Alice Sarkisian Wessen

Proposed Regulations and Proposed Statewide Waiver for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) (Septic Systems)

AB 885 - This State Bill has been in both state houses for eight years and is on the verge of passage.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/septic_tanks/

================================================================= 

FAQ’s: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/septic_tanks/docs/ab885septicregspres110608.pdf

Proposed Regulations and Proposed Statewide Waiver for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) (Septic Systems)

The following discussion is intended to present and briefly respond to frequently asked questions. The reader is encouraged to review the actual language of the proposed regulations and proposed waiver as well as the draft environmental impact report.

Why adopt regulations for onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems)?

                  Legislation (AB 885, 2000 Jackson) directed the State Water Board to adopt regulations

 

                  Water Code requires regulation of discharges of waste that impair or threaten to impair surface water or groundwater quality.

 

                  Septic systems, when properly sited:

 

                  Remove bacteria and viruses.

 

                  But allow soluble materials resistant to degradation to reach and pollute groundwater and impair the quality of groundwater and nearby surface water.

 

Why adopt a Statewide Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements in addition to regulations for septic systems?

                  Persons who discharge waste that impairs or threatens to impair waters of the state must file a report of waste discharge with the Regional Water Board.

 

                  A Water Boards may waive the reporting of a discharge of waste for a type of discharge. A statewide waiver will allow owners of septic systems to avoid filing a report of waste discharge so long as the provisions of the waiver are complied with.

 

Are the requirements the same in the proposed regulations and statewide waiver?

                  Yes.

How will the proposed regulations and statewide waiver affect owners of existing septic systems?

 

• Owners must have their septic tanks inspected for solids accumulations every five years by a qualified service provider. Inspection cost ~$325.

 

• Owners with an onsite domestic well on their property must:

                  Have a state certified analytical laboratory analyze well water (groundwater) for specified constituents once every five years and report the results electronically to the State Water Board. Domestic well sampling and reporting costs ~$325.

                   

• Owners whose existing septic systems are within 600 feet of a surface water body that does not meet water quality standards (impaired water body) will be subject to special requirements (more later).

 

• Owners will have to keep documentation to show that they are adhering to the regulations.

 

How will the proposed regulations and statewide waiver affect owners of existing septic systems within 600 feet of an impaired surface water body?

 

• Where existing septic systems have been identified by a Regional Water Board to be contributing to the water quality impairment (pollution) of specific surface water bodies, owners of septic systems within 600 feet of the impaired surface water body will be required to:

                  Have a qualified professional determine whether the septic system is contributing to the impairment.

                  If so, retrofit the septic system with supplemental treatment ($45,000 approximate cost for a retrofit).

                   

• Maps of impaired water bodies with septic system discharges are on the Water Board website.

 

How will the proposed regulations and statewide waiver affect the construction of new septic systems?

All requirements for existing septic systems will apply to new septic systems plus the following:

 

1. A qualified professional to perform a site assessment and design of all new septic systems, including determinations of seasonal high groundwater.

 

2. New systems to be constructed by a State licensed contractor or by the property owner.

 

3. New septic tanks to have effluent devices (filters) that retain solids in excess of 3/16 inches in diameter.

 

4. New septic systems to be designed to maximize soil treatment.

 

5. Three feet minimum depth to groundwater or impermeable layer for conventional septic system. Two feet minimum depth for systems with supplemental treatment.

 

6. New septic systems that use pumps to have malfunction alarms and emergency tank capacity to store the waste flow for up to 24 hours.

 

7. New septic systems to have an operation and maintenance manual (O&M Manual). These O&M Manuals must be provided to all subsequent property owners.

 

8. New septic systems within 600 feet of an impaired surface water body where existing OWTS have been identified by a Regional Water Board to be contributing to the impairment to have supplemental treatment systems ($35,000 approximate cost for a new installation).

 

What other alternatives were considered to the proposed regulations and statewide waiver?

                  No Project Alternative (Status Quo)

                  Prescriptive Alternative

                  Matrix Alternative

                  Supplemental Treatment Alternative

 

No Project Alternative (Status Quo)

 

• Local governments have requirements that govern the design and construction permitting of septic tank systems.

 

• Each Regional Water Board has adopted requirements for septic systems for the protection of surface water and groundwater.

