34 comments
These Regulations need to be amended to allow the use of alternative systems for voluntary upgrades and malfunctioning seage disposal systems, to be used in soil conditions that do not meet regulation due to high seasonal water table. As it stands now if a alternative system is proposed for a site with seasonal water table indicators present at or near the surface the system must meet the AOSS regulations. This includes all the testing requirements. There also is a required 10' horizontal separation to the existing system with an alternative proposal. In many cases the separation both vertical and horizontal can not be met and the owner must now go through the months of variances and waivers. This only forces the owner to go back with a system dispersing primary effluent back into the water table. No treatment is not helping to protect the public health in conditions such as these. Amend the Regulations to exempt all voluntary upgrades and repairs to existing sewage disposal systems from all the AOSS requirements.
Periodic updates are required to stay consistent with soil and landform related references, e.g.
G. Each application under § 32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia shall include a site and soil characterization report using the Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0, National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2002.Version 3.0 National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservtion Service September 2012. The report may contain such information that the designer deems appropriate; however, it must describe the following minimum attributes of the site of the proposed soil treatment area: 1. Depth to limiting features, seasonal or perched water tables, pans, restrictions, or pervious or impervious bedrock; 2. Slope of the project area;Surface Morphometry 3. Ksat or percolation rate at the proposed installation depth and at depths below the soil treatment area to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. Ksat or percolation rate may be estimated for small AOSSs. The Ksat or percolation rate must be measured using an appropriate device for all AOSE's large AOSSs;
TL-3 Sizing for any product should not be considered “Generally Approved” The loading rates are way too high for the worst of conditions! Why would you take the worst conditions and make the systems smaller and lower? Systems in TL-3 conditions should be raised up and larger.
Sites that have less than 6” of suitable in situ soil should be raised up to 12” above restriction and use an approved UV device and loaded at TL-2. Sites that have 6” of suitable in situ soil should be raised up 6” and loaded at TL-2.
If a site requires a deviation from this an engineer may make a plan that fits the constraints of the site as a custom engineered plan, which would not be considered “Generally Approved”.
Since 12VAC5-615 did not get repealed, look at pulling the Standard of Practice section into the AOSS regulations.
I know that this would be required to change / amend 12VAC5-610, but look at requiring a license number be required on ALL completion statements from AOSE and Installers and require a license number for issuance of a Sewage Handling Permit to prove that the company can in fact pump a COSS and an AOSS!
If TL-3 is not resinded two things should happen.
First all TL-3 products should go through recertification in VA with units that are less than a year old. There have been many changes to the original products that 'passed' before. Geotextiles have changed, legs added, media from a different source etc. The state also needs to survey the testing participants (homeowners) to make sure nothing special was done before sampling day. The state should also monitor at least one cycle.
Second. If TL-3 is not resinded, or made not generally approved, there should be a choice, closer to the water table or restrictive with UV OR smaller footprint, never both.
As an owner of a small business that provides wastewater treatment in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I urge a review and revision of the Regulations for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (12 VAC 5-613). There are conflicts and inconsistencies with GMPs and the guidance communicated by the Onsite Division staff.
I believe that the AOSS regulations enacted on December 7, 2011 made a significant departure from the Emergency Regulations published on June 3, 2010 without adequate public comment.
In 2009, the General Assembly directed VDH to adopt emergency regulations to address three issues pertaining to the AOSS (alternative onsite sewage systems) regulations: Performance, Horizontal Distances and Operations and Maintenance. Although the Emergency Regulations were considered interim, they did establish a framework to supplement the Sewage Handling and Disposal regulations (12VC 5-610-20)
The goal of the Emergency Regulations was to protect public health and the environment by establishing a performance requirement and ensuring that all AOSS are operated in accordance with those regulations. Any systems, AOSS or conventional, that were failing or malfunctioning in ways that threaten public health and the environment were to be the priority. While the basic Sewage Handing and Disposal Regulations did not address performance and O&M, there was in place GMP 147 that established a path for approval of TL2 and TL-3 AOSS systems based on performance. The Division offered two options to AOSS manufactures: in state testing or submission of performance data from testing protocols other than Virginia. We have not been informed that there have been any health or environmental issues with the TL-3 systems installed per GMP 147.
