Should add "of Health" after Board to read:

......the Board of Health has promulgated this chapter to:......

This section states:

"The Division may, as it deems necessary, develop best management practices for the purposes of recognizing acceptable methods to reduce pollution from AOSS's."

To me this would infer that AOSS have in the past or are currently being permitted in a manner that pollutes (pollution as defined by the final draft regs) state waters (as defined by the final draft regs).  May want to change to "failing AOSS" or "non-compliant AOSS".

This section states:

“Failure by any AOSS to achieve one or more performance requirements prescribed by this chapter shall be a violation of this chapter.”

“any AOSS” should be changed to “any AOSS with application filed on or after the effective date of this chapter”.  I understand that by “any” you mean large or small and 12VAC5-613-30.C points out that previously permitted systems only have to meet the performance requirements in place at the time the permit was issued, but I thin the use of simply “any” may cause confusion.

This section states:

“Area hydraulic loading rates for systems such as drip dispersal, pads, spray irrigation, and mounds shall be reduced from the values in Table 1 and shall reflect standard engineering practice.”

The term “spray irrigation” should be removed since 12VAC5-613-30.K states that “Spray irrigation systems…..are specifically excluded from this chapter.”

I am very concerned over the nitrogen reduction requirement in 12 VAC5-613-90-D being added to the Final Regulations for several reasons:

1. To apply this nitrogen reduction requirement to the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed is far too broad an application and far exceeds how neighboring states such as Maryland have been regulating nitrogen reduction as part of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program.  Maryland, for example, has designated "critical areas" within the watershed which are typically applied to onsite sewage systems within a specified distance  of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.  Onsite sewage systems that are within the watershed but located outside of critical areas are encouraged to utilize nitrogen reduction technology but the use of such nitrogen reduction systems and practices are not made mandatory.  I should note that Maryland also provides financial assistance to off-set the cost of nitrogen reduction systems that are installed within their designated critical areas.
2. I don't feel VDH has provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that mandatory nitrogen reduction on such a broad scale is warranted and off sets the severe economic impact that it will have on homeowners and businesses within the Watershed.  According to the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis report on the Final Regulations, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 small AOSS are installed within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed each year.  They have estimated that the proposed nitrogen reduction standards imposed on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed could cost small AOSS owners anywhere from $900,000 to $9 million annually.  This is quite the financial burden to be placing on homeowners and business owners alike during these tough economic times, especially without providing any reliable long-term scientific studies to show that enforcing such a strict nitrogen reduction standard will have any recognizable impact on improving the water quality of the Bay and it tributaries.
3. If the goal is to drastically reduce nutrient loading into the Chesapeake Bay and to comply with EPA mandates, then it does not appear to make any sense that a homeowner living within the Watershed whose site and soil conditions dictate that he will need to install a small AOSS will also be required to incur the added expense of nitrogen reduction while his next door neighbor (who lives even closer to a body of water than he does but whose site and soil conditions allow him to install a conventional septic tank effluent system) is exempt from having to comply with the nitrogen reduction requirements.  If nitrogen reduction is a true concern, then nitrogen reduction standards should be applied across the board for both AOSS as well as more conventional septic tank effluent (septic tank and drainfield) systems.  We should be encouraging more people to consider using AOSS systems for the enhanced benefit of protecting our groundwater and our environment from pathogens rather than adding regulatory restrictions such as nitrogen reduction that make owning such systems financially discouraging.
4. Before implementation of such a regulatory mandate, more research and real world testing data should be gathered on currently available nitrogen reduction technologies.  These systems are not created equal, and even though many have "passed" third party testing within a controlled (laboratory) environment, they may not be able to sustain 50% or better total nitrogen reduction when encountering real world variables such as fluctuations in daily water use and varying wastewater strengths.  I'd advise VDH to discuss the testing results that the Maryland Dept. of the Environment (MDE) has collected on nitrogen reduction systems within their state as they have encountered 3rd-party tested nitrogen reduction systems that have failed to meet the 50% TN reduction threshold.
5. Finally, if VDH feels that nitrogen reduction standards are necessary, then such regulations should be reviewed and studied by the General Assembly and proposed independently of these Final AOSS Regulations. The science behind nitrogen reduction and its perceived impacts on the Chesapeake Bay, in my opinion, have not been thoroughly investigated to warrant such a broad sweeping regulatory change. 

In the end, I would ask that VDH reconsider this overly burdensome requirement that would be placed on folks living within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and remove it from these proposed regulations.

The subject regulation should be modified to incorporate the technical content of Gloucester County's Alternate Sewage Dispoal System ordinance Section 19-17.

Sec. 19-17.  Alternative sewage disposal systems (ASDS).

(a)   Following the effective date of this article, except as expressly permitted in this section, provisionally approved systems and alternative sewage disposal systems shall be prohibited in the county.

(b)   Following the effective date of this article, alternative sewage disposal systems shall be permitted in the county, subject to the following conditions:

(1)   Enforcement.  The health director shall enforce compliance with all provisions of this article. 

(2)   Permit required.  The installation and operation of any alternative sewage disposal system must be approved by the health director, as compliant with this article and all applicable regulations of the state board of health. Before installation the following conditions must be met: 

(i)   Verification that there is, at a minimum, six (6) inches of separation between point of sewage dispersal into the ground and the seasonal water table. For any site where soil wetness indicators (redoximorphic features) are encountered at a depth less than twelve (12) inches from the ground surface, the actual water table shall be determined by a water table study. Such water table studies shall be conducted using electronic data loggers and automated rain measuring devices installed on site and conducted in accordance with the guidelines and recommended procedures provided by the Virginia Department of Health. Within thirty (30) days of completion of the study, all data shall be reported to the local health department in both table and graph format. The overall decision to issue (or deny) a permit shall be based on all site and soil factors in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations.

(ii)   All systems must be either secondary, advanced secondary, or tertiary systems, equipped with a denitrification unit or process capable of a minimum fifty (50) percent nitrogen reduction to assure compliance with NSF/ANSI Standard 245.

(iii)   For all lots created after August 1, 2006, all systems shall be located within the boundaries of the lot to be served by the system.

(3)   ASDS agreement required.  Prior to the operation of any alternative sewage disposal system, an ASDS agreement, executed by the property owner and Gloucester County, requiring the perpetual maintenance of the system by an maintenance provider that is registered, permitted, or licensed by the permitting authority, shall be recorded in the land records of the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Gloucester County. The recordation shall occur in conjunction with, but prior to the issuance of, an operational permit. For alternative sewage disposal systems in existence at the time of adoption of this article, recordation shall occur prior to, or in conjunction with, the transfer of the property, or the issuance of any permit to repair, remodel, replace, renovate, reconfigure or extend the alternative sewage disposal system. The agreement to be recorded, in a form approved by the county attorney, shall, at a minimum: 

(i)   Permit the installation and operation of an alternative sewage disposal system;

(ii)   Provide notice to the public, including subsequent purchasers/owners of the property, that the property is serviced by an alternative sewage disposal system;

(iii)   Define installation, operation, and maintenance conditions, including requiring a permanent maintenance agreement; and

(iv)   Require the property owner annually within thirty (30) days of the anniversary date of such agreement to procure an inspection to ensure that the system continues to operate as designed and in accordance with this section and the maintenance agreement.

