welcome to the massdep/ mhoa annual seminar€¦ · 22/3/2018 · bottle-fed infants &...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Welcome to the
MassDEP/ MHOA Annual Seminar
Be Well Informed, Water Quality Web Tool for Private
Well Owners
Joe Cerutti
MassDEP – Drinking Water Program
2
Be Well Informed (BWI)
• Web based tool for private well owners
• Enter lab report results
• Receive health and treatment related messages
• Originally developed by NHDES
3
Contaminants Included in BWI
• arsenic
• chloride
• copper
• fluoride
• hardness
• iron
4
• lead
• manganese
• nitrate
• nitrite
• sodium
• pH
Contaminants continued…
• total coliform
• E. coli
• radon
• uranium
• gross alpha
5
Contaminants continued…
• MassDEP plans to expand the list of contaminants (e.g. VOCs)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MassDEP Drinking Water Program
Contact Information
Private Well information :
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/drinking/private-wells.html
For private well and Underground Injection Control (UIC) registration questions:
Joe Cerutti – 617-292-5859
19
MA Health Officers Association
Annual Winter Seminar
March, 2018
Photo Credit: G. Zoto, MassDEP
• Naturally occurring microorganisms (bacteria) formerly known as blue-green algae
• Present in all waterbodies in low numbers • Cyanobacterial species number in the thousands • Single cells, thread-like filaments or colonies and
groups • Grow as benthic or planktonic populations • Four most common cyanobacteria in Massachusetts
Cyanobacteria: The Basics
Anabaena Aphanizomenon Microcystis Planktothrix
Cyanobacteria: Blooms
• Dramatic cyanobacteria increases can lead to cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (CyanoHABs)
• May cause dissolved oxygen, taste and odor, public health issues
• Discoloration
Cyanobacteria: Misidentifications
Pollen
Paint or dye spills
Duckweed
Green algae
Predominant Indicators
Reduced flow/high residence time Wind
CyanoHABs: Risk Factors
Potential for cyanobacterial blooms in waterbodies based upon environmental factors.
Bloom Risk level History of Blooms Water Temp oC
Total
Phosphorous
micrograms per
liter (µg/L)
Thermal
Stratification
Very low No <15 <10 Rare or never
Low Yes <15-20 <10 Infrequent
Moderate Yes 20-25 10-25 Occasional
High Yes >25 25-100 Frequent and
persistent
Very high Yes >25 >100 Frequent and
persistent/strong
Based on Newcombe et.al., 2010
Cyanotoxins Produced Anabaena – Anatoxins, Microcystins, Saxitoxins
Aphanizomenon – Saxitoxins, Cylindrospermopsins
Microcystis – Microcystins
Planktothrix – Anatoxins, Aplysiatoxins, Microcystins, Saxitoxins
Intracellular and Extracellular
Number of species that produce toxins is unknown
Cyanotoxin identification requires laboratory analysis
Cyanotoxins
Cyanotoxins: Exposure & Health Effects Exposure Routes
Dermal, oral and inhalation
Health Effects
Dermatological Effects & Illness
Hepatotoxins
Neurotoxins
Possible Reactions Rashes, abdominal pain, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory
irritation, liver and kidney damage; and, and effects to the nervous system
USEPA Human Health Risks to Cyanotoxins Exposure:
https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/health-and-ecological-effects#what1
CYANOTOXINS ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS IN
HUMANS
MOST COMMON CYANOBACTERIA
PRODUCING TOXIN
Microcystin-LR
Abdominal pain, Headache, Sore
throat, Vomiting and nausea, Dry
cough, Diarrhea, Blistering around the
mouth, and Pneumonia
Microcystis, Anabaena, Nodularia, Planktothrix,
Fisherella, Nostoc, Oscillatoria, and
Gloeotrichia
Cylindrospermopsin Fever, Headache, Vomiting, Bloody
diarrhea
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii,
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, Aphanizomenon
gracile, Aphanizomenon ovalisporum,
Umezakia natans, Anabaena bergii, Anabaena
lapponica, Anabaena planctonica, Lyngbya
wollei, Rhaphidiopsis curvata, and
Rhaphidiopsis mediterranea
Anatoxin-a group
Tingling, Burning, Numbness,
Drowsiness, Incoherent speech,
Salivation, Respiratory paralysis leading
to death*
Chrysosporum (Aphanizomenon) ovalisporum,
Cuspidothrix, Cylindrospermopsis,
Cylindrospermum, Dolichospermum,
Microcystis, Oscillatoria, Planktothrix,
Phormidium, Anabaena flos-aquae, A.
lemmermannii Raphidiopsis mediterranea
(strain of Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii),
Tychonema and Woronichinia
*Symptoms observed in animals.