The Emergency Regulations did implement a requirement that every AOSS, whether TL2 or TL3 had to be tested via a BOD effluent sample within the first 180 days of operation and thereafter, every five years for systems with “general approval”. Presumably the laboratory data was to be collected by the VDH Onsite Division and analyzed to identify failing or malfunctioning systems that could endanger public health or the environment. As a local distributor for an AOSS manufacturer, I have never received notice that any of the 400 + AOSS systems installed since the enactment of the Emergency Regulations have impacted public health or the environment.. Whenever we have attempted to obtain the 180 day data, we have had to file FOIA requests at county or state levels to obtain even partial data. The 180 effluent sampling adds to the cost of a homeowners’ O&M program with apparently very little benefit to either the homeowner to make corrections to their AOSS and/or protect public health. The requirement itself is ambiguous since it is possible to take an effluent sample on day-one of the system being put into operation. The performance grab sample has not been used as an effective tool that justifies the cost to the homeowner.
In a review of the AOSS regulations there needs to be an in depth review of the success/failure of the O&M program during its first four years with emphasis on a cost analysis and benefits to both the homeowner and the Commonwealth. As with any business, supply and demand drives the price of a product or service. As of this writing, the AOSS operators list has only 59 licensed operators statewide. Homeowners tend to ignore the O&M requirement because of cost and availability of a licensed operator. The AOSS regulation review should include a survey of homeowners regarding their experiences with O&M providers to include the cost of the annual inspection and the responsiveness of the O&M provider. The survey will be key in moving toward a reasonable program to identify violations and enforcement. There needs to be a better path in the DPOR licensing program.
12VAC 5-613-70 stated that the division “shall develop a protocol to verify expected performance of small AOSS treatment units..” The requirement that performance data must be from systems installed in the Commonwealth of Virginia was a significant departure from the Emergency Regulations and GMP 147. I can’t recall a mandate from the stakeholder meetings to accept only in-state data. Later, the Onsite Division said that out-of-state data could be considered, but that was part of an intended revision to GMP 147 that was drafted, distributed for comment but never signed. As the Virginia distributor for a TL-3 AOSS, I am not certain as to the authority of a GMP that is still in revision.
A further complication of the AOSS regulation is the requirement for 50% total nitrogen reduction for systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The performance requirement is not part of the in-state testing of 20 systems. Separate from the AOSS regulation is GMP 156 and subsequent Division guidance that there may be a requirement for instate testing of as many as 12 systems to meet an EPA inter-state requirement. We have asked if any nitrogen testing could be done concurrent with AOSS testing. We would not want to engage in a nitrogen testing program without assurance that it will meet the eventual EPA mandate.
The Onsite Division, in creating the AOSS regulations did not give appropriate consideration to the financial impact of an in-state testing program that replicates testing done in other states, and internationally. The third-party protocol, without nitrogen testing, will cost AOSS manufacturers and their distributors a minimum of $50,000.00 to produce data already available from other sources. It’s a business expense that will be passed on to property owners who have to have an AOSS. Without including a definitive nitrogen testing program, the cost of separate follow-on testing, at a later date could double.
The Sewage Handing Advisory Committee voted on and sent a letter to the Commissioner of Health pointing out the significant cost of third-party in-state testing that does not further the performance data already available . The AOSS manufactures have already invested heavily in other testing programs. The VDH assumption is Virginia’s wastewater is somehow different that that of New England, Florida or other regions. The point can be made that the health department does not require in-state testing of prescription pharmaceuticals or health appliances. The SHADAC ‘s letter has been ignored by the Commissioner.
To summarize, a revision of the AOSS regulation is needed. There are requirements in the regulation that should be reviewed and improved with the knowledge and data collected since the Emergency Regulations were adopted. There are significant ambiguities with GMP 147 (and the proposed revisions that were never signed) and GMP 156. I ask that the requirement for third-party in-state testing be waived until the AOSS regulation is reviewed and revised.
“In 2009, DPOR adopted licensure requirements for onsite sewage systems professionals, including installers. Part of the reason for licensure was to recognize that onsite systems are becoming increasingly complex and require specialized training of individuals involved in designing, installing, and operating them. VDH does not require that an installer provide their onsite installer license number on construction completion statements. As a result, installations are being done by unlicensed individuals. There is no incentive for unlicensed installers to obtain their license. VDH should amend the regulations to require an installer to provide their onsite installer license number on construction completion statements. This will ensure that only properly trained and licensed persons install onsite systems in Virginia.”