 

• This alternative was rejected because:

                  AB 885 mandated statewide regulations.

                  State law that mandates the regulation of discharges of waste through either waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver of such requirements.

 

Prescriptive Alternative

 

• The prescriptive alternative was developed as a detailed set of design and operation requirements.

 

• This alternative was rejected because:

                  It would have required extensive revision of local ordinances

                  It received considerable opposition from local government stakeholders.

Matrix Alternative

                  Developed by staff of the Central Valley Water Board

                  Originally presented as a “matrix” of requirements coupled with minimum land area requirements.

                  Although similar to the proposed regulations, this alternative is more restrictive in allowance for supplemental treatment systems and does set forth minimum land area requirements for septic systems.

                  This alternative was rejected because it would conflict with existing local government requirements for land use and zoning.

 

Supplemental Treatment Alternative

                  Requires all new septic systems to include supplemental treatment components and require all existing septic systems to be converted to supplemental treatment within nine years.

                  This alternative would achieve significant treatment for pathogens as well as other wastewater constituents and provide higher protection of groundwater and surface water quality.

                  This alternative was rejected because it is very costly to the septic system owner with new systems costing an average of $35,000 for installation and an average of $45,000 to convert existing systems.

 

Have the proposed regulations been peer reviewed?

                  Yes the Peer Review is complete and document was found to be satisfactory, with some small changes.

                   

How is the Water Board complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)?

                  A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for both the proposed regulations and statewide waiver.

 

What significant potential environmental impacts were identified in the DEIR if the proposed regulations and statewide waiver were adopted?

What was proposed to avoid (mitigate) the impacts?

                  Nitrate contamination of groundwater from all existing and new conventional septic systems.

                  Mitigation: Supplemental treatment for all septic systems. This mitigation measure is very expensive.

 

What fiscal and economic impacts were identified?

                  Yearly annualized cost: $339 Million

                  Businesses impacted: 11,364

                  Jobs Created: 10,674

                  Businesses Created: 498

 

What is the timeline for these regulatory actions?

                  November 7, 2008: Release documents for public review and comment

                  November 7, 2008 – February 9, 2009: 90 day public comment period with 12 public meetings

                  Dec. thru April: Staff prepares responses to comments and makes appropriate revisions to proposed regulations, statewide waiver and DEIR.

                  August 2009 – 30 day comment period ending with adoption of EIR, regulations and waiver

                  November 2009: Completion of OAL review

                  Jan. 1, 2010 – Effective date of regulations

                  July 2010 – Implementation date of regulations (AB 885 stipulated a six month delay)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More in AB 885: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/septic_tanks/

 

 

Overview of AB 885:

Assembly Bill 885 is legislation related to statewide minimum standards for onsite sewage treatment systems. The bill was signed in to law by Governor Gray Davis on September 28, 2000. The bill was sponsored by the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators (CAEHA) and was introduced by Assembly Member Hannah Beth Jackson in February 1999.

The State of California is only one of two states in the nation that does not have statewide minimum standards for onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, AB 885 requires:

• The adoption of statewide standards or regulations for existing, construction, and performance of onsite sewage disposal systems by the State Water Resources Control Board by January 1, 2004. The regulations will become effective six months after the regulations are adopted. The current state budget contains an allocation of $300,000 for the development of these standards. The future statewide standards will not preempt local jurisdictions from having more protective or stringent standards for protection of public health. Basin Plans will be amended to include minimum statewide standards for existing, construction and performance requirements for onsite sewage disposal systems, with local provisions to address regional geological or hydrological conditions.

The standards to apply to any onsite sewage disposal system that:

·      is constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 2004 (or six months after the adoption date of the regulations, whichever is sooner)

·      is subject to a major repair

·      pools or discharges to the surface of the ground

·      in the judgment of the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the authorized agency has the reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality objectives, to impair present or future beneficial uses of water, to cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination of waters of the state.

·      The provision of financial assistance to assist private property owners with existing systems whose cost of compliance with these regulations exceeds one-half of one percent of the value of their property.
(The above summary is provided by:  Peggy Langle, County of Santa Barbara Environmental Health Services Director)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

More info

APPENDIX B

·       Proposed OWTS Regulations and Conditional Waiver PDF (41 pgs)

Download Appendix_b_proposed_owts_regulations

Septic Systems-What is happening?