(4)   Inspection by qualified provider required.   

(i)   No person shall conduct inspections of alternative sewage disposal systems for purposes of real estate transfer or other compliance purposes without first obtaining maintenance provider registration as a certified inspector in Gloucester County from the health director. To obtain such registration, the provider must be:

•The holder of a valid business license from the county and Class B Virginia Contractors license (or higher) if servicing an ASDS, and

•Certified by the state board of health as an authorized onsite soil evaluator or other state board of health designated agent, or

•Licensed by the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, or

•An accredited septic system inspector/installer as recognized by the National Sanitation Foundation or an equivalent national accrediting organization, which accreditation shall include the passage of both a written and practical examination on the principles and practice of septic-alternative system inspections; or

•Employed and certified by the system manufacturer or designated by the system manufacturer as an authorized service provider as demonstrated by evidence acceptable to the health director.

(ii)   A copy of the inspection report, in a form approved by the health officer shall be delivered by the owner to the health officer within thirty (30) days of the anniversary of the ASDS agreement, or such longer period as may be permitted by the health director.

(iii)   Owner shall repair or replace the system, as necessary, to correct any deficiencies identified in the inspection report in compliance with the County Code and the applicable regulations of the Virginia State Board of Health. Failure to repair or replace the system within thirty (30) days of an inspection report identifying such deficiencies shall constitute a violation and the county may, at its option, terminate the ASDS agreement and revoke the installation and operation authorization issued by the health director for the system.

(5)   Operation and maintenance requirements.   

(i)   Prior to the operation of any alternative sewage disposal system, the owner must provide evidence to the health director in a form acceptable to the health director, that there is a maintenance contract or professional operator in place for the system.

(ii)   The maintenance contractor or professional operator will certify to the health director that the individual or company will report all failures, deficiencies, modifications, and expansions of the system to the county within thirty (30) days of discovery.

(iii)   The property owner shall report to the health director all failures, deficiencies, modifications, alternations, and expansions of the system within thirty (30) days of discovery.

(iv)   For all systems installed after enactment of this article owner shall participate in a web-based remote monitoring program using the NSF onsite monitoring program, or equivalent, approved by the health director, to assure that systems are properly maintained in perpetuity following their initial two (2) years of oversite by the system manufacturer or designer. The cost of such participation shall be the responsibility of the property owner and shall be paid to the provider of the web-based remote monitoring system. Access to the web-based remote monitoring system shall be as follows:

•Property owner may have access to data from his system only.

•Maintenance or service providers may have access to data for his contracts only.

•The health director, codes official, and utility director may view all data within his or her jurisdiction.

•Access to monitor data by other entities is prohibited.

(v)   Participation in a web-based remote monitoring program by property owners with installed and operative alternative sewage disposal systems at the time of enactment of this article is voluntary. However, the following events will trigger mandatory participation in a program:

•Sale or transfer of the property served by an alternative sewage disposal system.

•Repair of system where repair cost exceeds two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).

•Alteration, modification, or expansion of the system.

(6)   Notice of violation and civil penalties.   

(i)   If upon any inspection, the health director, the codes official, the utility director, or their designees shall find any violation of this article, the health director shall direct, by written notice, that the violation in question be abated or remedied within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of the violation. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail, neglect, or refuse to comply with such notice within the thirty (30) days.

(ii)   The health director, the codes official, the utility director, or their designees may issue civil summons as provided by law for a scheduled violation. No criminal prosecution may be sought when a civil penalty is imposed.

TABLE INSET:

Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense, with a maximum penalty arising form the same set of operative facts of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). Specified violations arising from the same set of operative facts shall not be charged more frequently than once in any ten-day period.

Any person summoned or issued a ticket for a scheduled violation may make an appearance in person, in writing, or by mail to the Gloucester County Treasurer prior to the date fixed for trial in court. Any persons so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged.

(iii)   These provisions governing operation and maintenance of onsite sewage disposal systems shall be applicable until the state enacts operation and maintenance criteria of similar effect directing the Virginia State Board of Health to supervise and control such systems.

(Ord. of 8-7-2007(1); Ord. of 3-3-2009)

Specifically, Items (a) (2) (i), (ii), (3), (4), and (5).

The proposed regulations contain no provisions requiring objective performance validation for nitrogen reducing technologies. Nor are there any requirements for independent third-party technology performance testing at the “end of pipe.” If the VDH believes that mandating nitrogen-reduction for small AOSS is an important positive step to help protect the Chesapeake Bay, then why do the proposed regulations fail to demand solid evidence (from technology evaluation testing at actual residences) that specific technologies will perform as claimed?

Moreover, though the proposed regulations would require nitrogen-reducing technologies for AOSS in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, they fail to establish verifiable end-of-pipe effluent nitrogen limits for small AOSS. Instead, they would allow compliance to be “demonstrated” through poorly defined “best management practices” approved by the VDH, or through engineer “calculations” that depend on numerous unprovable assumptions about the effectiveness of below-ground nitrogen attenuating processes. Such weak requirements, relying on unverifiable assumptions about nitrogen removal in the soil, do not constitute true “compliance demonstration”—they seem to be little more than handwaving and compliance theater.

VDH obviously recognizes the important of systematic third-party residential field-testing to validate performance. Indeed, subsections -613-70 and  -613-30(L) mandate such testing and evaluation for General Approval purposes--but only for effluent BOD and TSS. There is no similar requirement for nitrogen performance validation. Since the importance of objectively performance validation is plainly recognized for BOD and TSS, the lack of similar provisions for evaluating nitrogen performance is  inexplicable.

The failure to insist on meaningful performance validation is not consistent with the goal of promoting the most cost-effective solutions for nitrogen reduction. Failure to define objective end-of-pipe standards, and to require performance verification, will give an advantage to manufacturers and system designers who are willing to misrepresent the actual capabilities of their technologies, cloaking themselves behind poorly defined and inadequate water quality standards. That is a bad thing for the Chesapeake Bay environment. And it will amount to a waste of AOSS owners' money—nitrogen-reducing systems will be mandated, but the mandate will be undermined because in effect the regulations will promote the use of less effective technologies.

To address these deficiencies, the proposed regulations should be amended to require that performance of nitrogen-reducing systems be objectively verified. They should require that nitrogen performance be convincingly demonstrated in one of two ways: either through systematic third-party effluent nitrogen testing and evaluation of a limited number of sites at the manufacturer’s expense (according to a program similar to the General Approval testing program outlined in the proposed regulations at -613-70 and -613-30(L) for BOD and TSS), or else through individual second-party site monitoring of all small AOSS (similar to the effluent BOD monitoring program described at -613-100 (A) through (E)).

The regulations should commit the VDH to systematically collecting and statistically analyzing the cumulative nitrogen testing results, and publishing those results to openly identify the most cost-effective nitrogen reducing technologies. The Maryland Department of the Environment’s Bay Restoration Fund Best Available Technology Program would serve as a good model for an open, systematic, objective testing and evaluation program. (See the Maryland program information at http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/BayRestorationFund/OnsiteDisposalSystems/Pages/Water/cbwrf/osds/brf_bat.aspx.)

