In the 1995 revisions to Title 5, the Department of Environmental Protection for the first time allowed the use of non-Title 5, or alternative, septic systems. Any system designed or constructed in any manner other than described in Title 5 will be considered an alternative system. These alternative systems may include substitutes or alternatives for one or more parts of a conventional on-site system, or may be fundamentally different approaches intended to eliminate the need for a standard Title 5 system.
Before being used, each new type of alternative technology must be reviewed and receive approval from DEP. This is accomplished through a three-tiered approval process, which consists of Piloting, Provisional, and General Use approval. Through this process, manufacturers of alternative systems are allowed to install, monitor, and demonstrate the effectiveness of a limited number of systems. As data is gathered demonstrating that the system functions as effectively as projected, the system moves through the approval process and more systems are allowed to be installed. The goal of the approval process is to allow the applicant to demonstrate that the system functions at least as well as, or better than, a conventional Title 5 system to protect the public health, safety, and the environment. When this has been demonstrated, General Use approval is given to the system.
Aside from Piloting, Provisional, and General Use Approval, systems may also receive Remedial Use Approval for use in repair situations. In addition, technologies which are designed to remove nitrogen from the finished wastewater may also receive approval for a Nitrogen Removal Credit.
As part of the approval process, DEP imposes strict monitoring requirements on each system. DEP requires that all systems with Piloting or Provisional Use approval at a minimum to monitor influent and effluent for pH, TSS, and BOD. Many alternative systems claim that they produce better quality effluent than a conventional Title 5 system, or that installation of the system should be subject to less stringent requirements than those of Title 5. DEP generally requires monitoring for parameters which can be used to evaluate these claims and document the system's treatment capabilities. For example, systems which claim to reduce nitrogen are usually monitored for total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate and ammonia. Systems which claim to reduce pathogens may also be required to monitor for fecal coliform and possibly viruses.
DEP also imposes fairly strict requirements on where these technologies may be installed. Technologies with piloting or provisional use approval may only be installed where 1) the proposed use is for upgrade of an existing failed or substandard system with no increase in design flow to the system or 2) the system will be used for new construction or increased flow at a site where a system in compliance with Title 5 exists or could be constructed; or 3) the system will be used for new construction or increased flow at a site where connection to a sewer is possible. If the alternative technology does not perform as expected, the owner of the system will have to replace it with a Title 5 system.
Each step of the three-tiered approval process is described in more detail below.
Systems first receive Piloting Use Approval. Piloting approval authorizes the installation of a limited number (<15) of systems to provide field testing and demonstration that the system can or cannot function effectively. The local Board of Health and DEP must approve each individual piloting facility prior to the use of the system. DEP determines the monitoring schedule and parameters for each system as part of its piloting approval. DEP will generally require systems with piloting approval to monitor monthly for the first 6 -12 months, and quarterly thereafter for up to two years. The Board of Health may impose additional requirements for monitoring and use of the system under regulations adopted pursuant to section 15.003(3) of Title 5. Permitting is fairly simple. If DEP variances are not needed, send a copy of the local application approval together with a supplemental transmittal form (you can get a copy of the form from the manufacturer or DEP) to the Boston office of DEP. If Title 5 variances are needed, the applicant must send local Board of Health approval, engineered plans, and permit application BRP WP 59b plus a $200 filing fee to the DEP Regional Office.
Upon satisfactory completion of piloting testing (the results of up to 15 systems tested for 2 years), DEP may grant provisional approval of the system, determine that additional pilot testing is required, or disapprove the system. Piloting is considered successful when at least 75% of the piloted systems have performed at the expected level of treatment for at least 12 months. DEP may waive piloting and grant Provisional use approval when the applicant can demonstrate past performance of the system for at least two years of general usage in another state.
After successful piloting, systems move on to Provisional Use Approval. Provisional use approval is intended to evaluate whether a technology can provide an equivalent degree of environmental protection as a Title 5 system, under actual field conditions. Under provisional use approval, a minimum of 50 systems are installed and monitored for three years for the same parameters required under piloting approval. DEP uses this data to set final discharge standards and other conditions of use for the system. The Board of Health may impose additional monitoring or use requirements on the system under regulations adopted pursuant to section 15.003(3) of Title 5. Permitting is the same as for systems with piloting approval. If no Title 5 variances are necessary, the local Board of Health approval and engineered plans for the system are forwarded to DEP Boston along with the manufacturer's transmittal form. No fee is required. If Title 5 variances are required, the Board of Health approval, engineered plans, and DEP permit BRP WP 59b (for setback variances) or BRP WP 64c (for all repairs; i.e. remedial use variances) or BRP WP 64b (for other new construction variances) and a $200 or $300 filing fee are sent to the DEP Regional office.