"VDH should inform owners of their obligation to use licensed designers, installers, and operators on all permits and certification letters that are issued.”
A simple solution to protecting the public from unlicensed installers would be the requirement of VDH to require the installers licence number on the construction completion statement. This solution is cost effective, easily implemented, and immediately enforcable. All certification letters, permits and completion statements should have a statement notifying all of this requirement.
I pretty much agree with most of the previous comments, particularly requiring license number and signature on all VDH documents and further informing citizens of the requirement for utilizing licensed individuals.
The AOSS regs need some editing for enhanced clarification and interpretation. The use and presentation of the loading rate chart needs to be revisited as well as additional guidance regarding hydraulic assessment and lateral flow analysis in the case of small AOSS’s with shallow limitations. The utilization of soils with various degrees of “mixed” clay mineralogy needs to be addressed.
In December 2011 the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) promulgated regulations that created restrictive, and effectively, prohibitive rules governing seasonal high groundwater. A new category of system was created, Direct Dispersal to Ground Water. For the past 4years, VDH has issued no construction permits for this category of alternative systems, although VDH has issued at least 21 construction permit variances for repairs or voluntary upgrades.
It is important to be mindful that there are two statutory provisions that require VDH to issue non-complying construction permits (§ 32.1-164.1:1 “Waivers” and § 32.1-164.1:3 “Voluntary Upgrades”). In both instances, VDH is required to, and has written, numerous construction permits that discharge septic tank effluent in violation of current separation requirements and many instances, directly into the seasonal high ground water.
In addition, current regulations (12VAC5-610-280) allow VDH to issue construction permits for failing systems that “complied to the greatest extent possible, ...however, not necessary to substantially comply with the requirements...”.
In summary, there are several options available for VDH to issue legal, yet non-conforming construction permits.
A limited review of permits found:
Mathews County - between November 2008 and June 2010 (20 months) VDH had issued 26 repair permits out of 39 reviewed (67%) resulting in discharges directly into the shallow groundwater.
Mathews County – between April 2010 and January 2013 (32 months) VDH had issued an additional 26 repair permits out of 100 reviewed (26%) that violated the required separation distance or discharged directly into the shallow groundwater.
Isle of Wight County – between January 2010 and January 2013 (36 months) VDH had issued an additional 31 repair permits out of 47 reviewed (66%) that violated the required separation distance or discharged directly into the shallow groundwater.
Ironically, none of the above systems were designed by engineers, yet it is engineered systems that undergo the most scrutiny and must comply with the State's most rigorous performance requirements.
As long as VDH issues permits and designs systems that discharge SEPTIC EFFLUENT directly to groundwater the following rule should apply:
The regulations related to Direct Dispersal to Groundwater need to be amended.
VDH needs to get out of the product approval business. VDH's efforts to affect a rational and statistically robust testing program has failed. The entire concept of General Approval and Treatment Level (TL-3) needs to be rationally evaluated.
Puraflo failed its testing program yet was granted General Approval. Both Advantex and Ecoflo used sampling lysimeters that filtered out the bacterial contaminants used as the pass/fail criteria – yet were granted General Approval.
The statistical model used in GMP-147 is fundamentally flawed. Dr. David Edwards of VCU found that the use of standard error and confidence intervals for the mean were not appropriate when interest lies in where treatment unit performance will fall. He further added, the tolerance intervals computed by VDH are too low as a large percentage of treatment units will fail the criterion.
The raw data shows that each of the three units above had average BOD levels ranging from 6.9 to 8.3 mg/l but had a 99% confidence limit range of 28.5 to 43.2 mg/l. This data demonstrates that the units work well most of the time, but cannot achieve the treatment levels of 10/10 more than about 50% of the time. Similar data exists for TSS.
Treatment Level 2 Effluent should be replaced with – “Secondary Effluent” means effluent that has been treated to produce BOD5 and TSS concentrations equal to or less than 30 mg/l each.
Treatment Level 3 Effluent – should be removed for small systems. There are no manufactured treatment units that can achieve a BOD of 10mg/l consistently. This standard is superfluous – TL-2 (Secondary) is achievable and allows for disinfection and meets the EPA/DEQ discharge quality standard. TL-3 is a contrived standard.
12VAC5-613-10. Definitions.
1. Add definition for CBOD5 with ratio of BOD5 wherever BOD5 is mentioned.
Reason: NSF Standards 40 and 245 report effluent results in CBOD5. Also, some manufacturers, as part of their evaluation process, have field sampled for CBOD5.
