|Amend Alternative Discharging Sewage Treatment Regulations for Single Family Home Dwellings
|Ended on 12/16/2015
12VAC5-640-240. Construction plan Application for a construction permit.
A. After a satisfactory site for a discharging system has been found and a General Permit has been obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, the applicant shall submit a construction plan an application, the appropriate fee, construction plans, specifications, design criteria and calculations, and documentation that coverage under the General Permit has been obtained. The documentation shall include the cover letter and copy of the General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality. If the discharge is to a wetland, the construction submittal must include documentation that a Virginia Water Protection Permit from the Department of Environmental Quality or a permit under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been obtained as needed. The purpose of the construction plan submittal is to demonstrate how the effluent limitations established by the SWCB and the remaining criteria construction, location, and performance requirements of this chapter can be met.
I just noticed a text redundancy highlighted above. Hope the registrar will catch this when printing the final regulation.
12VAC5-640-470 E. Electrical.. All wiring shall be approved by the local building official and shall be weather tight and permanent in nature (hard wired). No inspection criteria or standards are provided for this inspection. Very arbitrary. How does this impact public health.?
There needs to be a provision in each Reliability class for homes with private wells that share the same power source. In the event of a power failure both the well and the discharging system will not operate. Without water flow from the residence, the discharging system cannot produce effluent. The same condition can be accomplished with a water control valve for homes on city water. No power no water.
A. All discharging systems shall be equipped with a means of disinfecting the effluent which is acceptable to the division and meets the performance requirements of this chapter.
Who died and made you the Monarch?
This is way too arbitrary, what is the criteria for "acceptable to the division"?
D. The department will not [consider issuance of ] a permit to construct a discharging system, unless all options for conventional and alternative onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems have been evaluated and found unsatisfactory in accordance with this section. The For the purposes of this section, the consideration of all options include means site evaluation(s) conducted by [ the department ] and when appropriate, a report prepared by a person having a special knowledge of soil science as defined in § 54.1-2200 of the Code of Virginia and the methods and principles of soil evaluation as acquired by education or experience in the formation, description and mapping of soils [ or a licensed an individual licensed in Virginia to evaluate and design onsite sewage systems such as an ] onsite soil evaluator or professional engineer indicating that no sewage disposal site exists on that property for the site and soil conditions allowed under the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12VAC5-610) or its successor including the use of TL-2 and TL-3 effluent to reduce footprint area as allowed under 12VAC5-613 or its successor. [ All evaluations must be completed in accordance with the methods and requirements of 12VAC5-610 and 12VAC5-613. ]
Please explain where the authority to make this requirement comes from?
VDH is taking property without due process.
VDH is stating with the above requirement that they beleive a waterfront site with a convential system (no operator required) and a drainfield will provide beter long term protection of the public health as compaired to a discharging system with a treatment works and operator.
My concern, is that a waterfront homeowner like me should be allowed to have a conventional septic tank and drainfield on a waterfront site, or a discharging system, as long as the standards applied to my discharge meet, but not be required to be better than, the quality and composition of discharges allowed for municipal sewage treatment systems of a town or city. Effluent from my system should not be required, and I should not bear the virtual tax of the cost, of my having to unfairly treat and purify my discharge for the effect of diluting the contaminant levels in the water system that may result from discharges from larger multi-user waste water treatment systems which have less stringent requirements than for my discharging system. There should be equal protection under the law – and equal and fair requirements for all.
As a waterfront property owner, presumably with riparian rights, I should have the right to determine my own waste water disposal method, either soil or discharge, as long as I meet the same effluent standards required of other citizens who dispose of their waste water using standard municipal systems. Why is their soil type not held to this same standard?