Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems: New Regulations & Issues for Localities Potomac Watershed Roundtable January 7, 2011 Thomas E. Crow, Director Division of Environmental Health Fairfax County Health Department

Outline Overview of Onsite Sewage Systems Overview of Onsite Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems Emergency Regulations for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems Proposed Permanent AOSS Regulations Proposed Permanent AOSS Regulations What Does This Mean for Local Governments What Does This Mean for Local Governments Chesapeake Bay TMDL Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Goals of All Sewage Treatment Processes Treatment to reduce harmful elements Treatment to reduce harmful elements Distribution of water (effluent) back into the environment Distribution of water (effluent) back into the environment All onsite sewage systems disperse partially treated effluent to the soil for final treatment prior to its return to ground water All onsite sewage systems disperse partially treated effluent to the soil for final treatment prior to its return to ground water

Conventional Onsite System Code of Virginia Code of Virginia –Only septic tank for treatment –May utilize pump for change in elevation –Distribution must be by gravity –Requires at least three feet of well-drained soil

Alternative Onsite System Code of Virginia Code of Virginia May be experimental, provisional, or generally approved May be experimental, provisional, or generally approved Three main characteristics Three main characteristics –Treatment other than a septic tank, or –Uses a method of distribution other than gravity, typically pressurized –Does not result in a point source discharge Designed to improve treatment of septic effluent in the soil, or Designed to improve treatment of septic effluent in the soil, or Provides additional treatment in a “box” Provides additional treatment in a “box”

Emergency Regulations for AOSS From legislation approved in 2009 (HB 2551) in reaction to restrictions placed on AOSS installations by some jurisdictions From legislation approved in 2009 (HB 2551) in reaction to restrictions placed on AOSS installations by some jurisdictions Effective April 7, 2010 Effective April 7, 2010 Effective for 12 months with a possible 6 month extension (set to expire April 6, 2011) Effective for 12 months with a possible 6 month extension (set to expire April 6, 2011)

Emergency Regulations for AOSS Three broad areas: Three broad areas: –Establishes new performance requirements for new systems only –Establishes O&M requirements for all systems Requires designer to submit O&M manual to the homeowner and Health Department. Requires designer to submit O&M manual to the homeowner and Health Department. Requires formal O&M agreement with licensed operator. Requires formal O&M agreement with licensed operator. Requires annual maintenance report be submitted online to the Health Department ($1.00 fee) Requires annual maintenance report be submitted online to the Health Department ($1.00 fee) –Establishes horizontal setbacks for of the Code of Virginia Drinking water supplies Drinking water supplies Shellfish waters Shellfish waters Sink holes Sink holes

Proposed Permanent Regulations (public comment period closes February 4, 2011) (public comment period closes February 4, 2011) Public hearing: Public hearing: –January 25, 2011 –10:00 A.M. –James Madison Building, 109 Governor Street, Main Floor Conference Room Some key differences from the Emergency Regulations: Some key differences from the Emergency Regulations: –Spray irrigation and any system in wetlands specifically excluded –New nitrogen requirements for Chesapeake Bay watershed –Additional requirements for systems with direct dispersal to ground water –Phosphorus requirements for AOSS with direct dispersal to ground water

What does this mean for local governments? Pre-emption clauses in HB 1788 (2009) Pre-emption clauses in HB 1788 (2009) –Locality shall not prohibit the use of AOSS –Locality shall not exceed maintenance standards that exceed State requirements Pre-emption clauses become effective 30 days following promulgation of final regulations Pre-emption clauses become effective 30 days following promulgation of final regulations

What does this mean for local governments? November 9, 2009 AG opinion said adoption of the Emergency Regulations triggers the two pre-emptive portions of HB 1788 November 9, 2009 AG opinion said adoption of the Emergency Regulations triggers the two pre-emptive portions of HB 1788 Fairfax County Attorney’s opinion of May 26, 2010 Fairfax County Attorney’s opinion of May 26, 2010 –Emergency regulations by definition are not final. –The pre-emption does not take effect until the final regulations are promulgated.

What does this mean for Fairfax County? Total of 617 systems Total of 617 systems –55% < 5 years old –26% 6-10 years old –17% years old –1% years old –1% > 20 years old 217 systems (35%) have existing O&M agreements 217 systems (35%) have existing O&M agreements

What does this mean for Fairfax County? The operation and maintenance requirements are a good step, particularly if we are going to be required to accept experimental systems. The operation and maintenance requirements are a good step, particularly if we are going to be required to accept experimental systems. Added cost to homeowners for annual maintenance agreement. Added cost to homeowners for annual maintenance agreement. Staff time required to monitor compliance. Staff time required to monitor compliance. Stricter requirements of local code will be pre- empted. Stricter requirements of local code will be pre- empted.

What does this mean for Fairfax County? Proposed State AOSS Regulations Fairfax County Code 68.1 Requirement Locality shall not prohibit the use of AOSS Experimental or provisional systems are not considered for new construction unless a generally approved system with a 100% reserve area is approved as a backup

What does this mean for Fairfax County Proposed State AOSS Regulations Fairfax County Code 68.1 Requirement Shallow placed systems permitted at any depth if certain soil and dispersal criteria are met Does not permit any system to be installed at a depth shallower than six inches

Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL Nitrogen From Onsite Sewage Draft allocation for onsite sewage = million pounds Draft allocation for onsite sewage = million pounds Current pollution from onsite systems = 2.6 million pounds Current pollution from onsite systems = 2.6 million pounds Target Reduction = approx. 0.7 million pounds Target Reduction = approx. 0.7 million pounds Estimated # of systems in watershed = 530,000 Estimated # of systems in watershed = 530,000 # of new systems each year = 11,250 # of new systems each year = 11,250

Draft Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) for Onsite Sewage Expand the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program to include onsite systems within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Expand the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program to include onsite systems within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Implement VDH regulations for AOSS. Implement VDH regulations for AOSS. Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to require all new and replacement systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to utilize either: Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to require all new and replacement systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to utilize either: –“Shallow placed” systems –Denitrification technology to reduce nitrogen loss Consider requirements for additional nitrogen reducing technologies in certain defined sensitive areas. Consider requirements for additional nitrogen reducing technologies in certain defined sensitive areas.

Draft Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) for Onsite Sewage Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to encourage the use of community onsite systems. (Existing zoning codes require that onsite systems must be sited within the meets and bounds of the property.) Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to encourage the use of community onsite systems. (Existing zoning codes require that onsite systems must be sited within the meets and bounds of the property.) Explore the feasibility of establishing tax credits or other financial incentives for upgrade/replacement of existing conventional systems with nitrogen reducing systems. Explore the feasibility of establishing tax credits or other financial incentives for upgrade/replacement of existing conventional systems with nitrogen reducing systems. Explore the use of grants or other methods to defray expenses on low and moderate income households. Explore the use of grants or other methods to defray expenses on low and moderate income households. Encourage the use of “Betterment Loans” for repairs to existing systems. Encourage the use of “Betterment Loans” for repairs to existing systems.