2. Add definitions for ammonia, nitrate, TKN and alkalinity.
Reason: The constituents are valuable for gauging field performance and troubleshooting. Furthermore, some of these constituents could be used to gauge compliance as part of a testing protocol, service using field test kits, or compliance with protocols or service using in situ sensors.
3. Add definitions for Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) and High Strength Waste.
Reason: Many residential units or other technologies are misapplied to a variety of commercial situations. In addition to definitions, criteria needs to be developed in the AOSS to address high strength wastewater and FOG. This is crucial since many commercial properties have very limited land area and the risks associated with public health are higher should a system malfunction or fail.
12VAC5-613-30. Applicability and scope.
1. Revise section L. per below:
“L. Treatment units for small AOSSs that are recognized by the department as generally approved for TL-2 or TL-3 as of December 7, 2011, shall retain such status and are exempt from the requirements of 12VAC5-613-70 for a period of five years from December 7, 2011, after which the units shall be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of this chapter.”
Reason: Companies that completed third party field testing protocols prior to the effective date of December 7, 2011 did so at great expense of time and resources. Retesting places an undue and unrealistic financial and time burden on these companies. Furthermore, previous testing protocols were more stringent, including pathogen testing of effluent and through the soil. VDH has acknowledged that the current testing procedure does not include pathogen testing because the previous testing demonstrated the efficacy of the treatment units and the soil to adequately reduce pathogenic organisms to levels safe for public health and the environment.
12VAC5-613-80. Performance requirements; general.
1. Change section 6. per below:
“6. Dosing of Wastewater entering the treatment unit or treatment system shall accommodate be dosed in a manner that does not exceed the design demonstrated peak flow volume in gallons and the demonstrated instantaneous flow rate in gallons per minute within the treatment unit's rated instantaneous dose and daily capacity;”
Reason: Numerous studies documenting field performance have shown that some treatment units do not perform in the field as well as in a test center. The main reasons for this are the inconsistency in the dosing method, both in rate and in volume, and the lack of routine service by competent professionals. Since a treatment unit is often used on a marginal site, the unit’s performance is crucial to protecting the public health and the environment. The way to remedy this is to require designers to justify the treatment unit incoming instantaneous dose rate and dose volume. This, in addition to the daily design volume and routine service requirement, will ensure the adequacy of treatment. NSF Standard 40 makes the following statement on influent dosing regimen:
8.2.2.1 Design loading note:
NOTE – The individual dosage shall be no more than 10 gallons per dose, unless the dosage system is based
on a continuous flow, and be uniformly applied over the dosing periods.
2. Add a section that states the following or something similar:
“All treatment units used for an intermittent use facility, such as a seasonal cottage, cabin, home, church, school, camp or other such facility, shall demonstrate the ability to perform under intermittent use conditions.”
Reason: Some treatment units do not perform adequately when intermittently loaded. In some cases, they will not even meet the ≤60 mg/l BOD5 referenced in 12VAC5-613-80.10.d. in order to qualify for increased soil loading rates. Therefore, the designer should show calculations and operating requirements in order to meet expected performance requirements.
3. Add a section that states the following or something similar:
“Timed dosing, preceding the treatment unit, or effluent by-pass protection shall be incorporated into all treatment units meeting TL-3.”
Reason: Per the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12 VAC 5-610-800):
“Where an activated sludge process is used to produce a secondary effluent, provisions shall be made to protect the drainfield from bulking solids.” Since TL-3 is used on more marginal sites than TL-2, it is imperative that the public health and the environment (and the drainfield) is adequately protected through a fail-safe mechanism. Also, TL-3 effluent needs to be assured through our comment #1 above. Lastly, NSF Standard 40 make the following statement on influent dosing regimen:
8.2.2.1 Design loading note
NOTE – The individual dosage shall be no more than 10 gallons per dose, unless the dosage system is based
on a continuous flow, and be uniformly applied over the dosing periods.
4. Modify section 10. to incorporate Table 1 soil loading rates from GMP #147 for TL-3 and create an additional table for soil loading rates for TL-2 in a format like GMP #147.
Reason: Many designers are unsure about soil loading rates for other types of dispersal, like pads. Adding additional tables will provide clarity for designers.