Neighbors, as I get more information  I will share

alice

Question:

I am writing to ask if you have heard about the situation I just read about in the May issue of the "North Valley Reporter" which will impact many Altadena and other foothill residents….

I was alerted to this by a realtor (we are considering selling a rental property in Tujunga) who informed me this is an important disclosure point.

--Crestview resident

 

Answer from LA County

From: "Novak, Paul"
To: "awessen@yahoo.com"

Sent: Tue, June 8, 2010 3:34:32 PM
Subject: FW: Hi Alice, have you heard...SEPTIC TANKS

Alice:

Sussy forwarded your e-mail on to me.  Suffice it to say, I have had a LOT of inquiries since the LA City meeting.

Please note that what is being proposed only impacts City of Los Angeles residents with septic systems.  It does not bear in any way upon how the County handles septic permitting issues in Altadena and other unincorporated communities.

The County's Environmental Health Department regulates permits for septic systems.  While there are routine, periodic amendments to our septic permitting system, I am unaware if any major reform/revisions is proposed at this time.

There is, by the way, a flurry of activity on the issue due to State legislation requiring cities and counties to bring their septic regulations into "conformance" with each other.  So that you know, several deadlines have been missed, and the State has repeatedly extended the deadline for compliance.  Again, as far as I know, there is no imminent change pending, and if one occurs, I expect that we would forward information to the Altadena Town Council.

By copy of this e-mail to Angelo Bellomo of Environmental Health, I am asking that he reply to all of us with the current status on this issue.

-Paul

The Article……

 

Septic Tank Owners Smell a Bad Law

North Valley Reporter

Free Community Newspaper

Serving the City of Los Angeles Communities of
Arleta, Granada Hills, Kagel Canyon, Los Angeles, Lake View Terrace, La Tuna Canyon, Mission Hills, North Hills, Northridge, Pacoima, Shadow Hills, Sunland-Tujunga, Sun Valley, Sylmar, Van Nuys

May 2010

Vol 5 Number 5

http://www.northvalleyreporter.com/

By Fritz Bronner

The Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Sanitation (B of S) is requesting that the Los Angeles City Council pass an ordinance this year which will include a series of Memorandums of Understands (MOU) and agreements between the Water Quality Control Board and B o f S with little input opportunity for the public. Many community members feel that it is creating a collision course for potential financial ruin for many Los Angeles residents, while greatly impacting all residential properties with septic systems. The technical term for the proposed septic plan by B of S and PublicWorks, and drafted by the State of California, is called On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS).

All OWTS will require mandatory inspections for continued Certificates of Operation and will require fees of $350 for each permit, a $900 inspection fee, plus other additional fees. Currently, there are no qualified city inspectors for this function; therefore, creation of new positions and training will be required. Some community members believe it will result in a new tax bill to create jobs.

If OWTS property is deemed a “high-risk”, additional inspections and permit renewals will be required every three years at additional higher costs to residents.

If an OWTS fails inspection, (for which specified definitions and terms are not defined), owners within 200 feet of a sewer line will be forced to hook up to the city system. This will entail another range of fees and expenses for property owners, a situation the B of S staff was not aware of at the time of their recent presentation meeting in the La Tuna Canyon community. This was later admitted by them during the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council’s Land Use Committee Meeting in May. B of S estimated that a new septic system would cost $30,000 with only a $758 hook up fee to a sewer line. But it was apparent they didn’t check with Building and Safety, Public Works, or local contractors. Local residents quickly pointed out that costs by other L.A. City departments include $13,000 per 50 to 100 feet additional sewer line extension hook up to the edge of the property line, plus building permit fees ranging from $6,000-$15,000, repairs to street, an additional $5,000-$10,000, plus digging and hookup fees within the property to the home, and another $8,000-$15,000, which could easily add up to $50,000 or more.

What is a “high risk” OWTS? The city identifies high risks OWTS systems per the MOU with water Quality Control Board: within 900 ft. of active an water well, or 600 ft. from water bodies identified as impaired due to high levels of nitrates, and or bacteria under sec. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

This originally meant that water sources were proven to be impaired, with scientific methodology, showing that there are high levels of nitrates and bacteria and then specific sources (OWTS) being tested and confirmed as discharging into the water as the polluter.