Poorly defined soil-based Best Management Practices and presumptive calculations should not be accepted in lieu of verified end-of-pipe performance. IF adequate requirements are in place for end-of-pipe performance verification, THEN it would be appropriate to offer incentives (such as permitting fee reductions) to promote use of BMPs (e.g., shallow placed dispersal systems) that offer further nitrogen attenuation in the subsurface.

Subsection -613-70.2 requires collecting influent samples as well as effluent samples for General Approval testing and evaluation. For some technologies, it is not feasible to obtain a representative “influent” sample. Thus, the requirement is likely to encourage invalid and unscientific conclusions and comparisons between technologies.

The proposed regulations should be revised to clearly define what is meant by “influent sample,” and at what point in the treatment train the “influent sample” is to be collected. For technologies for which it is not feasible (for reasons explained below) to collect a representative influent sample, the requirement for influent sampling should be waived. In such cases, for performance evaluation purposes the VDH should assume that the influent composition was typical of domestic quality septic tank effluent, and use appropriate values from the published literature.

When testing is conducted at a controlled research facility (for example, when testing is according to NSF/ANSI Standard protocols), influent sampling is feasible because the influent consists of primary-treated wastewater delivered to the treatment unit through a controlled pipeline.

But influent sampling is not necessarily feasible for field-testing at actual residences such as the General Approval testing described in the proposed regulations at Section -613-70. Raw domestic sewage enters the treatment train as a non-homogeneous mixture. Its composition depends on the last household activity, what was last flushed down the drainpipe, and how long ago it entered the treatment train. It is only feasible to obtain a meaningful “influent sample” if it is possible to sample from the back end of a primary treatment tank or primary compartment that precedes, and is hydraulically isolated from, the contents of the secondary treatment unit.

In contrast, it is not possible to obtain a representative influent sample from a multiple-pass recirculating technology (such as a media filter) where the treatment unit pump is in a compartment hydraulically connected to the compartment where primary treatment occurs.

I note that the current policy (GMP 147) for performance testing and technology evaluation, does not require influent sampling. That evidently reflects acknowledgment that for some technologies it is impossible to obtain representative “influent” samples when samples are collected in the field at actual residences. The same acknowledgment should likewise be reflected in the proposed regulations.

The meaning of this subsection is not clear. It requires, “Dosing of the treatment unit or treatment system shall accommodate the design peak flow within the treatment unit’s rated capacity.” How is “design peak flow” determined and by whom? How is the treatment unit’s rated capacity defined and by whom? Does this requirement mean that the treatment unit must be sized to accommodate “peak” flows rather than “sewage flows” established at 12VAC5-610-670? Or does the term “peak flows” mean the same thing as the “sewage flows” established at § -610-670?

Is this basically a treatment unit minimum sizing rule? Or is the objective to regulate some other aspect of the design such as the dosing regimen?

It’s hard to know what the effect of this requirement would be unless terms are better defined and further clarification is provided.

12VAC5-613-170: Designers, of non-engineered AOSS systems (ie. AOSE designs), should not be responsible for creating and distributing O & M Manuals. This should be the responsiblity of the O & M provider. The O & M provider is being paid for a service and any manuals associated with this service should be provided by them. Licensed AOSE's who are NOT also licensed O & M Providers are being required to fully know and understand O & M regulations as well as dictate the O & M providers responsiblities (ex. 12VAC5-613-170 C 3. & 4.). This entire section (170) should fall under Operator Responsibilities (Section 120) with an exception to systems designed under Section 32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia (ie. "engineered systems").

Who will enforce this regulation?  The heavy hand of the law now has a limp wrist.

Many years ago the health department would issue a Notice of Violation when a threat to public health or the environment was discovered.  A few years ago the Notice of Violation morphed into a Notice of Alleged Violation.  Last month this enforcement step morphed further into a Notice of Alleged Violation with Disclaimers.  A few days ago the civil penalty regulation was withdrawn.

There will be little or no enforcement.  Any enforcement will be inconsistent.  Those who ignore the law will likely not suffer any consequences.

My advice to owners of alternative onsite sewage systems: Ignore these regulatory requirements.  The health department will fail to take successful enforcement action.  Eventually the Governor will either clean the health department house or, he will turn the program over to a more capable agency.

I'm moving to a state that can just say no.

The following regulatory actions have been withdrawn

12VAC5-650-60

12VAC5-650-60. Uniform schedule of civil penalties.

A. There is hereby established a uniform schedule of civil penalties for the following violations of the board's regulations:

1. Install or cause to install, modify or cause to modify, use or operate an onsite or alternative discharging sewage system without a permit issued by the commissioner: $100 for the first violation, $150 for each additional violation.

2. Discharge treated or untreated sewage on the surface of the ground or into the waters of the Commonwealth without a permit: $100 for the initial violation, $150 for each additional violation.

3. Fail to obtain or keep a contract for operation, maintenance, or monitoring of an onsite or alternative discharging system to the extent that such contract is a requirement of the board's regulations: $50 for the initial violation, $100 for each additional violation.

4. Fail to submit to the department a laboratory test result, or an inspection or other report to the extent that such report is a requirement of the board's regulations: $50 for the initial violation, $100 for each additional violation.

5. To the extent such activities are not regulated by another agency of the Commonwealth, engage in unlawful transportation or handling of sewage or septage: $100 for the initial violation, $150 for each additional violation.

Subsections D and E of 12VAC5-613-40 Relationship to other regulations appear to restrict the design authority granted to AOSEs in § 54.1-402. Further exemptions from license requirements for architects, professional engineers, and land surveyors:

A.11. Conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems receiving residential wastewater, under the authority of Chapter 6 of Title 32.1, designed by a licensed onsite soil evaluator, which utilize packaged equipment, such as equipment of catalogued standard design that has been coordinated and tested by the manufacturer, and complies with all applicable codes, provided (i) the flow is less than 1,000 gallons per day; and (ii) if a pump is included, (a) it shall not include multiple downhill runs and must terminate at a positive elevational change; (b) the discharge end is open and not pressurized; (c) the static head does not exceed 50 feet; and (d) the force main length does not exceed 500 feet.

Under the new proposed Regulations for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems:

12VAC5-613 REGULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

12VAC5-613-40. Relationship to other regulations.

D. This chapter supersedes Table 5.4 of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations for all AOSSs designed to disperse TL-2 or TL-3 effluent. Table 5.4 of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations shall govern the design of any AOSS designed to disperse septic tank effluent to the soil treatment area.

So it appears that a soil treatment area designed to receive TL-2 or TL-3 effluent shall be sized in accordance with the design criteria found in 12VAC5-613-80 Part II Performance Requirements. A soil treatment areas designed to receive septic tank effluent shall be sized in accordance with Table 5.4 of the SHDR.

