The Virginia Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (VOWRA) is generally in support of the proposed regulations. This is true for both their intent and content. The following comments are the end result of an extensive, comprehensive review of the proposed regulations by numerous practitioners currently engaged in the onsite wastewater industry in Virginia. These comments are offered in an effort to improve the proposed regulations and should not be construed to indicate that VOWRA does not generally support the proposed regulations.
12VAC5-613-10, Definitions: In general, the definitions section is well constructed. In particular, the concept of utilizing a “Best Management Practice” approach is very appropriate to management on onsite wastewater.
Reportable Incident definition
1.This definition states “…The routine maintenance of effluent filters is not a reportable incident.” It is our understanding that the cleaning of effluent filters is to be excluded from maintenance that is required to be performed by a licensed operator so that homeowners could legally perform this function. However, the above definition appears to imply that cleaning of effluent filters is part of the “maintenance” required to be performed by an operator. VOWRA recommends that the word “maintenance” be changed to “cleaning” in the above definition if this action is envisioned to be allowed to be performed by non-licensed individuals.
2.Many alternative systems may experience temporary periodic alarm conditions due to power outages or due to other events that sporadically occur. As long as these events are not occurring on a frequent basis and the system returns to normal operation within an acceptable time frame, no appreciable harm is done to the treatment unit or the receiving environment. However, this definition requires report to be filed which means a site visit. This means more dollars spent by the homeowner to address a issue that does not exist. Therefore, these “nuisance alarms” should not be a reportable incident. A typical example of this is the high water alarm on a time dosed system that occurs after a party. The system will stop alarming as soon as the timers allow the pumps to remove the excess flow. In many cases, the system would likely return to normal operation within 24 hours. As long as this is an isolated incident, no appreciable harm is done to either the treatment system or the receiving environment by this occurring. VOWRA recommends excluding from reportable incidents those alarm events that are less than 24 hours in duration and, based on the judgment of the operator, are not symptomatic of a problem that requires further investigation or remediation.
Large AOSS and Treatment System definitions
1.The definition of Large AOSS and the definition of Treatment System do not appear to include the collection system or address the collection of sewage. Classically, the term “Treatment Works”, as defined in other Federal and State statutes, identifies collection sewers as part of the treatment works. This is done in order to regulate the design, maintenance, and use requirements of the collection system. VOWRA recommends that the definition of Large AOSS and Treatment System be expanded to encompass the collection system by making it clear that the collection system must comply with the SCATS regulations (or other regulations) that can place limits on I&I, require pretreatment of high strength wastes, etc.
2.Due to the lack of addressing the collection side of the Large AOSS, the homeowner’s role in large system is not addressed. The homeowner is typically not the owner of the large AOSS, but impacts what goes into the system. This could impact the ability of the treatment works to perform through no fault of the design or the operator. VOWRA recommends addressing this issue through making it clear that the collection system must comply with the SCATS regulations (or other applicable regulations) that can require enforceable sewer use requirements to be placed on the users of the system.
12VAC5-613-40 Relationship to other regulations: VOWRA recommends that this section be clarified to ensure that it is easily understood that these regulations are supplemental to all other current regulations and when in conflict these regulations control.
12VAC5-613-50, Violations and enforcement: This regulation will be much less effective without the authority granted in the draft Civil Penalties Regulations (12VAC5-650-10). The ability to levy civil penalties will significantly reduce criminal prosecution that may occur due to these regulations. This should aid in the political acceptance of the mandatory maintenance requirements. In addition, portions of that regulation need to be changed to mirror the content of this regulation. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate that this regulation contain the applicable portions of the draft civil penalty regulations. VOWRA recommends that this section be amended to add the civil penalty authority and other necessary regulatory requirements to allow civil penalties to be issued for any violation of this regulation.