CyanoHABs: Regulations/Guidance
• US EPA Health Advisories (HAs)
• US EPA Required UCMR4 Monitoring
• Massachusetts Department of
Public Health (MDPH) Guidance (public beaches)
• MassDEP Guidance for Public Water Systems (PWSs)
EMERGING ISSUE: NO current federal or Massachusetts regulations for cyanobacteria or cyanotoxins
Photo Credit: David Zapotosky
US EPA DW Health Advisories Two (2) HAs - microcystins and cylindrospermopsin
Non-regulatory concentrations at or below which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur by oral ingestion of DW over specific exposure durations.
US EPA DW Health Advisories
Cyanotoxin
US EPA 10-day HA
Bottle-fed infants & pre-
school children
School-age children
and adults
Microcystins 0.3 µg/L 1.6 µg/L
Cylindrospermopsin 0.7 µg/L 3 µg/L
• Cyanotoxins Sampling between 2018-2020
• Ten (10) Cyanotoxins: total microcystins, microcystin-LA, microcystin-LF, microcystin-LR, microcystin-LY, microcystin-RR, microcystin-YR, nodularin, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin
• Data from the UCMR serves as a primary source of research information, which US EPA utilizes to develop regulatory decisions.
• Three (3) US EPA approved methods for drinking water EPA 544 (LC/MS/MS – MC/NOD) EPA 545 (LC/MS/MS – CYN/Ana) EPA 546 (ELISA – MC/NOD)
For further information on UCMR4 and cyanotoxins assessment monitoring, please see: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fourth-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule.
Cyanotoxins Monitoring: UCMR4
Cyanobacteria: MDPH Guidance MDPH has developed health-based guidance levels for
recreational exposure to cyanobacteria.
MDPH recommends that beaches
be posted and individuals limit all contact with a waterbody if the waterbody has cyanobacteria cell counts exceeding 70,000 cells/milliliter (mL) or microcystin concentrations that meet or exceed 14 micrograms per liter (µg/L).
(Online photo credit: AP Photo – Michael Dwyer)
Coming Soon: MassDEP Guidance Collaborative Development
MDPH, Office of Research and Standards (ORS)
Regional DW Programs, Watershed Planning Program (WPP)
Safe Drinking Water Act Advisory Committee (SDWAAC)
Watershed Management & Source Water Protection Focus
Cyanobacteria/Cyanotoxin Information
Tools for assessing source vulnerability
Critical factors
Treatment options
In-reservoir & within treatment facility
Fact Sheet & PWS Bloom Tracking Form
Additional resource materials and MassDEP contacts
• Website Update & Internal/Interagency Protocols
Helpful Resources
MA EOEEA Website: https://www.mass.gov/guides/cyanobacterial-harmful-algal-blooms-cyanohabs-water
MDPH Website: https://www.mass.gov/lists/algae-information
US EPA Website: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanohabs
University of New Hampshire Online Guide: http://cfb.unh.edu/CyanoKey/indexCyanoQuickGuide.htm
SAFETY FIRST!
CyanoHAB QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?
Kristin Divris
Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP)
DWP Emergency Preparedness & Security
508-849-4028
Contact Information
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PFOA and PFOS – Most Common
US EPA HAs set at 70 parts per trillion (ppt)
PFASs commonly used in fire-fighting foam, consumer products, and manufacturing
Persistent in the environment
May cause adverse health effects
Three (3) PWSs in MA over EPA’s HA
DEP considering guidance for 3 other PFAS & waste site cleanup standards – decision targeted for spring 2018
DEP outreach to local fire chiefs with the Division of Fire Services (DFS)
PFAS QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?
