HomeMy WebLinkAbout12_D_3bRegulatory meeting 130522minutesROUNDTABLE: DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER REGULATION AND STANDARDS
MINUTES
DRAFT
Date: MAY 22, 2013
Time: 11AM – 3 PM
Location: Suffolk County Community College
Culinary Arts and Hospitality Center
20 East Main Street, Riverhead NY (T of venue: 631 548 3700)
Attendees:
Edward Barnett (DA), Glynis Berry (PGG), Tom Boekeloo (NYSDEC), Doug Clark (CE), Walter Dawydiak
(SCDHS), Sarah Deonarine (NYSDEC), John Donovan (SCDPW), Bob Eichinger (DA), Christine Fetten (SH),
Jennifer Garvey (SH), Kate Hale (RVHD intern), Kristina Heinemann (USEPA), Walter Hilbert (SCDHS),
Lorraine Holdridge (NYSDEC), George Loomis (URI, tel), Amanda Ludlow (Roux), Nancy Messer
(PGG)Sarah Meyland (NYIT), Erin Moore (CE), Julie Nace (PEP)Michael Reichiel (RHD Sewer), Gwynn
Schroeder (AK), Frank Russo (HsM),
This symposium is presented as part of programs being supported by:
Long Island Sound Futures Fund/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Henry Phillip Kraft Family Memorial Fund at the Long Island Community Foundation
Suffolk County Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program
Organized by Peconic Green Growth
Glynis Berry (PGG) introduced the topic and underlined opportunities:
- NYDEC in final stages of developing new version of Standards for Intermediate Sized
Wastewater Treatment Systems
- Suffolk County is finishing its Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
- More evidence of human-sourced excess nitrogen loading impacting aquifers and surface water
bodies
- Suffolk County is working on its Comprehensive Plan
- Peconic Green Growth is mapping conditions that contribute to water contamination from
onsite wastewater systems
County:
Walter Dawydiak mentioned that the County expects to let a RFP for a study by the end of the
summer that would review technology for onsite systems of less than 1000 gpd suitable for use
on Long Island as well as execute planning evaluation tasks.
- SCDHS may consider allowing enhanced treatment systems to be installed for onsite purposes
before the study is finished to be installed as part of a new pilot program.
- One of the issues is staffing for decentralized issues.
- While there are three systems currently approved for use on systems sized greater than 1000
gpd, the County is close to approving a few additional systems. Cromaglass has been corrected
and is still one of the approved systems.
- John Donovan chief engineer for SC supervising public and private sewage treatment plants.
Recent studies evaluating new sewer districts found that it is not financially feasible to put
sewage treatment plants in smaller neighborhoods. The average cost is $50M per house with a
payback period of over 30 years. If community systems could cost below $20,000 per dwelling
unit, they would be a viable alternative. The money for sewage treatment comes from ¼% of
the ¼% sales tax supporting clean water initiatives (approximately $15-20 million per year).
There is a 6/4 deadline for municipalities to apply for grants for sewage treatment plant
expansion.
- When GB suggested a need to introduce changes to the Sanitary code and guidelines to allow
clusters in existing neighborhoods, Walter Hilbert of the SCDHS said there is leeway in the Other
than Single Family regulations so that systems could move forward, even if using STEP/G
systems. The process could be lengthy though.
- When asked if a cluster system were designed compliant with NYSDEC Intermediate Sized
Wastewater Treatment Guidelines, would it be likely to be approved in SC. The answer was yes.
- Frank Russo H2M spoke about the low pressure sewer system being implemented by
Brookhaven in East Patchogue and how they created a “sewer district” with 10 miles of low-
pressure sewers. The cost was 1/3 that of traditional sewers. A major cost of systems is the
collection/transport of effluent to the treatment plant.
- The County will consider the narrow, shallow drain field as referenced by George Loomis (below)
EPA
- Kristina Heinemann indicated support for cluster systems, as they seem the most realistic cost-
wise.
- EPA only regulates point-source contamination. At this time single, onsite systems are
considered nonpoint systems. The EPA does have a great deal of research and advisory fact
sheets available on onsite systems and has a MOU partnership studying various aspects.
EPA submitted two documents for consideration of the group:
1. Reference to EPA’s oversight of cesspools as Class V injection wells, part of the
Underground Injection Control regulations. Large-scale cesspools (serving 20
people or more) are prohibited and targeted for phase-out.
2. Fact sheet on EPA’s discouragement of the use of seepage pits
Erin Moore indicated that EPA has helped fund some cluster systems.
Some discussion of the EPA Clean Water Needs Survey occurred. GB mentioned that after
rejection for nitrogen mitigation, the recommendation was to incorporate nitrogen mitigation in
comprehensive plans, identify and register projects, and compare costs to central sewer
districts. The lack of funding for nitrogen mitigation and cluster systems is partially due to the
fact that municipalities are not asking for it.
Michael Reichel- Suffolk County Sewer System is in favor of cluster systems, especially in areas with
difficult siting issues. He spoke about the planned upgrade to the Riverhead sewage plant and their
proposal for the reuse of treated effluent for irrigation at the Indian Island Golf Course. The effluent
actually has less contamination than the golf course wells, which suffer from salt water intrusion and
high iron levels. While the nitrogen levels can be slightly higher than effluent disposed directly to surface
waters, he mentioned a need to allow an even higher nitrogen level (seasonal) to meet landscaping
needs. If this could be manipulated, less fertilized would be applied on lawns.