Continued on page 5

Continued from Cover — Septic Tank

The rules changed in recent years according to conversations with officials with B of S, regarding their interpretations of the MOU. Now, any one of the above mentioned four provisions can make an OWTS deemed a high risk. Two more provisions were also added to the mix in the last four years. Did City Council members who support this really know the implications and how financially toxic this would impair OWTS owners? These new rules added additional properties to the high-risk designation. Streams and rivers were added from recent motions by City Council: 1) 150 ft. near a stream; 2) Properties with only 5 ft. separation from seasonal ground water - adapted by the Septic Tank Task Force.

The B of S confirmed that, by changing these interpretations of the rules, the number of High Risk OWTS increased from 100 to over 2,000 homes within the city. Ironically, on this same MOU, both signed parties, Water Quality and B of S, acknowledge on page one of the document: "In many instances, the discharge from these (OWTS) systems does not adversely affect the beneficial uses of ground water or surface water quality.”

There are more than one million septic systems, or OWTS, active in California, with over 100,000 in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Both the Water

Quality Board and the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation have been quietly crafting more stringent rules and, until attending recent community meeting, neglected to interface or communicate with stakeholders for several years.

There are over 12,000 OWTS in the city of Los Angeles: 32.3% are in Council District 2, 10.2 % in Council District 7, 10.3%in Council District 5, and 13.6% in Council District 12. The B of S’s issue is supposed to be water quality, yet, none of the existing OWTS are reported to be dysfunctional, nor discharging into bodies of water or streams, and are well maintained. The City and the state have decided, regardless of public input, that many of the OWTS will need to be declared obsolete and their homes hooked up to the City sewer lines or, at the very least, inspected on a regular basis.

With these new ordinances, one million homes are now toxic real estate properties and are de-valued as a result these costly mandates. Many of these homes have perfectly functional OWTS that could continue to operate for several decades with no threat or impact  to water quality.

Revenue - At a recent town-hall style meeting held in La Tuna Canyon, local residents requested that B of S make a presentation because probing questions quickly illuminated many flaws in their plan. Many citizens at the meeting questioned aloud if this is a ploy to create more revenues for the city.

Reviewing all of the fees that would have to be paid in permits, road repairs, hook ups, installation costs, and new job creations, the audience quickly calculated it would amount to tens of millions of dollars. A community member quickly calculated that it would have been cheaper had all the funding for the B of S staff who had been working on this ordinance over the last five years, been diverted into actual funding to connect these homes to sewer lines.

Several B of S officials pointed out how inexpensive this proposed OWTS permit fee is for each property and the city services of creating new inspectors compared to the costs of having sewer fees. They went so far as to suggest that the public should be grateful. (This still might appear as revenue justification for many readers.)

Outreach – B of S announced their latest plan just within the last two weeks by attending local Neighborhood Councils (NC). These forums have small attendance. NC’s have viable and dedicated citizens who are already under-resourced, under-funded, and are expected to alert the entire community. The flawed B of S Outreach Plan that expects NC’s to fulfill their (B of S’s) responsibility is unjust to communities.

The great majorities of Septic OWTS owners, approximately 95%, have not been alerted and are not aware of the financial impact on their lives and the devaluation of their home/property resulting these proposals.

AB 885 - This State Bill has been in both state houses for eight years and is on the verge of passage.

With a million OWTS within the state, only a fraction of the public has been notified. This law becomes a death sentence for nearly all OWTS who will eventually be forced to connect to sewer lines or buy very expensive upgrades. According to professionals regarding this issue, there are more moderate and reasonable solutions that could be proposed that would not destroy homeowners financially nor devalue their property. Citizens must immediately contact elected state and city representatives by letter or e-mail and voice their opinion.

Both the City Ordinance and State Bill are both close to passage. Citizens must give input to their elected officials in a timely manner by either e-mailing or by calling their City Council Representatives and State Assembly members. If you don’t know who they are, call 311 for information.

Editors Note; Fritz Bronner is a Board Member of the Foothill Trails District Neighborhood Council and the Los Angeles Horse Council. This article is not representative of those organizations