5. An alternative to field verification specified in 12VAC5-613-70 (repealing this section) is the acceptance of third party test center data or third party field data to establish minimum performance threshold for meeting TL-3 for the requirements of Table 1 soil loading rates. This is similar to what many other states do for establishing performance. Two other state tables were submitted via email to VDH.
12VAC5-613-80. Performance requirements; general.
6. Allow fill sand, soil, or soil-like material is used to meet the 12” vertical separation for seasonal high water table and possibly other conditions.
Reason: Fill sand or soil is very reliable in meeting performance requirements and does not break or need maintenance like a disinfection unit.
7. Consider the concept of soil depth credits for reduction in the vertical separation distance (Table 2).
Reason: Since adoption of AOSS regulations, disinfection devices have proliferated. This may be an unintended consequence of regulation.
12VAC5-613-100. Performance requirements; laboratory sampling and monitoring.
1. Section D. should be removed. This frequency of sampling provides little value and is unnecessarily costly to owners. An alternative is to have the service provider measure the following at each visit: turbidity, DO, pH, and other criteria to gauge field performance.
Repeal the current regulation and develop a risk-based design and operation approach incorporating HACCP.
1. Develop regulations that incorporate the seven principles of HACCP.
a. Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysis.
b. Principle 2: Determine the critical control points.
c. Principle 3: Establish critical limits.
d. Principle 4: Establish monitoring procedures.
e. Principle 5: Establish corrective actions.
f. Principle 6: Establish verification procedures.
g. Principle 7: Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures.
The agency should scratch the testing program set forth by DR. MARCIA DEGEN as identified in the AOSS Regulations. We recently were involved with discussions regarding Dr. Degen and Mr. Dwayne Roadcap requiring one manufacturer to produce "additional" testing without any proper justification. Such testing cost nearly sixty thousand dollars (60,000.00) and nearly a two month delay in obtaining product approval. Additional testing only burdens those manufactures trying to bring innovation into the marketplace by delays and being cost prohibitive. (Maybe the cesspool isn't so bad afterall?)
When did public health outcomes become dependent on political affiliation?
FYI: This form of policy breach failed the citizens of in FLINT, MICHIGAN; is Virginia hoping for a better outcome?
In undertaking review and approval of proprietary products the VDH must have adequate standards.
The unfortunate loss of life in Pulaski County was adjudicated to be due in part to the failure of a child safe lid, the department listed for use across the Commonwealth. Having assumed an obligation for product approval does the state have capacity to review product performance and safety for use?
In the future the Commonwealth would be well advised to rely upon accepted engineering standards and testing results such as NSF or Underwriters Labs. Or establish a comprehensive and verifiable set of standards applied uniformly without granting any form of competitive advantage.
This emphasizes a conflict of interest which must be managed in providing in-house design services for development of private property which requires specification of listed products, but conflict with the ministerial duties.
The regulation:
(i) is necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare or for the economical performance of important governmental functions;
(ii) minimizes the economic impact on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objectives of applicable law; and
(iii) is clearly written and easily understandable.
Repeal these regulations and start fresh with performance requirements based on standard engineering practices that serve to proctect public health, safety, and welfare.
As a member of the Sewage Handling Disposal Advisory Committee I have advocated the elimination of Treatment Level 3 status. There is little likelihood manufactured treatment units achieve a BOD or TSS of <10mg/l consistently under long term operation and realistic field conditions. And yet each have been shown to attain 30mg/l TSS & BOD, and substantial reductions in pathogens, benefiting the long term acceptance of treated effluent into native soil or engineered media. These treatement systems have a history of sustained reliable service in improvement to real property. However TL-3 provides no appreciable improvement, the committee approved a motion to communicate our concerns regarding this issue to the Commissioner of Health.
The cost of TL-3 listed equipment is not balanced by improvement in performance or reduction of risk. It is questionable whether TL-3 provides substantial (>20mg/l) margin of improvement over TL-2 effluent. Or whether VDH has shown this distinction to be statistically sound. The manufacturers protest over the pass through cost to the consumer of additional testing is well founded.
Secondary effluent (TL-2) is readily achievable and suitable for disinfection meeting the EPA/DEQ discharge quality standards. This should be a practical and attainable standard for dispersal into the soil under the oversight of a licensed designer, and can be assured under oversight of a licensed operator.
