation by Bruce Dotson of CSR of the University of Virginia. All the loosely controlled discussions of various people’s point of views allowed the Committee members to develop an appreciation of other perspectives to enrich our understanding of the difficulty of the problem. This broadening of our viewpoints allowed us to be accepting of the majority opinion for the scope of the performance requirements and horizontal setbacks necessary achieve our goal. Hopefully, the suggestions of the Committee will be incorporated into the emergency regulations.

To a large extent the final vote of the Committee was impacted by the materials provided by other Committee members. Colin Bishop of Bord Na Mona Environmental Products provided some research articles that clarified, for me, the issues on horizontal setbacks despite the reasonable arguments for a narrower limit for engineer designed systems. Most influential in my thinking was some of the older, but still valid research from the RS Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma. When I worked for the US EPA this was the laboratory providing the groundwater research that was used in the development of groundwater models and regulations. The study by Marylynn V. Yates points out that septic tanks contribute 800 billion gallons of waste water per year to the subsurface. The study found that the most important factor influencing groundwater contamination by septic tanks is the density of systems in an area and the distance to the contamination point. It is as simple as that. The fewer systems per square mile the less chance of contamination. Distance from a septic system, the so called horizontal set backs are the final protection from harm especially for those of us who obtain our drinking water from private water supplies.

In a memo, Merle Fallon and a co-author who are very familiar with Department of Environmental Quality regulations pointed out that the Virginia Department of Health regulations for clustered system should be compatible with the current DEQ regulations for operators of alternative on site sewage systems. The rules for the operators should be substantially the same. In addition they point out that a single set of horizontal set backs will provide consistency. Though secondary treatment levels provided by alternative on site systems might allow the reduction in setback in some circumstances, using the standard setbacks allows for simplicity and provides a secondary degree of protection. When the Committee voted (thought it was in reference to engineered designs horizontal setbacks) it was in overwhelming support that the horizontal setbacks from drinking water, property lines and surface water were to be maintained for single family alternative septic systems. The balance of providing a reasonable secondary level of protection, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, defined as proximity to surface and drinking water supplies while allowing development and use of property was achieved. At least for me the logic of the argument presented by Marcia and Merle and information provided by Colin was most convincing. Virginia’s water supply is one of its great assets and should be carefully protected to ensure that the Commonwealth can continue to grow and prosper in years ahead.

Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Regulations for Alternative Septic Systems Part 3

On Thursday, July 30, 2009 the third 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 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.

Truthfully, the most stimulating (and thought provoking) discussion was a brief end of the day conversation between Bob Lee from the Loudon County Department of Health, Anish Jantrania of NW Cascade and an attorney (whose permission to use his name I failed to get). At the end of the meeting the meeting facilitator, Bruce Dotson, and Allen Knapp of the VDH assigned homework to Anish Jantrania to address the list of discussion topics to clustered alternative systems. Anish quickly assembled a small group to discuss how to best accomplish this goal and I eased dropped on their general discussion.

First a little background. Cluster systems are merely a large on-site waste disposal system designed to serve groups of homes using a single type of system or a combination of collection and treatment methods. I had always had an uneasy feeling about these systems because of human nature; I felt that if enough homes were clustered together, then individuals would take advantage of the anonymity to abuse the systems, excessive use of garbage disposal, household load and household chemicals. Without having to face the direct consequences of their actions or feeling that they were forced to face the consequences of other’s actions, people would not be “good” users of the systems. However, the use of cluster systems has a number of benefits and can be appropriate in small communities with small home lot size and a variety of site conditions. Decentralized clustered systems may be more desirable for ecologically sensitive areas because of the professional management and monitoring (i.e., where advanced treatment such as nutrient removal or disinfection is necessary such as beach and lake locations) and can also achieve cost savings while also recharging local aquifers. In addition, the professional management of the system may more than compensate for the anonymity factor. This may be a preferred solution for the tidally influenced areas of the Tidewater.

Cluster on-site waste systems typically serve fewer than a hundred homes, but they can serve more. Under this approach, septic tank effluent from each home is collected and routed to another site for further treatment and soil discharge. In some designs waste is pumped directly to the treatment site and primary treatment occurs at the treatment site instead of in individual home septic tanks. Collection and movement of raw or settled wastewater to the final treatment site can be accomplished by gravity, pressure, pump or vacuum systems.

As Anish and Bob Lee made clear, the advantages of these alternative collection systems include significantly lower capital cost, less opportunity for infiltration and inflow, and increased construction and location flexibility. This can be used to solve a wide variety of site challenges in an optimal fashion while allowing the development of the site. The off-site treatment facility is still close to the wastewater sources, and may or may not have some features that resemble a traditional small sewage treatment plant. The primary goals of such a facility are to either prepare the wastewater for dispersal back to ground water or provide reuse of the treated wastewater, usually for landscape irrigation. Regardless of the particular cluster system treatment technology selected, third-party sustainable management by an entity with the technical, financial, and managerial capacity to assure proper operation is required to ensure long-term service. Professional management and operation ensures consistent operation.

Treatment facilities range from sedimentation tanks and soil dispersal facilities to advanced treatment systems with distribution to drip irrigation fields or other reuse sites. Although some facilities use technologies similar to centralized treatment plants (such as trickling filters, aerobic tanks or lagoons, constructed wetlands, etc), most designers employ low-maintenance, upset-resistant alternatives that simplify and reduce operation and maintenance requirements. Final dispersal of treated effluent is usually to the soil, due to greater treatment advantages and avoidance of NPDES permitting, monitoring, reporting, and other requirements. However, cluster systems can be designed and permitted to discharge to surface waters, if necessary. What needs to be accomplished is to make the process and time frame of permitting a clustered system equivalent to the time frame and process of permitting the dozens of individual systems. Right now, it is much simplier and quicker for a developer to permit a single use system for each home rather than to design a superior system for the development as a whole.

There are numerous alternative treatment and/or dispersal system alternatives that can be used in areas where conventional septic systems cannot provide adequate treatment of wastewater effluent. These include mound systems, fixed-film contact units, constructed wetlands, low-pressure and drip dispersal, and advanced treatment systems. These systems, can be used in areas near sensitive surface waters or to protect sensitive groundwater resources. Alternative on-site systems are designed to promote degradation and/or treatment of wastes through biological processes, oxidation/reduction reactions, filtration, evapotranspiration, and enhanced soil application processes. Cluster systems often use suspended growth and attached growth facilities to effect better effluent steams without traditional leech fields. The cost of collecting and treatment wastewater from multiple facilities at a common treatment and dispersal/reuse site offers economies of scale that lower capital and operation/maintenance costs. Cluster systems are often designed to incorporate individual septic tanks for each property served to provide primary treatment and minimize fat, oil, grease, and solids loadings to the collection system and/or secondary treatment units.
(Note: Cluster systems that serve 20 or more people are regulated as Class V facilities under the federal Underground Injection Control Program. Thanks to the CA SWRCB for all their information and input.

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.