E. In accordance with standard engineering practice, all plans and specifications for AOSSs shall be properly sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the Commonwealth pursuant to Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia unless such plans are prepared pursuant to an exemption from the licensing requirements of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia. AOSS designs submitted pursuant to § 32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia shall have a statement on the title page of the plans clearly identifying the plans as a § 32.1-163.6 submittal. Where this statement is not included on the title page, the department will review the plans pursuant to the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations and applicable policies. 

So under 12VAC5-613 REGULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS, it appears that the Department will only accept and review plans and specifications for AOSSs in accordance with § 32.1-163.6 Professional engineering of onsite treatment works. Any other plans will be reviewed pursuant to the SHDR and "applicable policies" (possibly referring to GMP’s? Which GMP’s? Will existing GMP’s relating to AOSS still be valid once these proposed Alternative System Regs become the controlling regulations?).

If the design criteria set forth in the performance requirements in 12VAC5-613-80 supersedes Table 5.4 of the SHDR, it appears that any system designed to disperse TL-2 or TL-3 effluent (secondary or better) will have to be submitted in accordance with 12VAC5-613 REGULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS. 

Therefore, it appears that any system designed to disperse TL-2 or TL-3 effluent (secondary or better) must be submitted in accordance with the professional engineering of onsite treatment works as defined in § 32.1-163.6, as 12VAC5-613 seems to be limited to PE submittals.

In addition, the only AOSS that can be designed using Table 5.4 of SHDR and “applicable policies” appear to be pressurized systems dispersing septic tank effluent, and thus beyond the scope of the exemption to engineering as defined in § 54.1-402.A.11.

Please provide clarification for AOSEs designing alternative systems within the purview of the exemption to engineering as defined in § 54.1-402, as it is unclear how these licensed professionals (as defined by DPOR) are to submit plans and specifications for AOSSs (as allowed by the Code of Virginia). 

In conclusion, the following definition can be found in the Virginia Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals REGULATIONS:

"Alternative onsite soil evaluator" means an individual licensed by the board to evaluate soils and soil properties in relationship to the effect of these properties on the use and management of these soils as the locations for conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems, to certify in accordance with applicable state regulations and local ordinances that sites are suitable for conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems, and to design conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems suitable for the soils.

The proposed regulatory changes at 12VAC5-613 for alternative, onsite sewage systems (AOSS) are an improvement over the earlier, emergency regulations that expire on April 6, 2011. 

Please add my voice to that of Wetlands Watch in analyzing your regulations for septic systems:

• We strongly feel the prohibition against putting these systems in wetlands needs to remain. 
• We strongly feel that the required reductions in Nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed need to remain:

Nitrogen in oceans is now know to have been underestimated by the IPCC by three hundred percent.  As a mega-green house gas, nitrous oxide -- which is created from nitrogen in the ocean -- is an air pollutant that must be limited immediately.

• We object to the continued allowance of these systems without any dry ground beneath them. 
• We object to allowing septic effluent to go directly into groundwater.

I urge you to consider climate change in every new regulation -- not contributing to it, and ameliorating the consequences.  At this point in time, we need to strengthen ecosystems, not challenge them with additional stresses.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Shelley Ottenbrite, 1809 W Grace St, Richmond VA 23220

To echo the comments of Jason Churchill, I don't believe it is in the Department's best interests to allow NSF 245 certification in lieu of in-field testing such as that currently required under GMP #147.  First the testing protocol allows for suspension of testing should either temperature or alkalinity fall below predetermined thresholds.  Although such action would prevent the test resuls from showing performance failures, the systems in the real world will have to survive liquid temperatures below 50 degrees fahrenheight or low alkalinities.  Secondly, the test does not have a numerical standard, it is a claim of percentage reduction (currently 50%).  This claim can be just barely reached by a technology.  I other words, there is no reward for doing better than 50% reduction, which is a modest accomplishment.

You may want to have an abbreviated field testing protocol for a technology that has successfully passed standard 245, but don't eliminate it altogether. 

I would like you to continue the ban on septic systems in wetlands areas.  The Chesapeake Bay continues to suffer from nitrogen runoff as well as other pollutants.  Banning septic systems in areas that have an effect on our waterways is the best way to protect our waterways so that all citizens of the Commonweath that enjoy them.  

Thank you,

Patricia VonOhlen

Newport News, VA 23601

• I strongly feel the prohibition against putting these systems in wetlands needs to remain. 
• I strongly feel that the required reductions in Nitorgen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed need to remain. 
• I object to the continued allowance of these systems without any dry ground beneath them. 
• I object to allowing septic effluent to go directly into groundwater. 

I'd like to comment on the VA Department of Health's proposed final regulations concerning on-site septic systems.

While there is much to support in the proposal, I ask that you also include the following items:

I feel that the required reductions in Nitorgen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed need to remain in the proposal,

Allowing septic effluent to go directly into groundwater is a *bad* idea - it should be reated first,

These systems should not be permitted without any dry ground underneath,

and I feel that the prohibition against putting systems such as these in wetlands needs to remain in place.

Thank you,

     Hanry Ickes

     Arlington, VA

 First, I would like to express my agreement with the comments posted by Jason Churchill and Kevin Sherman.

It is clear from some of the comments currently posted that there is some confusion about the permitting of AOSS in Virginia in general and the permitting of engineer designed AOSS under H.B. 1166 (GMP #146). The vast majority of AOSS permitted in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and throughout Virginia are done so on properties that would not be classified as “wetlands” and that utilize 6” to 12” or greater of natural well-drained soils above the seasonal water table. I have no issue with making nitrogen reduction technology mandatory and requiring TL-3 effluent as part of an engineered AOSS permitted under GMP #146. I do have issue with making nitrogen reduction mandatory for properties where the site and soil conditions comply with the requirements of the Virginia Sewage Handling & Disposal Regulations for alternative treatment and are acceptable under the current Emergency Regulations for TL-2 effluent.

If Virginia is set on establishing nitrogen reduction standards then I would suggest that a more comprehensive and targeted scientific approach be considered that addresses all small onsite sewage systems (septic tank effluent as well as AOSS) within defined critical areas inside the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The simple fact is that unless ALL onsite systems within critical areas are considered, we are only paying lip service to the problem as conventional septic tank effluent sewage systems far outnumber small AOSS within the Watershed and many of the more “at risk” systems are conventional septic systems installed under previous, less restrictive regulations. I realize that these proposed regulations deal specifically with AOSS and that additional regulations will be required in order to address septic tank effluent systems. I would like to propose VDH consider the following revisions to 12 VAC5-613-90-D:

1. Establish a “critical area” defined as all area within 300 feet (100 yards) measured vertically from the high tide mark of the Chesapeake Bay and from the water's edge of rivers and tributaries within the Commonwealth. All small AOSS located within the critical area would be required to incorporate nitrogen reduction technology capable of reducing total nitrogen (TN) by 50% (20 mg/l or less).

2. The use of nitrate loading calculations and dilution rates to try and justify nitrogen reduction shall not be allowed when designing small AOSS within the critical area.

3. VDH to establish a field testing program modeled after the testing protocols in GMP #147 to allow AOSS nitrogen reduction manufacturers to validate their reduction claims by requiring 4 quarters of testing on 20 single-family residential systems. These systems would need to meet a nitrogen reduction standard of 20 mg/l or less.