12VAC5-613-80, 7. The dispersal of septic tank effluent is prohibited for large AOSSs
The proposed regulations allow large systems to be constructed with conventional gravity dispersal of septic effluent. When designed properly, large systems with pressure distribution are sustainable, they have a positive environmental impact, and they can be cost effective. VOWRA recommends that large system designs be required to justify a need for utilizing gravity dispersal in lieu of pressure distribution if that is the chosen method of dispersal and the prohibition of septic effluent for large flow not be instituted.
12VAC5-613-80, 11.b. Adherence to the maximum sizing criteria herein does not assure or guarantee that other performance requirements of this chapter,including effluent dispersal or ground water quality, will be met. It is the designer's responsibility to ensure that the proposed design is adequate to achieve all performance requirements of this chapter
The reference to the “Maximum Sizing” is confusing since there is no maximum size, but a there is a maximum loading rate. It is understood that a maximum loading rate would result in a “Minimum Size”, but the language needs clarification. VOWRA recommends that the term “maximum sizing”, be replaced with “maximum trench bottom hydraulic loading rates”.
There are two issues with this table and its application. There has been no proof or consensus that the soil infiltrative surface knows the difference between TL2 and TL3 water quality to justify different loading rates. Standoff distances to limitations may be different. Secondly, the application of nitrified effluent by gravity to meet environmental goals has no demonstrated basis and is a polluting practice. Nitrates move with water and gravity dispersal creates saturated flow at the point of discharge which promotes migration directly to the water table within a detectable plume. Therefore, VOWRA recommends that gravity distribution be prohibited for nitrified effluent.
If gravity dispersal with treated effluent is allowed, better guidance is necessary. Just saying the size should be increased (loading rate reduced) is not enough guidance for the average designer. VOWRA recommends that the designer be required to demonstrate that the proposed resultant dispersal of effluent will not pollute ground water under the assumption that there will not be even distribution in the trenches. In addition, the system should be required to have samples collected under the criteria contained in section 12VAC5-613-100 as a system without general approval.
12VAC5-613-80, 15.The organic loading rate shall no exceed 2.1 x 10-4 BOD lb/day/sf on a trench bottom basis
This statement is in conflict with other sections. VOWRA recommends removal of this statement.
12VAC5-613-90. Performance requirements; ground water protection
D.1.b (2) Mass loading of 4.5 lbs of N per person needs additional guidance. The limits applied to a “project boundary” would typically be defined in terms of a unit of measure such as an “area”, but not a “linear” boundary. It is VOWRA’s understanding that the intent of this language is to satisfy a desire to achieve a 50% reduction in order for a system to fall into the “deemed to comply” classification. VOWRA recommends rewording this section to plainly state that a 50% reduction is the requirement in order for the system to be deemed to comply.
D.1.b (2) The standard for uptake should be at less than 12 inches since many experts think no uptake is achieved at depths deeper than 16 inches. (The 12 inch standard will provide an additional installation safety factor.) This more accurately reflects the active root zone. VOWRA recommends changing the uptake standard to no deeper than 12 inches.
D.1.(2) and D.2. Considered together. In section D.2.: VOWRA recommends that dilution not be considered in demonstrating compliance. As discussed previously: VOWRA recommends that gain, uptake or denitrification should not be included for depths below 12 to 18 inches. It is understood that significant denitrification can occur depending on soil conditions, but 18 inches is a conservative limit and happens to be reasonably close for plant uptake.
Using Table 3, the acceptable range of pounds/day released would be:
1000 - 40,000 gpd @ 20 mg-TN/L = 0.17 to 6.64 lbs per day
40,000 - 100,000 gpd @ 10 mg/L = 3.34 to 8.4 lbs per day
>100,000 gpd @ 5 mg/L = 4.17 lbs per day
Based on these numbers, the regulations appear to be unfair to the smaller systems. This section needs to be rewritten to help strike a balance. It would be appropriate to set one standard for treatment in the Chesapeake Bay counties of 10 mg/L. The appropriate application of land application practices thereafter would then assure meeting the boundary limits. VOWRA recommends that systems be required to meet the 20 mg/L for flows up to 40,000 gpd, 10 mg/L of Total Nitrogen at the end of pipe requirement for larger flows. In addition, VOWRA recommends that those with daily discharges of less than 10,000 gpd be exempt from the 20 mg/L requirement or have the requirement implemented via best practice protocols.