Douglas Fine Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources
617-292-5792
Yvette DePeiza Drinking Water Program Director
617-292-5857
Contact Information
Greg Cooper, MassDEP
Topics to Cover
Status of Solid Waste Management in MA
2020-2030 Solid Waste Master Plan
Current Recycling Markets
DEP Assistance
Topic #1
Progress towards 2020 SWMP Goals
GOALS
30% reduction from 2008 baseline by 2020
6,550,000 (2008) 4,550,000 tons (2020)
80% reduction by 2050 (1,310,000 tons)
PROGRESS
2016 disposal = 5,610,000 tons
14 % reduction from 2008
Disposal 2015-2016
2015 2016 Tons Change % Change
Disposal (Incl. Net Exports) 5,510,000 5,610,000 100,000 1.8%
In-State Disposal 4,630,000 4,520,000 (110,000) -2.4%
Landfill 1,380,000 1,330,000 (50,000) -3.6%
MSW 1,260,000 1,170,000 (90,000) -7.1%
C&D 50,000 70,000 20,000 40.0%
Other 70,000 90,000 20,000 28.6%
Combustion 3,250,000 3,190,000 (60,000) -1.8%
MSW 3,250,000 3,170,000 (80,000) -2.5%
Non-MSW 10,000 20,000 10,000 100.0%
Net Exports 880,000 1,090,000 210,000 23.9%
Exports 1,380,000 1,560,000 180,000 13.0%
MSW 620,000 680,000 60,000 9.7%
Non-MSW 760,000 880,000 120,000 15.8%
Imports 500,000 460,000 (40,000) -8.0%
MSW 460,000 420,000 (40,000) -8.7%
Non-MSW 50,000 40,000 (10,000) -20.0%
Note: % Change is calculated based on the rounded amounts in this table.
Table 2 Solid Waste Tonnage and Percent Change Summary: 2015 - 2016
Percentages may not add exactly to 100% due to rounding.
Disposal and Economic Growth
Waste Management Capacity Projections
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
T o tal D ispo sal (baseline) 5,610,000 5,610,000 5,610,000 5,610,000 5,610,000 5,610,000 5,610,000
T o tal D ispo sal (reduced) 5,610,000 5,323,890 5,052,372 4,794,701 4,550,171 4,318,112 4,097,888
C o mbustio n C apacity 3,190,000 3,190,000 3,190,000 3,190,000 3,190,000 3,190,000 3,190,000
P o tential LF C apacity 1,330,000 1,223,122 1,100,839 692,390 692,390 510,510 665,882
In-state D ispo sal C apacity 4,520,000 4,413,122 4,290,839 3,882,390 3,882,390 3,700,510 3,855,882
N et D ispo sal Expo rt (baseline dispo sal) 1,090,000 1,196,878 1,319,161 1,727,610 1,727,610 1,909,490 1,754,118
N et D ispo sal Expo rt (reduced dispo sal 1,090,000 910,768 761,533 912,311 667,781 617,603 242,007
Table 7: Waste Management Capacity Projections: 2017-2022
Topic #2 2020-2030 SWMP Schedule
2018 – focus on stakeholder input
Conduct Materials Capacity Study
Advisory Committee and other meetings
2019 – develop draft plan & hold public comment & hearing process
2020 – prepare and publish final 2030 Master Plan
Materials Management Capacity Study
Beginning in March
Expect to complete by end of 2018
Assess all materials management capacity
Disposal
Transfer
Recycling
Composting/anaerobic digestion/animal feed
Reuse/donation
Obtaining Your Input
MHOA and other Municipal Events
Meet with MMA – Environment Committee
Quarterly Meetings of MassDEP’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee and Subcommittees
Open to any and all ideas
Topic #3 Current Recycling Market Issues
Global recycling markets impact by stricter import standards by China
High contamination received at recycling facilities is costly to manage and reduces recycling capacity
Primary outlet for glass in region closed
Reduced material revenue and higher processing costs are making recycling more expensive
Some temporary waste ban waivers issued by DEP but for small fraction of overall recycling
DEP Recycling Market Initiatives
Focus on reducing contamination
Recycling IQ Kit for Communities
PR firm to work on statewide messaging
Working to identify alternative glass markets
Promoting effort to convert glass to construction aggregate
Offer financial assistance to enhance processors ability to manage contamination and develop new material markets
Topic #4 MassDEP Assistance
Sustainable Materials Recovery Program - Municipal Program Assistance
Grants
Technical Assistance
Incentive Program – Recycling Dividends Program
Last year’s grant awards totaled over $5 million
MassDEP Assistance
NEW - Recycling IQ Kit
Focused hands-on to Increase Quality of recycling and reduce contamination at the source