VDH should then pursue through the Legislature additional legislation that will require conventional septic tank effluent systems located within the critical area to also incorporate nitrogen reduction technology. Existing septic systems within the critical area would be required to upgrade to nitrogen reduction systems once their existing systems fail and need replacement. Existing systems within the critical area would not be eligible for a waiver from the nitrogen reduction requirement. Finally, as an incentive, a one-time “green” state income tax credit could be offered to property owners who install a nitrogen reduction system whether within or outside of the critical area.

Only if these sequence of steps are taken, would the state have any real impact on reducing nitrogen from onsite sewage systems in relation to the Bay.  However, since onsite septic systems only account for about 4% of nitrogen entering the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Model 2007 Simulation), the larger agricultural, atmospheric, municipal and industrial sources will need to be addressed before any significant nitrogen reduction in the Chesapeake Bay can take affect. 

.

Great regulation!  You can now put sewage in the water table and in a restrictive soil.  What's even better is that there's no way the health department will be capable of implementing an enforcement program.

Here's how it works.  The regulation allows you to put sewage in the water table; a licensed operator will inspect your system once every 12 months; an end of pipe sample will be analyzed once every 5 years (every year for some systems); if there's no surface malfunction and the sample falls within limits at that specific point in time (but still contains pathogens) you are good to go!

I'll be testing my well water on a monthly basis to find out if I'm drinking sewage.

Sandra Gentry raises two very thoughtful issues that need to be addressed.

1.  Operators should not be held responsible for the actions, or lack or action, of an owner.

2.  Owners who hire bad operators may encounter a serious problem.  The previous commentor suggests that the owner should have access to an appeal process.  However, I'm not certain this will work very well.  Who will "officiate" the decisions of operators?  The health department has no licensed operators.  Perhaps the owner could hire another operator or two ($$$) to dispute the first operator's findings.  More likely, the owner will fire the first operator and shop for another operator who provides him/her with a "better" report.  What will the health department do when they receive a "bad" report from one operator followed by a "good" report from another operator?

I'm glad that I'm a former regulator and that I don't own an AOSS.

Now that the health department has mailed thousands of letters notifying the owners of alternative systems that they must hire a licensed operator to operate and maintain their system, a Bill is introduced that contains the following language:

F. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, the owner of an alternative onsite sewage system installed prior to January 1, 2010, with flows of less than 1,000 gallons per day serving an individual single-family dwelling occupied by such owner shall be exempt from the requirements for the operation and maintenance of the alternative onsite sewage system serving his own residence.

If you are getting ready to hire an operator and the operator requires that you sign a contract please make sure you have a "no penalty escape clause".  The rules in the onsite program change from day to day.

Table 5 is entitled "Recommended Field Measurements, Sampling, and Observations".  The table contains 7 parameters.  Many of the parameter tests are listed as required.  What am I missing?  Are they recommended or are they required?

We already have a prescriptive regulation, it's the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulation (12VAC5-610). What the Governor, under the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA), authorized was a performance regulation.

Here's how it works:

Builder hires soil person to check soils.

Soils are very poor.

Builder hires engineer who designs a performance based system.

Health department does not review the site/soils and performs a very brief review of the paperwork.

The system is installed.

The builder sells the house to owner #1.

A few years later the house is sold to owner #2.

The system fails to perform properly and may have never performed properly..

I call the health department.  The health department refers me to the soil person and the system designer.

The soil person says "Hey, as my report shows the soil was poor.  It's up to the engineer to design a system that will work".

The engineer says "The system was designed properly.  Either the soil person's report was inaccurate or you are using too much water".

The installer says he did a good job.

Now I have a system that's less than 3 years old, the health department is keeping it's hands off the matter, the soil guy blames the engineer, the engineer blames the soil guy or me, the previous owner says he had no problems with the system, the realtor says there were no problems noted when the house was sold to me, and the original builder is gone.

The health department tells me that this sort of things happens from time to time.  I have a feeling it happens frequently.

There appears to be no accountability.  I've been told not to waste my time in court as I'll probably spend thousands of dollars and lose the case.

I've come to the conclusion that this performance based approach along with no accountability, or at least no realistic accountability, has created my problem.  Wouldn't it make more since to have strict prescriptive site and soil requirements that would prevent these problems?  Did anyone really believe that my system would work?  Common sense would tell you that putting 600 gallons of sewage every day on top of the ground surface and covering it up on the steep slope in front of my house would result in sewage at my front door step.

The developer made money, the builder made money, the soil guy made money, the engineer made money, the realtors made money, the first owner got out just in time, and I'm up the sewage creek without a paddle. 

I received a letter from the health department a few months ago that informed me of MY responsibilities as the owner of an alternative system.  I wonder if they sent any letters to the soil guys or system designers?

It appears my best option is to make this the mortgage company's problem.

Go ahead and pass these regulations.  Let's see how many foreclosures can be chalked up to performance based regulations in a world with no accountability.

The prescriptive nature of the proposed regulations short-circuits this process and is not consistent with the statutory language.

I am in agreement with VOWRA’s comments.  Please consider the following support and additional comments.

12VAC5-613-30. Applicability and scope.

K. Spray irrigation systems …

Spray systems for single family homes <1000 GPD are provided for by GMP 74 under a general permit from DEQ to VDH.  To me they are alternative systems.

12VAC5-613-40. Relationship to other regulations. D.

This section should state that Table 5.4 applies to all effluents >60 Mg/L BOD as stated in 12VAC5-613-80 Part II Performance Requirements Item 11 D.

12VAC5-613-80 Part II Performance Requirements 7.

This prohibition is the result of recommendations of many out-of-state pre-treatment manufacturers who sat on an advisory panel for development of the proposed regs.  There is no technical reason for the prohibition.  The prohibition would cause economic harm to many citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Many facilities such as schools, churches, existing hamlets / communities, businesses, and small subdivisions may not be able to afford to be built if this prohibition stands. 

The design of future large flow projects would in many cases require pretreatment due to soil and site limitations.  Nutrient discharge requirements, such as required in the Chesapeake Bay Overlay, as well as those evaluated per GMP 72, would further limit large flow systems dispersing septic tank effluent.  The current VDH regulation and policy, in addition to the proposed “replacement” regulations for alternative systems, contain appropriate criteria to ascertain a given projects suitability for septic tank effluent.

The Regulations as currently proposed may be interpreted to allow large systems to be constructed with conventional gravity dispersal of septic effluent. 

Designed properly, large systems with pressure distribution are sustainable and they have a positive environmental impact and can be cost effective. 

The previous proposed VDH mass drainfield regs (2002) Specifically stated “Uniform distribution. All mass sewage disposal systems shall be designed to provide uniform distribution. Mass sewage disposal systems shall not use a distribution box.”

“Uniform Distribution” should be specified to be throughout the entire soil treatment area.  With all large flow systems requiring equal dispersal by definition they would then be subject to the requirements of these replacement regs.

11 a.