VDH should have abundant sampling reports (under 12VAC5-613-100, 120) to prove this assertion, it is unfortunate we cannot rely upon the release of compiled statistical evidence in discussion of future regulations. If these testing protocols were not intended to be punitive the data should have been already been released to the public. The Regulation ought not be used to grant competitive advantage to any party. It seems unusual that VDH wished to invoke greater oversight and scrutiny of specification for products which have been tested and certified by independent authorities.
The AOSS Regulations pertaining to product review and approval might be viewed as fostering anticompetitive practices, creating barriers to market entrance for proprietary products and their specification by licensed professionals. In aggregate these should be viewed as burdensome regulations.
VDH is well advised to repeal the 12VAC5-613 Regulations. These regulations have become an impediment to reliable review and approval of applications for Sewage System Permitting. 12VAC5-610 (Sewage Handling & Disposal Regulations, of 2000) established process for determining standoffs to limitations but do not interfere with proprietary specifications for products conveying, treating and dispersing sewage and effluent.
12VAC5-613-90. (Performance requirements; ground water protection.) are especially problematic. Consider the consequences of policies developed under 613-90:
D. The following additional nutrient requirements apply to all AOSSs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed:
1. All small AOSSs shall provide a 50% reduction of TN as compared to a conventional gravity drainfield system; compliance with this subdivision may be demonstrated through the following:
a. Compliance with one or more best management practices recognized by the division such as the use of a NSF 245 certified treatment; or
b. Relevant and necessary calculations provided to show one or both of the following:
(1) Effluent TN concentration of 20 mg/l measured prior to application to the soil dispersal field; or
(2) A mass loading of 4.5 lbs N or less per person per year at the project boundary provided that no reduction for N is allotted for uptake or denitrification for the dispersal of effluent below the root zone (>18 inches below the soil surface).
Applying the results of calculations by the US EPA’s “Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Expert Panel” (Panel) results in a net change of nutrient loading to the Bay of almost zero. At a cost reported by VDH of over $800/lb N removed. Without getting into the weeds the Panel refused to consider Nitrogen mineralized and fixed into organic matter as being isolated, nor did it recognize nutrient losses accruing from many miles of transport through inorganic and microbial influences. Thus developing guidance resulting in onsite installations over 400 miles from the Bay being regulated to as stringent a standard as sites on the waterfront. Compounding the matter “conventional” systems are completely unregulated despite installation in proximity to surface, ground and even tidal waters.
VDH is operating under an erratic and ill considered policy resulting in almost no improvement of statewide N loading to the Chesapeake Bay from onsite systems, but resulting in a wholesale avoidance of "alternative" systems, on a misconstrued assumption that only systems benefitting from treatment should be held to a higher and more expensive standard of regulation. The resulting prescriptive solutions under GMP156 have virtually eliminated acceptance by the ordinary consumer of advanced treatment systems despite the proven performance advantages of virtual elimination of pathogens and organic loads. Erratic in that VDH staff are providing approval of "voluntary upgrades" and "conventional" designs which disperse Septic Tank Effluent (STE) into soils with high groundwater.
While VDH staff provides design and approval for these permits to pollute, the community should also be cognizant of the distribution of shellfish water closures. These reports of coliform bacteria (associated w/ STE) leading to closure seem circumstantially associated with subdivisions on tributaries to the Bay especially along the Three Rivers and Eastern Shore Districts.
Surely the VDH recognizes the need to restore it's primary duty toward oversight by policy and action of the environmental impact of development. To do otherwise continues to undermine it's authority over these matters.
The current AOSS regulations are in addition to or a supplement to the 610 regulations. This and the continued existence of hundreds of GMPs makes it almost impossible for designers to navigate the maze of overlapping regs and policies and equally hard for VDH staff to review and regulate. SInce the AOSE regs are not in effect there is no regulatory standard for submissions, soil evaluations and there is absolutely no guidance or regulation dealing with the nearly 800,000 existing septic systems all nearing 40 years plus in age. A complete and thorough re-wirte with legislative changes is long overdue.
Department of Planning and Budget is advised to take notice of economic impacts related to these regulations. Small Business interests have been neglected or given little consideration during prior regulatory reviews. As have impacts upon homeowners affected by damage to their natural resources including ground or surface water.
Economic impact of onsite system design, permitting, installation, and operation under regulations include:
In summary please consider the value of real estate served by functioning onsite systems, as opposed to the cost of mitigating failed or non-compliant systems.
