Board of Health Concerns
Relative to the Use of Alternative Systems

Board of Health, as the local approving authority, have ultimate say over where, and how many (if any) alternative treatment systems will be installed in their town. While alternative systems' ability to provide enhanced wastewater treatment and solve wastewater disposal problems make them attractive, Boards of Health should be aware of several issues of concern relative to the use of these systems.

INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING

The first of these concerns is alternative onsite septic systems require regular inspection and maintenance to ensure that they function effectively. DEP, in its approval of most systems (except gravelless drain systems and those systems not employing pumps), requires that each system be under a maintenance contract with a certified wastewater operator at all times. The wastewater operator is responsible for any required water quality monitoring as well as any maintenance necessary to keep the unit operating effectively. Most distributors of alternative systems provide an initial contract between the homeowner and a wastewater operator who is trained to operate and maintain that system. These maintenance contracts usually cost from two to three hundred dollars a year (this may be more depending on the system), not including cost of water quality monitoring. It is in the property owner's interest to maintain this contract to prolong the life of their septic system. But, some property owners may not understand how necessary maintenance is to the proper functioning and longevity of their system. In some instances, for financial reasons, property owners may choose not to keep the maintenance contract in effect. Boards of Health have little guarantee that property owners will maintain maintenance contracts over the long term. The only way to ensure that maintenance contracts are kept in effect, and that systems are monitored when required, is for Boards of Health to have a structured tracking program for alternative systems. This type of tracking program can require significant commitment of personnel time. Boards of Health should plan for this commitment before they allow widespread use of alternative systems.

To simplify tracking the monitoring and maintenance of alternative systems , Boards of Health may wish to allow their installation only within specified wastewater management districts. This consolidates physical placement of the systems. And, when installed in a wastewater management district, it may be possible to have one certified operator be responsible for the operation of all systems.

During their approval process, Boards of Health should also check to make sure that the monitoring requirements imposed on a system by DEP are sufficient. This can be particularly true for nitrogen monitoring requirements. For example, the Bioclere system has general use approval from DEP to be installed in place of a standard Title 5 system. As part of this approval, the system must only be monitored for pH, BOD, and TSS. The system also has provisional use approval for nitrogen removal; when installed in areas subject to nitrogen loading limitations it must also be monitored for nitrate, ammonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. The hitch comes in the definition of areas subject to nitrogen loading limitations. Many coastal communities have areas, such as zones of recharge to embayments, that they consider to be nitrogen sensitive but which do not formally meet the Title 5 definition of nitrogen sensitive areas (Zone IIs of public supply wells, areas served by both private wells and septic systems, and other areas formally designated by the state as nitrogen sensitive). The board may allow (and even encourage) the installation of nitrogen removal systems in areas that the board considers nitrogen sensitive. But, it is unclear whether the Bioclere unit, when installed in an area that is not nitrogen sensitive, will have to monitor for nitrogen. To ensure that any system is monitored to the satisfaction of the Board of Health, the board may want to make monitoring requirements a condition of its approval of the system. However, sections 15.285(2), 15.286(5), and 15.288(4) specify that this can only be done after adopting regulations, pursuant to 310 CMR 15.003(3), that allow the Board of Health to impose its own conditions and monitoring requirements on systems. A proposed regulation for your consideration is given at the end of this chapter.

CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP

Boards of Health must also consider the issue of change of ownership of properties at which alternative technologies are installed. Because these technologies require financial obligations from owners for maintenance and monitoring, it is essential that any potential buyer be aware of these obligations before they purchase the property. As part of its the Piloting, Provisional, Remedial and General Approval for most systems, DEP requires that the owner provide written notice to any potential buyer of DEP's Approval for the system (including all conditions and requirements for the system's use) prior to signing a purchase and sale agreement. Although anyone who neglects to provide this notification may be subject to civil liability, it is in the Board of Health's interest to be sure that property purchasers understand their responsibilities before they purchase property with an alternative system. For this reason, the Board of Health may wish to require that anyone who installs an alternative system record use of such on the property's deed, along with any restrictions placed on the use of the property (number of bedrooms, etc.) by the Board of Health. The Board of Health may also require, as one of its conditions of approval, that at the time of sale the seller provide a letter from the system operator stating that the system has been properly maintained.

MISAPPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY

Another issue which merits consideration is the potential for misapplication of alternative technologies. Most Board of Health members are aware that the use of alternative technologies is most frequently proposed at environmentally sensitive and difficult sites: sites that require significant variances from Title 5; sites seeking increased density based on nitrogen credits, etc. One common scenario is that of a site where horizontal setbacks to a critical resource such as a well or watercourse cannot be met. The applicant may propose use of an alternative technology which removes nitrogen as a way of providing an equal degree of public health and environmental protection. However, in this instance, pathogens are the issue that should most concern the board. Unless the technology is capable of pathogen reduction, use of the system is a misapplication of the technology, does not provide equal protection, and should not be allowed. Boards of Health should scrutinize applications for alternative technology to ensure that the technology provides appropriate environmental and public health protections to address concerns on a specific site.