Program has been successfully piloted in 10 MA communities
Involves an 8-16 week program with “interventions” at the curb/drop-off with customized outreach materials
Data from pilots shows the approach works
Recycling IQ Kit Materials
Up to 40 hours of technical assistance
Funds for: printed materials, distribution, staff or temp workers for enforcement and data tracking
Curbside communities: $10,000 to $40,000
Drop-off communities: up to $7,500
CURBSIDE: Tools
INFORM – BASIC DO’S AND DON’TS
POSTCARD/MAGNET
PERSONALIZED FEEDBACK
CART TAGS
ISSUE SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS
MAILERS + MEDIA
Tools for Business Recycling RecyclingWorks
Technical Assistance: hotline, services directory, on-site assistance
Food Donation Guidance – includes laws, liabilities, labeling and how to’s
Food Separation Guidance – kitchen separation, storage practices, and collection frequency
Compost Technical Assistance
Construction Debris Best Management Practices
Links to Information
Sustainable Materials Recovery Program – Municipal Grants
https://tinyurl.com/smrp2018
Application opens April 2, 2018
Deadline to apply June 13, 2018
Recycling IQ Kit – apply by April 30, 2018
https://Tinyurl.com/RecyclingIQKit-MA
RecyclingWorks Guidance Documents
https://recyclingworksma.com/
Paul W. Locke Assistant Commissioner
MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup www.Mass.Gov/topics/cleanup-of-sites-spills
[email protected] (617) 556-1160
MHOA/MASS DEP Annual Winter Seminar
21E and Private Wells
March 2018
1. What is 21E?
2. How do private wells fit in?
3. Case Study
Let’s Talk About…
What is 21E?
M.G.L. Chapter 21E (“c.21E”) MASSACHUSETTS OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
RELEASE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE ACT
The state law which establishes liability for owners and operators of land contaminated with oil and hazardous materials and the authority for MassDEP to promulgate rules for the cleanup of disposal sites.
310 CMR 40.0000 MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN (“MCP”)
The state regulations which details the process for the notification, assessment and cleanup of disposal sites, including fees, timelines, submittals and cleanup requirements.
What’s Regulated Under 21E/MCP
And What’s NOT
Regulated Under the
MCP
NATURAL BACKGROUND
STATUTURY EXEMPTIONS
Releases NOT to the Environment
RELEASES OF OHM TO THE
ENVIRONMENT
“Releases of Oil and Hazardous Materials to the Environment”
Insignificant Releases
Examples
• What’s In: – Gasoline from a leaking underground storage tank
– Chlorinated solvents from industrial degreaser
– Metals from uncontrolled landfill leachate
• What’s Out: – Lead from fixtures/pipes
– Permitted pesticide use
– Naturally occurring arsenic
There Are Limits
Limits to BOTH:
–MassDEP’s authority (what we legally can require or address)
–MassDEP’s funding (What we can afford… while being prepared for a “big one”)
Even MORE Streamlined
STOP (Close)
Comprehensive Assessment
Select Remedy
Design Remedy
Implement Remedy
START (Notify)
t=0
Preliminary Assessment
t= 1 year
t= 6 years 50% - 80% New Sites Close Within 1 Year 93% of Sites
Close Within 6 Years
= Permanent Solution STOP (Close)
(With or Without Conditions)
• Adequate Site Characterization
• Site Poses “No Significant Risk of Harm” to • Health • Safety • Public welfare, and • Environment
• Removal and/or control of source of contamination
• Land use controls (if necessary)
= Permanent Solution STOP (Close)
(With or Without Conditions)
• Adequate Site Characterization
• Site Poses “No Significant Risk of Harm” to • Health • Safety • Public welfare, and • Environment
• Removal and/or control of source of contamination
• Land use controls (if necessary)
How do private wells fit in?
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
2 Common Scenarios…
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Scenario 1: Homeowner Finds Contamination Let’s say it is Trichloroethylene at 57 µg/L
WHY TCE at 57 ??
• Above standards • Not natural background • Not exempt • Not from plumbing fixtures • Unlikely from septic • (Also chance to mention Vapor Intrusion)
What happens next?