I assert the avoided cost of properly designed and operated systems has not been properly established; some seem confused by the misconception that septic systems are temporary solutions until the big pipe is built. In most cases this is impractical, a broken model. The value of reliable decentralized onsite systems in support of rural development should be recognized and supported by any future regulation.
Beginning in 2009, Bio-Microbics has been listed as “Evaluation Complete” or approved for GMP 147 for TL-3. Bio-Microbics has participated with the VDH in the development of the Emergency Regulations of 2010 and the current regulations 12VAC5-613 effective since 2011. Bio-Microbics has further assured that our Distributor, Dealers, Installers and Service Providers have followed these Regulations since 2011 and know of no negative health or environmental impact, or formal complaint from VDH on any of the 400+ installations over this time period.
12VAC5-613-30.L states that the approvals Bio-Microbics received for TL-3 of 2009 are effective for 5 years from December 7, 2011, or up till December 7, 2016. The process for re-evaluation is covered in 12VAC5-613-70, which states that the division (VDH) shall develop a protocol to verify the performance. However, when one looks for the testing requirements for GMP 147, the 2009 testing procedures are all that can be found on the VDH website. There have been discussions and drafts of a new GMP 147 testing protocol, but this new testing protocol has not been approved. Field testing is a very expensive proposition for both a manufacturer and its Virginia Distributor and Dealers. Without a formally approved testing protocol for GMP 147, it is not a safe investment to make knowing that this can be changed by VDH at any time.
In addition VDH issued a Guidance Memorandum and Policy 156 in December of 2013 for nitrogen reduction in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. BMP#5 of this GMP requires field testing for all GMP 147 TL-3 systems for nitrogen reduction. This GMP further states that a new listing procedure to develop this field testing would be completed no later than June 7, 2014. To our knowledge no field testing procedure for GMP 156 has been approved by VDH. Again the economic impact of this is substantial for both a manufacturer and its Virginia Distributor and Dealers. In order to obtain the most value for money expended for field testing, it would make sense to test for both GMP 147 and 156 at the same time.
The lack of any VDH approved testing protocol does not make it feasible to expend substantial amounts of money and resources without knowing that the testing procedures suggested by the VDH are approved. Based upon the facts as we see them, the December 7, 2016 deadline for 12VAC5-613-30.L is impractical and cannot be met by any manufacturer. This would make the use of any previously approved TL-3 system unavailable for use in the protection of the environment. In contrast, every MicroFAST® system that has been installed in Virginia reduces nitrogen by 50% or more. So the economic and environmental impact upon the Commonwealth of Virginia would be devastating. For this reason we are requesting that the VDH modify 12VAC5-613 to account for the lack of any approved direction for field testing so that existing systems approved for TL-3 be “grandfather in” or a new deadline be established only after testing protocols are approved.
Does VDH post grab sample findings for all existing installed AOSS systems?
What do the current numbers indicate?
How many AOSS required samples does VDH have record of in the Commonwealth?
There are consequences of water contamination by human pathogens.
It is not known what part of this contamination is due to OSWDS, however, as the incidence of OSWDS contamination increase, it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of closures due to OSWDS will also increase.
The closure of shellfish beds has significant economic impact and often these impacts are
quite localized, so the associated hardships are very unevenly distributed.
Marcia Degen Virginia Department of Health staff engineer continues to write public policy which makes alternative system use less economical to the consumer. Another overreach by an agency monopoly in the onsite service industry.
A glaring conflict of interest does exist in that Ms. Degens staff only designs conventional onsite sewage systems while she intentionally increases costs to alternative systems.
"if it aint broke, don't fix it".
It is an owners legal rights to has a system installed on their property and yous don't have any choices to say in that! just bunches of vowra complainers.
Current scientific research appears to confirm that a properly constructed drainfield with
18 inches of separation can perform effectively for about 25 years.
Does virginia department of health have data to support the current seperation distances?
Can the VDH confirm whether 12VAC5-613 complies with EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishing minimum federal requirements for state and tribal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Programs to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination caused by Class V injection wells or septic systems?
Do regulations includes inventory of construction, operation, and closure of injection wells? Does the inventory delineate sourcewater protection areas affected by such facilities?
Notice: a septic system is required to meet UIC Program requirements and is considered a Class V well if either one of the following conditions is met:
The septic system, regardless of size, receives any amount of industrial or commercial wastewater; or
The septic system receives solely sanitary waste from multiple family residences or a non-residential establishment and has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day (also known as large-capacity septic systems).