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.