12VAC5-613-100 D. The owner of each small AOSS is required to submit an initial grab sample of the effluent from the treatment unit and have the sample analyzed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 or alternative methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency within the first 180 days of operation. Thereafter, if the treatment unit has received general approval, a grab sample is required once every five years. Samples shall be analyzed for BOD5 and, if disinfection is required, fecal coliform. Treatment units utilizing chlorine disinfection may alternatively sample for TRC instead of fecal coliform. Sample results shall be submitted to the local health department by the 15th of the month following the month in which the sample was taken. O&M must be performed by a licensed operator, not the homeowner. This section should be rewritten so as to not inappropriately encourage owners to take samples or open parts of an AOSS to take samples. VOWRA recommends rewriting this section to read: “The owner of each small AOSS is required to have his operator submit…”.
Table 4 - Sampling and Monitoring for Large AOSSs
Flow monitoring of small AOSS’s in Table 5 is “measured or estimated”. VOWRA recommends that flow monitoring in Table 4 for larger systems should be changed to “measured or estimated”.
12VAC5-613-120, Operator Responsibilities
A. Whenever an operator performs a visit that is required by this chapter observes a reportable incident, he shall document the results of that visit in accordance with 12VAC5-613-190.
The requirements for certain large AOSS require daily visits, field measurements, and weekly sampling. That implies daily and weekly reporting at the least. The reporting requirement exceeds those for large discharging systems and, VOWRA believes, was most likely not intentional. VOWRA recommends adding language to this section that would exempt operators from filing reports for large systems each and every time a regularly scheduled or “routine” site visit is made as long as a monthly or quarterly report is filed according to the approved O&M manual.
12VAC5-613-140, Owner responsibilities
VOWRA recommends adding the following to this section: “8. Clean the effluent filter(s) to assure proper flow or specifically make it your operator’s responsibility in your operator relationship agreement.” (It may also be stated at the end of the maintenance definition that the cleaning of the effluent filter is not considered maintenance.)
6. 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
Many owners of older systems were never given manuals or have since lost or misplaced them. In addition, some older systems were never covered by O&M manuals. VOWRA recommends that the Operator be given authority to develop these manuals for systems installed prior to the implementation date of this regulation if no such manual exists. If the skill level required is above that of the Operator, then his or her ethics dictates that they should solicit an engineer.
12VAC5-613-170, C.1. Basic information on the AOSS design including treatment unity capacity, installation depth, pump operating conditions, a list of the components comprising the AOSS, a dimensioned site layout, sampling locations, and contact information for replacement parts for each unit process. VOWRA recommends changing the word “unity” in the first line to “unit”.
12VAC5-613-190, Reports
When required to file a report, the operator shall complete the report in a form approved by the division. In accordance with § 32.1-164 H of the Code of Virginia, the operator shall file each report using a web-based system and pay the required fee. The operator may, solely at his own discretion, file reports in addition to those required by this chapter. Each report shall be filed by the 15th of the month following the month in which the visit occurred and shall include the following minimum elements…
The current “VENIS” web based reporting system in use by VDH does not meet the Code of Virginia requirements for a web based reporting system and these regulations do not address all of the items covered in the code language with regards to the web-based reporting system. The main item of note is related to the components. The intent the code was to track replacement of parts. Neither VENIS nor these regulations address this issue. VOWRA recommends changing this section of the regulation to mirror the requirements of the code language by adding the following: “5. All maintenance performed and adjustments made, including parts replaced.”