I take it this means that in the case of gravity distribution, which includes distribution boxes, pressure manifolds and “enhanced flow” when effluent is deposited in one end of the trench that the designer is to reduce the loading rates provided in Table 1.

Gravity distribution of pretreated effluent is an inappropriate practice, counter to the intent of these regulations.

Virtually all research involving the application of pretreated effluent into the soil involves controlled application, whether onto columns or in situ with low pressure distribution or drip dispersal.  Elimination or the decrease of soil interfaced clogging coupled with microbial reductions results in enhanced performance.  Typical conclusions are that increased loading rates and reduced separations to limitations are possible.  Many states allow one of the two only.  These regs allow for both.

In many states even distribution by drip dispersal or low pressure distribution is required for all pretreated effluent to enhance residence times of effluent in the soil for final treatment.

Gravity dispersal of pretreated effluent to conventional trench type systems is an inappropriate practice for several reasons.  It is anticipated that pretreated effluent will not form a traditional biomat at the trench bottom interface, and effluent will readily flow deeper into the soil column.  The result is deeper microorganism and nutrient penetration (pass through) into the soil column, particularly in the case of compromised effluent quality. 

Further, with out the protection of the soil by the anaerobic biomat there will likely be the translocation of fines deeper in the soil column that will cause soil clogging.  Additionally, the biological polysaccharide “gluing” agents, developed over time, that are an important component of soil structure are washed away, destroying the structure and likely fluidizing the soil with time.

When the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is exceeded the pores are full and the effluent moves down the trench.  This condition is similar to an anaerobic trench except that the anaerobic biomat protects the soil column clogging at the soil interface.  When circumstances are such that pretreated effluent “creeps” down the trench, the entire soil column, not just the surface is clogged, and likely anaerobic and physical compromised as described above.  Significant renovation through resting is unlikely.  

Over all system size may reduced slightly in some states (such as Virginia) when utilizing pressure distribution with anaerobic effluent. 

Typically pressure distribution is often required in extremely coarse or clayey soils and in shallow (<18”) installation depths.

The only appropriate application of gravity dispersed pretreated effluent to conventional trenches is in the remediation of clogged anaerobic trenches.

Proper application of pressure distribution should be required in all trench systems utilizing pretreated effluent, Group One soils (sands), large flow anaerobic systems, and anaerobic systems with infiltrative surfaces installed less than 18” below natural ground surface. 

12VAC5-610 (Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations) requires that infiltrative surfaces <12” require time dosing.

11d.

The 60 mg/l is generally accepted wastewater strength where a trench may develop a clogging mat.  Wastewater strengths less than 60 mg/l should be required to utilize pressure distribution.

The reg provides for TL-2, TL-1, and STE effluent.  Granted there is a big spread in wastewater strength between TL-1 (30 mg/L) and STE (150 – 300 Mg/l).  Constructed wetland and lagoon design may provide quality less than 60 mg/l and have a value as a nutrient BMP.

With the lack of guidance, direction, in assigning loading rates (maximums are only provided for TL-1 & TL-2) based on wastewater quality this opens up a real gray area.  Consider the outlet “T” aerators, some with inoculants; will they be able to utilized?  At what loading rate, under what justification?

Type

11e. T 11f.

12VAC5-613-30. Applicability and Scope K specifically says spray is not covered by these regs.  Spray systems for single family homes <1000 GPD are provided for by GMP 74 under a general permit from DEQ to VDH.  To me they are alternative systems.

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’s to limitations may be different.  Secondly, the application of microorganisms and nitrified effluent by gravity to meet environmental goals has no demonstrated basis and is a polluting practice (see above).  Nitrates move with water and Gravity flow creates saturated flow at the point of discharge that promotes migration directly to the water table within a detectable plume. It is recommended 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.

12. Septic tank effluent may only be discharged to a soil treatment area when the vertical separation to a limiting feature consists of at least 18 inches of naturally-occurring, in-situ soil. Trench type AOSSs designed to disperse septic tank effluent require at least 12 inches of soil cover over the soil treatment area;

This requirement comes from 12VAC5-610 (Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations) regarding to standard trench type systems and should be revised to address those configurations.

12 VAC 5-610-950  Adsorption area design, E. Minimum cross section dimensions for adsorption trenches. 1. Depth, addresses the installation depth of trenches, requiring a minimum of 12” sidewall in mineral soil (indicating 12” minimum installation depth for trenches), 12” cover, increased depth and increased area (with shallow soils) for slopes. 

Will this section, specifically the sidewall, still apply?

Table 2  Minimum Effluent Requirements for Vertical Separation to Limiting Features

Septic Effluent should be defined as >60 Mg/L BOD.

15. The organic loading rate …

Remove this section as it is in conflict with other portions of the regulation.

12VAC5-613-90. Performance requirements; ground water protection.

A. The AOSS shall not pose a greater risk of ground water pollution than systems otherwise permitted pursuant to 12VAC5-610. After wastewater has passed through a treatment unit or septic tank and through the soil in the soil treatment area, the concentration of fecal coliform organisms shall not exceed 2.2 cfu/100 ml at the lower vertical limit of the project area boundary.

This section is cited in 12VAC5-613-30. Applicability and scope.D

D. Small AOSSs designed, constructed…

Deem to comply status for the prescriptive designs is excellent however citing a fecal standard begs compliance.  Septic tank effluent dispersed by classical Low Pressure Pipe would likely not meet the 2.2 cfu/100 ml requirement with an 18” seperation to limitation.  Duncan / Reneau’s Wastewater Renovation with Soil Depth as Influenced by Additional Treatment of Septic Tank Effluent exhibited excellent results, but remember the soil column’s were dosed six times a day.  On a performance basis, LPD systems dose may 1X day based on average flow.

Gravity dispersal from TL-1 and TL-2 certainly cannot be expected to meet the 2.2 cfu/100 ml requirement with the respective 12 and 6” seperation to limitation.

I recommend the sentence be removed or changed to a higher limit such as 200 cfu/100 ml to be an achievable standard and to somewhat coincide with other standards.

D.  (2) A mass loading of 4.5 lbs N or less per person per year….The root zone whereby nutrients are recycled is typically less than 12”.   Further, shallow trench, bed, and mound type systems at shallow depths may allow for access to more carbon, however these constructed interfaces do not allow for replentishment of carbon or access by plant roots.  Drip dispersal and spray irragation provided for slow rate land application and recycling.

Chapter 6 of the EPA Non-Point Manual states:  “Effluent standards can be met by either system design or performance, as verified by third party design review or field verification. Except in sandy or loamy sand soils, a 5 mg/L N reduction credit is given when using time dosed, pressurized effluent dispersal within 1 foot of the ground surface and more than 1.5 feet above a limiting soil/bedrock condition.”

2. All large AOSSs shall demonstrate less than 3 mg/l TN at the project boundary…..

Table 3 Maximum TN Effluent Quality Requirements for Large AOSSs

Table 3 in under section D addresses Chesapeake Bay Requirements however “2” above says “all” AOSSs.  I understand that the minimum nutrient limits maybe met in the entire treatment works, including the soil, by meeting these standards of treatment plus application of other approved BMP’s such as from EPA Chapter Six above.