• Create a Plume Map
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Scenario 1: Homeowner Finds Contamination
• Call to BoH, DPH and/or DEP… DEP eventually gets called/involved
• Sampling of nearby homes takes place by DEP BWSC contractors ($)
• Identify groundwater flow info
• Imminent Hazards may be addressed by DEP ($$): • Bottled water • Point-of-use or
Point-of-entry treatment
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
• Identify Potential Sources
• Additional work/RFI leads to actual source • Notice of Responsibility (NOR) issued • Responsible Party picks up site work • MassDEP recovers cost of initial assessment &
response actions
• Mapping of plume begins…
Scenario 2: Starting at a Known 21E Site
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
• Due Diligence for property transfer discovered TCE in groundwater
Monitoring Well
• Additional monitoring wells installed • Groundwater flow established
• DEP assigns a Release Tracking Number (RTN) • The assessment begins
1-2345
Scenario 2: Starting at a Known 21E Site
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Private Well
Monitoring Well
1-2345
Private Well
Response Action Required to address contaminated
private well
Response Actions Required to address contaminated
private wells
Exposures addressed by Responsible Party: • Bottled water • Point-of-use or
Point-of-entry treatment
Mapping of plume continues…
Known Source/Responsible Party
Unknown Source/No Responsible Party
Known Source/No Responsible Party
Obvious Release of OHM Ambiguous Source
Clearly Elevated Concentrations (Imminent Hazards!)
Low – but measureable - Levels
Well-Studied Contaminants “Emerging” Contaminants
Governor Baker’s Municipal Vulnerability
Preparedness (MVP) Program
Ann Lowery, MassDEP
Katie Theoharides, Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, Climate
Program
March 20, 2018
Lead the nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and safeguarding the Commonwealth from the
impacts of climate change
Mitigation Adaptation
103
EXECUTIVE ORDER 569: AN INTEGRATED CLIMATE
CHANGE STRATEGY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
to combat climate change
Protecting life, property, natural
resources and our economy from
the impacts of climate change
State Plan
Agency Vulnerability Assessments
Municipal Support
Climate Coordinators
Climate change projections (Northeast Climate Center, 2017)
Risk Management Strategy #1: Mitigate to
Avoid the Unmanageable
Strategy #2: Adapt to manage the unavoidable
Winter Storm “Juno,” January 2015,
Scituate, MA.
7th Avenue Scituate, MA
• Institutional capacity
• State Adaptation Plan
• Data and Science
• State Agency Assessments
• Municipal-State
Partnerships
• www.resilientma.com
• Integrated Plan: First in the nation Climate Adaptation and Hazard
Mitigation plan
• Mainstreaming climate change: Incorporating climate change into
current planning, budgeting, and policy frameworks
State Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan (www.resilientma.com) II. Report on Progress
Data Management: Science Is the
Cornerstone
• Open access, statewide
coverage of localized climate
data through Northeast
Climate Science Center
• Feedback from stakeholders
to identify key metrics
• Climate data informs decision-
making and forms the basis for
understanding vulnerability
and risk in state plan, MVP
process, and vulnerability
assessments
Municipal
Vulnerability
Preparedness
(MVP)
2017-2018
1. Engage Community
2. Identify CC impacts and
hazards
3. Complete assessment of
vulnerabilities & strengths
4. Develop and prioritize actions
5. Take Action
State and local partnership to build resiliency to climate change
MVP Principles
– Community-led process that employs local knowledge
– Accessibility
– Partnerships and leveraging existing efforts
– Mainstream climate change
– Communities as local innovators
– Frame coordinated statewide efforts.
TNC and EEA
trained over 280
state certified
MVP service
providers in fall
of 2017
MVP Program Requirements
• A signed letter of support from the chair of the board of selectmen,
mayor, a town administrator, or similar city or town official;
• A short statement of the community’s commitment to taking on this
grant and planning for the impacts of climate change;
• The name local project manager and point of contact for the grant;
• A summary of community support and any project partners
• A description of any ongoing planning efforts such as local hazard
mitigation plans, open space plans, master plans, etc.;
• A description of any ongoing climate-change related projects within
the community or region;
Maintaining Designation
Each municipality must provide the Commonwealth with a yearly
progress report outlining the steps they have taken towards
implementing their priority actions. Steps may include (but are not
limited to):
1. applying for grant funding
2. working to implement local changes to policies or bylaws
3. updating existing local plans using the outcomes of the workshop,
etc.