A system has demonstrated effective performance when at least 90% of provisionally approved systems have performed at a level at least equivalent to a that of a standard on-site system over the period of the provisional approval. When this is accomplished, the system is granted General Use Certification. This means that the technology is regarded by DEP as providing a level of environmental protection at least equivalent to that provided by a standard on-site system designed and constructed in accordance with Title 5. Systems which have received General Use certification do not require a permit from DEP for installation unless Title 5 variances are required. However, a Disposal Works Construction Permit from the Board of Health is required and the board, as the local approving authority, makes the decision whether the system can be installed. The system must be installed and operated in accordance with any conditions established by DEP as part of the system's general use certification. DEP may or may not require monitoring as part of a system's general use certification. The Board of Health may impose additional monitoring or use requirements on the system under regulations adopted pursuant to section 15.003(3) of Title 5. As above, if Title 5 variances are needed for the installation, plans must be sent to the DEP Regional Office with permit BRP WP 59b and a $200 filing fee.
Alternative systems may also be granted Remedial Use Approval. Remedial Use Approval is intended to allow installation of an alternative system for repairs at sites that often cannot accommodate a standard Title 5 system. Remedial use approval usually allows some reduction in the requirements of Title 5. Typically this includes a reduction in the size of the leaching field, a reduction in the required separation to groundwater, or a reduction in the required depth of naturally occurring pervious soil under the leaching field. These reductions are generally not much different from the reductions allowed for standard Title 5 systems under local upgrade approval for replacement of failed systems. The reductions are intended to allow owners to replace their failed septic system in a cost effective way while improving site conditions. Permitting is similar to that described above for systems with provisional use approval. If within the authority of local upgrade approval, no application to DEP is required. If DEP variances are needed, the Board of Health approval, engineered plans, and DEP permit BRP WP 59b (for setback variances) or BRP WP 64c (for all other variances) and a $200 or $300 filing fee are sent to the DEP Regional office.
Many systems, as part of their approval process, apply to DEP for Nitrogen Removal Credits. Title 5 restricts design flow to 440 gpd per acre in designated nitrogen sensitive areas (zone II's of public supply wells, in areas served by both private wells and on-site septic systems, and in other areas formally designated as nitrogen sensitive). Some alternative technologies are specifically designed to remove nitrogen from finished effluent, and many of these systems seek a nitrogen removal credit. A nitrogen removal credit allows the property owner an increase in design flow per acre. For example, a home located on a half-acre (20,000 s.f.) in a nitrogen sensitive area would be restricted under Title 5 to a two bedroom, or 220 gpd, design flow. The owner may choose to install an alternative system which has a nitrogen removal credit allowing a 660 gpd/acre design flow. This will allow the homeowner to construct a three bedroom, or 330 gpd design flow, house on the lot. Manufacturers of nitrogen-removal technologies hope that the increase in design flow allowed by the nitrogen removal credit will make nitrogen-removal technologies economically attractive. A number of systems have received either General or Provisional approval for a nitrogen removal credit, usually either 550 or 660 gpd per acre.
Typically, an alternative system may be granted several types of approval at one time. For example, DEP may grant a system General Use Certification for use on a lot that can accommodate a Title 5 system, with no expectation that the system will perform better than a Title 5 system. The alternative system may simultaneously have Remedial Use approval for a reduction in required leachfield size for repair installations on lots that require Title 5 variances. The system may also have Provisional Use approval for a nitrogen removal credit, so that it could be installed (possibly with associated increases in design flow) where nitrogen reduction is desired.
Each type of use approval may have different monitoring requirements associated with it, so it is up to the Board of Health to make sure that the system is being monitored to their satisfaction, and to require additional monitoring if the board feels this is necessary. For example, a system may have general use approval with no monitoring requirements and have a nitrogen reduction credit. The system may be installed in an area that has not been designated as nitrogen sensitive; this happens most frequently in coastal areas that Boards of Health may consider nitrogen sensitive but which have not been formally so designated. In these cases, even though the system is being used for nitrogen reduction, DEP will not require the system to be monitored for nitrogen output and the Board of Health will want to impose this requirement itself.
To date, 20 systems have entered the DEP approval process and are summarized in Table 1. More detailed information about each system, including permitting and use conditions are given in Table 2.
| Table 1. Systems in the DEP Approval Process as of May 1997, and Type of Approval Received to Date.
|