I assume that outside the Chesapeake Bay area dilution can be utilized in the calculation to meet the 3 mg / l as provided by GMP 72.

A major concern is that designers will elect to utilize multiple deem to comply small AOSS treatment units in lieu of cluster systems as encourage by the EPA.  With the current requirement many facilities such as schools, churches, existing hamlets / communities, businesses, and small subdivisions may not be able to afford to be built.

I agree that deem to comply, that is 50% reduction, with approved BMP’s, should be expanded to large AOSS’s <10,000 GPD.  The 3 mg/l will then have to start at that point also.

I also concur that 10,000 to 40,000 gpd would have to meet an minimum effluent limit of 20 mg/l TN PLUS field management to comply with the 3 mg/l TN at the project boundary.  Above 40,000 gpd, all systems would have to treat to 10 mg/l TN prior to disposal on land with field management to reduce the total to 3 mg/l at project boundary.

I know that the 3 mg/l is a currently technically achievable by treatment.  Perhaps addressing through percentage reduction is a more realistic.

Tom W. Ashton, R.E.H.S., C.P.S.S., A.O.S.E

over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

 12VAC5-613-10 Definitions   

“Limiting Feature” means a feature of the soil that limits or influences intercepts the vertical movement of water, including seasonal, perched or permanent water tables, fragipans, soil restrictions, pervious or impervious bedrock, slowly permeable horizons, and excessive rock fragments.Should be inclusive and not repeat the list of features in other sectionsl

“Percolation Test” means a standardized qualitative test for measuring water movement through the soil.
   Need a definition

“Project area boundary” means the limits of the three-dimensional space defined when (i)….(ii)…(iii) the lower vertical limit is the vertical separation required by this chapter. a permeability limiting feature or the
permanent water table.  Poorly worded and redundant

“Soil treatment area,” means the physical location in or on the naturally occurring soil medium….the soil treatment area includes subsurface drainfields, drip dispersal fields, treatment pads and elevated sand mounds.  

 “Treatment works,” means a method using a septic tank or septic tanks to treat sewage before the effluent is dispersed to a soil treatment area.  As opposed to a treatment system?

 “Vertical separation” means the vertical distance between the point of effluent application to the soil…and     a limiting feature of the soil treatment area.such as seasonal high ground water, bedrock, or other   restriction. Redundant and exclusive.

12VAC5-613-20 Purpose and Authority

7. Inform and assist owners, applicants, onsite soil evaluators, system designers, and other persons of the
    requirements for obtaining a permit or other authorization for an AOSS.
    There was a time when the Department assisted in the complexities of permitting. The term         inform  is strident and implies your on your own, good luck.

12VAC5-613-40

 G.1. Depth to limiting features, including seasonal per perched water tables, pans, restrictions, or  pervious  
       or impervious bedrock.
       Redundant and inconsistent with the definition.

      2. Slope of the project area.
      4. Landscape and landform
       Combine as 2. Morphometry, including aspect, gradient shape and position.  

3.  Ksat or percolation rate at the appropriate depths proposed installation depth and at depths below in the    
      soil treatment area to demonstrate compliance this chapter. Ksat or percolation rate may be estimated   
      for small AOSSs. Ksat or percolation rate must be measured using an appropriate device or method for   
      large AOSSs.

Test depths should be the determined by the engineer or OSE.  As written this requirement   allows  the regulators to determine the test depth after the fact.  In my opinion “standard engineering practice” does not allow rate and other limiting factor estimates for design purposes.  Estimates cannot be easily defended in a courtroom.  All systems should require testing.

Part II Table 1

Until the percolation test is standardized it’s use as a basis for application rate is inappropriate, should use Ksat which is reproducible. Furthermore allowing estimates of the narrow range of rates is highly presumptive.  I agree with those who question the scientific basis for the difference between TL-2 and TL-3 effluent.  There is no maximum percolation rate, say 120 mpi, mentioned in the regulation.

13.a. What is now determined to be permeability limiting?  Even restrictions have rates.
          (ii) hydraulic gradient sufficient to move the applied effluent off the site should imply that
                the soil treatment area should exceed the “application area”. This is a concept that is  
                often overlooked during site evaluation.

           (iii) standardized water mounding equations must be identified
 

Paragraph E states that no portion of an AOSS soil treatment area may be located in a wetland.   Wetland is defined in 12VAC5-613-10 as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples are sited as including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

The definition of 'wetland' is critical to assuring that wetlands as defined above are protected while not making the regulation so overly restrictive as to preclude development in lower lying areas.  As an example, most of Chincoteague Island is low lying with groundwater near the surface.  If 'wetland' is deemed to apply to areas where groundwater is <x inches from the surface or to apply to areas which are not swamps, marshes, or bogs, on-site sewage disposal permits would not be issued under the proposed regulation.  This would inhibit further development on much of the Island causing undue hardships, negative economic impacts and financial losses. 

I request that it be made clear as to how 'wetland' is to be intrepreted and that the interpretation of wetland logically only apply to swamps, marshes, or bogs.

Other comments to the  AOSS performance requirements of 12VAC5-613-80 and this section by AOSS system engineers indicate that the proposed sewage system requirements are overly restrictive and could only be met with AOSS system designs which are prohibitively expensive for individuals or cannot be met at all with current technology.    I request that these comments be carefully considered and fully resolved prior to inacting these proposed regulations. 

The Oyster Bay II Community which I represent has only been able to get sewage system approval and resume building with the introduction of Advanced On-Site Sewage Systems and regulation changes within the last two years after some 25-30 years of sewer system application rejections. If enacted as proposed, these regulations will one again limit futher sewage system permit approvals and prevent communities such as ours from moving ahead.

It's simply amazing that several individuals think these regulations are overly restrictive.  VDH gave away the farm with Table 2 (i.e. 0 inches to water table and 0" to a restriction).  What's next?  Would you like to discharge the sewage directly into your well?  I guess as long as a P.E. seals the plans it's good to go.

Dilution of effluent,, as a method to meet proposed TN limitations, should not be prohibited for Large AOSS for the following reasons:

Project Area Boundary is analogous to the mizing zone concept used to model effluent limitations for wastewater treatment plant discharges. Selection of the Project Area should be a design element allowing the engineer to increase the dedeciated surface area beyond minimum requirements.

The ability for owner/client to evaluate cost-benefit analysis of wastewater treatment versus land allocation as a method to meet proposed TN/TP standards is lost if there is no benefit to increasing the Project Area above that required by the regulations.

Atmosheric-precipitation TN/TP inputs are negligible; mixing of the unpolluted water with polluted water is a long established method to meet onsite effluent TN limitations.  The ability to tailor in-ground dispersal system geometry to maximize Project Area dilution inputs is lost if no dilution credit is granted. If this option is lost, then the only option is increaseing treatment plant size.

Dedicating land to Project Area as the added benefit of reducing impervious areas, preserving natural resources, fallow land recover, potential to support EPA/DEQ Water Reuse and Recyle programs and supports GREEN development concepts.