Climate related hazards
Primary Climate
Driver
Natural Hazard Related Climate Change
Impacts
Sea Level Rise and
Storm Surge
Coastal Flooding
(including daily tidal
flooding from sea level
rise)
Beach erosion, marsh
migration, inundation of
coastal and marine
ecosystems, elimination of
wetlands Hurricanes/
Tropical Storms
Nor’easter
Coastal Erosion
Precipitation
Extreme Precipitation Flash flooding, urban
flooding, public health
impacts from mold,
worsened indoor air
quality, vector-borne
diseases from stagnant
water
Inland/Riverine Flooding
Severe Winter Storm
Ice Storms
Landslide
Dam Failure
More climate related hazards Primary Climate
Driver
Natural Hazard Related Climate Change
Impacts
Temperature
Increase in Average
Summer Temperature
Shifting in seasons (longer
summer, early spring
including earlier timing of
spring peak flow), increase
in length of growing
season, increase of invasive
species, frequent energy
brown-outs from higher
energy demands, public
health impacts from high
heat exposure, poor
outdoor air quality
Extreme
Temperatures/Heat
Waves
Drought
Wildfires
Other Extreme Events
Tornadoes Damage to property,
infrastructure, and loss of
life Tsunami
Earthquake
Next Round: Spring 2018 https://www.mass.gov/municipal-vulnerability-preparedness-program
LTARs and SASs
MassDEP/MHOA Seminars
March 2018
LTARs & Soil Absorption Systems
• Key component to on-site disposal systems
• Proper design and construction
• Sufficient treatment
• Long-term use of the system
• Protection • Environment
• Groundwater
• Humans
Outline
• Site evaluation
• SAS Design Overview
• Long Term Acceptance Rate
• Common LTAR Missteps
• SAS Design Requirements • Trenches
• Beds and Fields
• Pits, Galleries and Chambers
• Wrap-up/Questions
SITE EVALUATION
Criteria
• Location and position (including topography and condition)
• Setbacks
• Soil classification and permeability (deep hole and percolation tests)
• Estimated seasonal high groundwater
SAS Design Overview
Basics
• 4 feet of naturally occurring pervious material
• No direct discharge to any water
• Soil evaluation
• Trenches whenever possible
• Paving/venting
• Cover/drainage
• > 2,000 gpd – mounding analysis
• Inspection port
310 CMR 15.240
Long Term Acceptance Rates
LTAR Basics
• Most hydraulically restrictive soil layer
• Wastewater strength assumed to be typical settled sanitary sewage
• Soil class and perc rate
• Gravity vs. pressure distribution
LTAR Basics Cont’d
• Some clogging of infiltrative surface will occur • This is mostly the formation of a biomat
• Solids carry over in poorly designed systems
• Equilibrium infiltrative rate can be achieved • Correlated to perc rate and/or soil type
• Factors involved • Structure of soil
• Strength of waste (e.g. restaurants)
• Presence of oxygen at infiltrative surface
LTAR Basics Cont’d
• Title 5 recognizes these factors
• LTARs are based on both soil type and perc rate
• Waste strength is accounted for in flows • Domestic waste is the baseline
• Higher strength wastes have higher flows as safety factor (e.g. restaurants)
• 15.242 allows for adjustments to LTARs to account for waste strength
LTAR Basics Cont’d
• Aeration is important
• Dosing has been shown to help minimize clogging • Allows for aeration between doses
• Reduces the decrease in infiltration rates as time goes on
• Chemical oxidation? • Can actually alter the soil structure
• Not allowed as a remedial use
• Not generally allowed as an additive
Groundwater Separation
• Vertical separation between SAS and high groundwater • 4 feet with perc rates greater than 2
min/inch
• 5 feet with perc rates less than 2 min/inch
• Flows greater than 2,000 gpd require mounding analysis
Groundwater Separation
• Most bacteria removed within 2 feet of unsaturated soil
• Viruses require greater separation
• Independent research by Barnstable County 1990s • Supported the 5 foot separation in sandy soils
with high perc rate • Showed 4 log removal of viruses
• Existing separations are public health driven
Pressure Distribution Required?
• > 2,000 gpd design flow [310 CMR 15.0254(2)]
• Multiple SASs [310 CMR 15.0254(2)]
• Part of some I/A approvals • Previously required of all Remedial Use
technologies with treatment (STUs, etc.)