Systems must also be used and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's design specifications. For instance, systems are frequently designed (size or number of treatment units) based on the expected BOD load of the wastewater. If the BOD (or other wastewater parameter) at the actual installation varies significantly from what the unit is designed to handle, the unit will not produce good quality finished wastewater. This can be particularly true at restaurants and supermarkets where wastewater strength must be accurately known (usually by direct sampling) before the system can be properly designed. We have seen several instances where engineers have designed a treatment system either not following manufacturers specifications or in a configuration not specifically designed by the manufacturer with very negative results including poor quality finished wastewater and premature failure of the system. It is wise for the board to consult with the system distributor's representative or engineer to ensure that the distributor agrees that the system will be used as designed.

NITROGEN REMOVAL CREDITS AND ASSOCIATED INCREASES IN ALLOWABLE DESIGN FLOW

A final set of concerns centers on the nitrogen removal credits and resulting increases in allowable density that go with the use of some alternative systems. Title 5 limits sewage design flow in nitrogen sensitive areas to 440 gpd per acre unless a technology approved for nitrogen removal is used. Most units which have received nitrogen removal credits are allowed increases in density to either 550 or 660 gpd per acre. The situation is further complicated by the fact that DEP allows these credits to be used for expansions of existing dwellings on lots less than an acre in size. These credits and expansions are summarized in Table 1.

Most towns on Cape Cod have zoning or Board of Health regulations that restrict wastewater loading to 330 gpd/acre in Zone II's of public supply wells and/or in areas served by both private wells and septic systems. The use of 330 gpd/acre is based on the Cape Cod Commission nitrogen loading model (Cape Cod Commission Technical Bulletin 91-001 (Final), Nitrogen Loading) which predicts that combined wastewater loading from a typical three bedroom home will result in an average groundwater concentration of 5 mg/L.

In areas where a 330 gpd/acre rule applies, Boards of Health will have to decide whether to allow DEP's increased design flow/acre (based on 440 gpd/acre) or whether to scale down increased flow proportionately using a baseline of 330 gpd/acre. Table 2 summarizes the wastewater loading credit that would be allowed for each technology using a baseline flow of 330 gpd/acre.

Lastly, there may be land areas where the Board of Health's goal is to attain nitrogen loading of less than 5 mg/L. These areas may include recharge zones to selected coastal embayments and densely built barrier beaches. A Board of Health may also choose lower nitrogen loadings per acre in areas where groundwater nitrate already exceeds 5 mg/L. In these cases, the board may want to require the use of alternative technologies but may not be willing to grant the wastewater flow increases that DEP allows for the technology. Boards will likely confront this scenario on small lots in recharge areas of coastal embayments where homeowners wish to upgrade and expand existing dwellings. The Board of Health may wish to require nitrogen removal technology but will have to decide how much additional wastewater flow, if any, to allow with use of these technologies.

Final Note

The prospect for continued and expanded use of alternative onsite septic system technology looks good. As the septic system further evolved from the temporary solution it was once thought of, to the long term solution, communities will be tempted to apply these technologies in broad areas. We would encourage Boards of Health, faced with large areas of critical concern to begin discussions with all appropriate agencies (DEP, local Planning Boards, Water and Sewer Boards, etc) to ensure that onsite treatment is the way to go. There is a broad gradient of solutions to area problems relating to wastewater management that range from all onsite treatment to large centralized municipal treatment. In between there are "packaged" treatment facilities and technologies which have scaled up to meet the small cluster possibilities. We will discuss these technologies in future newsletters, but suffice to say, despite our and your excitement over the onsite possibilities, don't "jump the gun" before looking at the long range plan.

Proposed Regulation Regarding
Board of Health Requirements for Monitoring of
Alternative Septic Technologies

In considering the permitting and use of various alternative septic treatment technologies in the Town of ____________, the Board of Health of the Town of _________________ recognizes that there may be specific local circumstances which warrant the Board to require more stringent conditions for the installation and monitoring of these alternative systems than may be required by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. As allowed under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, section 31 and as required by the revised 310 CMR 15.00 sections 15.285(2d), 15.286(5), and 15.2888(4), the Board of Health of the Town of _____________ hereby reserves the right to impose any additional conditions or monitoring requirements it views as necessary to ensure the safe performance of any alternative onsite septic system which the board agrees to permit in the Town of ______________.

Table 1. Summary of allowable increases in design flow (per acre or portion thereof) based on DEP baseline design flow of 440 gpd/acre in areas where nitrogen loading is limited.

Table 2. Summary of allowable increases in design flow (per acre or portion thereof) based on local baseline design flow of 330 gpd/acre in areas where nitrogen loading is limited.

Download Board of Health Concerns text in Microsoft Word format