To whom it may concern,

The Goose Creek Association is a broad based conservation organization of 800 members who live in Fauquier and Loudoun Counties.  Our membership is extremely concerned about the use of these alternative systems. Our main objections include the installation of AOSS in wetlands. We support the additional nutrient reduction standards; we support the mandatory operations and maintenance requirements.  As water quality is our primary concern we feel that these systems have the potential of creating much harm in our watersheds.  Hopefully, there could be more input from the conservation community before the use of these systems is expanded. Sincerely,

Butter Strother

Chairman

 qe

12VAC5-613-70. General approval testing and evaluation.

Please consider the following edits / addition to this section.

A. The division shall develop a protocol to verify the expected performance of treatment units of small AOSSs that meet TL-2 or TL-3 effluent quality. The protocol to evaluate and test field performance of TL-3 treatment units shall include the following minimum requirements:

1. The manufacturer shall evaluate at least 20 treatment units installed in the Commonwealth of Virginia for single family residences occupied full-time, year-round throughout the testing and evaluation period;

2. The manufacturer shall provide the division with quarterly results of influent and effluent samples measuring, at a minimum, BOD and TSS for each installed treatment unit;

3. Operation and maintenance shall be performed on each treatment unit during the evaluation period in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and

4. An independent third party with no stake in the outcome of the approval process shall oversee and administer the testing and evaluation protocol. Examples of an independent third party include faculty members in an appropriate program of an accredited college or university, a licensed professional engineer experienced in the field of environmental engineering, or a testing firm that is deemed by the division to be acceptable.

B. The Deparment shall develop a protocol for general approval, propriatary treatment works that meet the requirements of this chapter that are not applicable for verification under 12VAC5-613-70 A.  Verification will be in consideration of standardized testing, technology verification, institutional studies, additional third party evaluations, and  additional information acceptable to the Department.

Short of pretreatment unit performance verification, there is no mechanism by which a treatment works can be considered as meeting the intent of the regulation, except individual submissions for permit under under § 32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia.  Essentially we need a protocol to consider the unknow or unforseen. 

Seperately, how will the Department evaluate BMP’s?

Typ. domestic wastwater TN concentrations reange between 20-85 mg/l with a medium value of 40 mg/l.  A 50% TN concentration, therefore,  must reduce concentration beflow  20 mg/l if permit discharge standards are to be meet. In my professiional judgement, no TL-2 system is designed to meet  this standard and could not be used in the Cheaspeake Bay area without additional treatment processes added after the system. 

A significant number of water sources in the affected area may lack sufficient alkalinity to achieve 50% TN removal. The most common BAT to supply alkalinity is the use of chemical treatment of either the wastewater or water source to meet process demands. VHD, in my opinion,  has greatly underestimated the construction and o+m cost s associated with the proposed standard by ignoring the variability in water sources in the Cheasapeake Bay watershed. 

B. The Deparment shall develop a protocol for general approval, propriatary treatment works that meet the requirements of this chapter that are not applicable for verification under 12VAC5-613-70 A.  Verification will be in consideration of standardized testing, technology verification, institutional studies, additional third party evaluations, and  additional information acceptable to the Department.

I would lable the first paragraph in the section "A" and add the above.

I agree there appears to be a lot of prescriptive requirements in the proposed regulations 12VAC5-613. Especially in section 80 and 90 which are titled as performance requirements. Table 1 and Table 3 specifically. However, all prescriptive requirements should be remove from these sections.  Section 32.1 – 163.6 provides that a PE’s design of a “Treatment Works” be compliant with performance requirements established by the Board.  A suggested change under section 12VAC5-613 80 11. Recommended Mmaximum trench bottom hydraulic loading rates for pressure-dosed systems using TL-2 and TL-3 effluent are found in Table 1 and are to be used as follows: and 11  c. Trench bottom hydraulic loading rates for pressure-dosed systems shall not exceed the values in Table 1 except when designed under Section 32.1- 163.6 of the Code of Virginia;  add.  If alternative trench widths are proposed the area loading rate (gpd/square foot of drainfield area) should not exceed 1/3 of trench bottom rate as indicated in Table 1.  Higher area loading rates shall be justifield and additional safety factors included in the design of the “Treatment Works.”  12VAC5-613 80. 15. Should be DELETED.  Also. Table 3 should be deleted or at least modified because it limits the engineer on the use of the soil component of the “Treatment Works”.  Soil treatment will remove nitrogen and there are methods to determine the soils ability to remove nitrogen.

In Section 12VAC5-613-10, DELETE the last sentence in the definition of “Ground water”.  “Ground water “ is defined in section 62.1-255 of the Code of Virginia and does not include this sentence.

I also agree with Mr. Pinnx’s paragraph. “Constructed drainage improvement is an important engineering strategy for managing surface and groundwater in the Coastal Plain (essentially all land area east of I-95). Constructed drainages (a surface swale or ditch, a gravel filled interceptor, or a vertical sand drain) have been effectively used to manage and mitigate saturated natural soils under and around drainfields. Typically, these systems are used in concert with high levels of wastewater treatment and disinfection. They are primarily used to maintain an unsaturated zone of underlying soil, which is beneficial to the treatment and ultimate disposal of wastewater. “

.

As more letters from individual county E/H offices get mailed out major problems seem to be appearing minute by minute.

The one i choose to address is the forms being sent to homeowners with blanks to fill in the following

Operators name________

Operators Lisc. Number__________

Homeowners Signature____________ Date________

No wonder dozens of people have called requesting our Operators Lisc. numbers and never returned a signed maintenance agreement.........

So with that being said if it has happened, which in a few months when all of our area Health Depts get visited by my companies we shall see how many systems that we supposedly took under "relationship" but have no knowledge of..........(all operator info available on the DPOR website)  We are not that AOSS'  operator since we have no signed maintenance agreement and have knowledge that the system even exisits.  But per the state a "relationship" does not have to be a maintenance agreement, and no money need change hands for a company (operator) and homeowner to have said relationship.  So when one of the many systems that we have no knowledge of fails and the operator that would have been responsible for that system is in no way tied to that AOSS, is the VDH going to foot the bill for making that system operational again? 

Sampling____

The available labs to process samples is lacking to say the least.  And in order to properly process BOD5 samples it is not only financial suicide but operationally impossible to service an AOSS and keep said samples at the proper tempature and deliver with a chain of custody in the allotted timeframe for that sample to be an accurate.  All while actually making a profit as an operator.  Are there any possibilities of field testing ?

I echo the comment #14996 submitted by Peter M. Brooks.  Prohibiting dilution is ignoring the real world benefit of what occurs naturally.  By ignoring this reality the regulations drive up the cost to develop community systems such as the County-owned systems that exist and operated properly in Charles City County and Caroline County.  Those systems serve low and moderate-income households that had a long history of failing septics due to bad soils and high water table but the homeowners could not afford individual alternative systems.  These County-owned and operated systems were developed successfully at an affordable customer cost.  The prohibition of dilution will necessitate an over-designed and hence more expensive treatment system making it unaffordable for low and moderate-income communities.  The ultimate result is that the existing poor performing conventional septic systems will not be upgraded and a solvable public health and environmental problem will not be solved.