Amanda Ludlow (Roux) – Experience with natural wastewater treatment systems mostly industrial but
will do sanitary as well. Concentrate on phosphorus removal as concern for their upstate clients. Their
Kingston system has effluent with only 2mg/liter
Westchester County Subcommittee: Edward Barnett and Bob Eichinger suggested looking at what
Westchester County is now doing as well as Old Saybrook, CT. There was also discussion about the need
for an inspection program. One model trains the haulers, who then need to report to the supervising
jurisdiction. This reduces the cost of the program tremendously. They are finding a consistent 10%
failure rate.
They also suggested a revolving loan program from NYS to fund upgrades. Costs for upgrades could also
be linked to mortgages through banks for people’s homes. Communities could also tax themselves and
become watershed districts or sewer districts. It was mentioned that municipalities are restricted by law
to applying user fees, rather than overall fees that could be applied at chosen sites. GB raised the
question whether a town could create a town-wide sewer district that then could apply the funds as
needed. (Southold has a town-wide waste water fee, Riverhead has a fee if within a sewer district, even
if not connected – (then has connection rate, and water usage fee).
Lorraine Heldrich- DEC Law Office- manages TMDLs for LI waters. One issue that was raised was the
difference between total pounds of loading and a need to limit this versus the maximum flow rate. WH
mentioned that the flow rate was also based on a pound loading of 1.1 #/day per ___ . GB mentioned
that once the flow rate is met, most approvals for development assume unlimited increases in density
are no longer limited by wastewater issues. Education and dual discussion of flow/loading needs to be
evident in guides/standards/regulations. Watershed loading/displacement are issues to be incorporated
in solutions.
Jennifer Garvey represented the Southampton Supervisor who is interested in LI becoming a center of
innovation for the technologies treating sewage. This could be an economic generator. She sees
problems with regulations/approvals being a hindrance to this moving forward.
George Loomis-(URI – phone link) spoke about communities that are close to the watershed being a
priority for enhanced treatment. Pathogen reduction and the phasing-out of cesspools are a very high
priority. Cesspools are a turn-of- the-century technology that does a very poor job of treating
wastewater. Putting aerators in them is al waste of time and resources. Aged cesspools contribute high
BOD’s to groundwater. He also referenced success with shallow narrow drain fields installed after
enhanced treatment units, as they can obtain between 30-70% nitrogen reductions as well as 100%
phosphorus removal. The study was distributed to participants before the meeting. GL also stressed the
need to make the operation and maintenance of cluster systems a point of focus. He also mentioned
that if the bar is too high, you sacrifice the good, when dealing with codes/guidelines.
GB asked about GL’s experience with human contamination when treated effluent was used for
irrigation, as the benefits are in distributing the effluent in the top 8” of soil. GL suggested that actively
tilled soil should be avoided, but there is little risk for irrigation of landscaping systems. Site
issues/accessibility may also need to be taken into consideration for major drain fields.
Doug Clark talked about how we are not meeting the standards of the Clean Water Act, that TMDLs
have no teeth; they are voluntary. For the Peconic Estuary the TMDL for nitrogen is too general, doesn’t
require/advise on onsite improvements. There needs to be a regulatory fix. Design goals for nitrogen
may need to be lowered. 10 mg/l is a maximum, most aim at 4-6 mg/l, and there are efforts to lower
this to 2 mg/l (Sarah Meyland). When the latter goal was listed as being too stringent for technology if
used at the exit point, it was mentioned that zoning/density limits could be used to obtain the goals. GB
also mentioned that there numerable situations that are existing and nonconforming and need to be a
focus of upgrades/regulation.
Two points of contention were the leaching pits and density allowances for onsite systems. Suffolk
County has a waiver to use leaching pits, they are the least favored system for dispersal according state
and federal guidance documents. While the County has an MOU and home rule, in theory the County is
only supposed to promulgate stricter guidelines. SC defended its use of leaching pits due to soil porosity.
GB mentioned that neither the State, nor County regulations consider the impacts of rising groundwater
on design effectiveness. Deeper depths to groundwater should be required where rises are expected
(MA requires 4 and 5 ft, vs. our 2 to 3 feet). Issues/coordination with water saving devices are also
factors for consideration (this is somewhat addressed in the state guidelines). While the need to
evaluate/incorporate natural systems was raised, the topic was not discussed.
There is a need for regulation as well as incentives, as it is hard to get people to incur the cost
voluntarily. The cost needs to be shared by the community as it ultimately benefits all. An inspection
program and the phasing out of cesspools were discussed. The scale of the issue regarding cesspools
was an issue, as the total cost is unmanageable. Prioritization would be needed. Pilot
projects/neighborhoods efforts are necessary to test systems (both single onsite and clusters) and
inform new/modified regulations/approval processes. PGG has been mapping conditions contributing
to failure on the East End.
All were asked to contribute ideas for an action plan.
The list received is attached.
Gb 130604