• Review terms and conditions of Standard Conditions and the technology approval
• LUA requirements for some alternative perc testing conditions
LUA Required Pressure Distribution
• Upgrade situation and unable to perc test because of groundwater conditions; and
• 310 CMR 15.405(1)(h) and the 2006 Title 5 Alternative to Percolation Testing Guidance for System Upgrades; and
• Soils fit into either of these categories: • Compact material, regardless of Class or
• Class III or Class IV
Gravity vs. Pressure Distribution
• LTARs are higher for Class II, III and IV
• Cannot be used in conjunction with SAS reductions approved under I/As or under MFF/LUA
• No higher rate for Class I
COMMON LTAR MISSTEPS
Interpolation of LTAR
• No interpolation – use next slower perc
• For example…
• Sandy loam (Class II)
• Perc rate of 12.5 mpi
LTAR is
0.56 gpd/sf
not
0.58 gpd/sf
Soil Class and Perc Variability
• Two deep holes with percs
• Loamy Sand (Class I) with 3 mpi perc
• Loamy Sand (Class I) with 2 mpi perc
• Gravity distribution
• LTAR is 0.74 gpd/sf
GW separation? 4 ft? 5 ft?
SAS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SAS Aggregate
• Double-washed
• Free of iron particles, fines and dust
• Base aggregate • Depth varies from 6 inches (bed) to 2 feet (trench)
• ¾ - 1 ½ inch diameter
• Pea-stone layer • Depth of 2 inches
• ⅛ - ¼ inch diameter
• Geotextile may be use in place
Reserve Area
• Required for new construction or increase in flow
• Same design flow as primary
• No permanent buildings or structures
TRENCHES
Trench Specifications
• Length – 100 ft max
• Width – 2 to 3 ft
• Depth – 6 inches to 2 ft
• Slope – 0.005 ft/ft
• Separation distance • 2 times the greater of effective depth or width
• 3 times if reserve is between trenches
• Effective leaching area = bottoms + sides
Trench Specifications Cont’d
• Long dimension perpendicular to slope
• Different elevations? Prevent effluent from flowing into lower trenches
• Minimum diameter of distribution lines = 3 inches (for gravity)
• If lines are greater than 50 ft – must be connected and vented
BEDS AND FIELDS
Bed/Field Specifications
• Length – 100 ft max
• Number of lines – 2 min
• Slope – 0.005 ft/ft
• Separation distance - 6 ft max
• Distance to edge of bed – 4 ft max
• Depth – 6 to 12 inches
Bed/Field Specifications Cont’d
• Minimum diameter of distribution lines = 3 inches (for gravity)
• Effective leaching area = bottom only, no sidewalls
PITS, GALLERIES & CHAMBERS
Pit/Gallery/Chamber Specs
• Effective depth – 2 ft max
• Surrounding aggregate – 1 to 4 feet
• One inspection port per unit
• MH required if > 2,000 gpd
• Effective leaching area • Bed formation – bottom only, no sidewall • Trench formation – bottom and periphery
sidewall
Pit/Gallery/Chamber Specs Cont’d
• Parallel operation of pits
• Trench formation – inlets every 20 ft
• Chamber/galley formation – inlets every 40 ft square section
WRAP-UP & QUESTIONS
Things to Remember – SAS
• Key component to on-site disposal systems
• Proper design and construction
• Sufficient treatment
• Long-term use of the system
• Protection • Environment
• Groundwater
• Humans
Regional Title 5 Contacts
CERO
David Boyer
508-767-2823
NERO
Claire Golden
978-694-3244
Wastewater Info Line
978-694-3215
SERO
Brian Dudley (Cape/Islands)
781-946-2814
Brett Rowe (Southeastern MA)
781-946-2754
WERO
Paul Nietupski
413-755-2218
T5/GW Stakeholder Comments
• Starter home zoning • Uniform statewide code • Holding tanks for peak flows – component sizing • Utilization of unused capacity (GW) • Reduction in gw separation for new construction with I/A • Design flows for multi-residences • Large reporting system category (7,500 – 30,000 gpd) • GW permit threshold raised 10,000 gpd • Designation of nitrogen sensitive areas • Seasonal campground flows and thresholds • Moldering toilets for remote backwoods areas • Reuse of composting toilet leachate
T5/GW Stakeholder Group Meetings
• Two meetings in 2017 – Discussed each comment received – Determined data/information needed for each comment – Determined Starter Home and Home Rule Comment were
outside of this group’s scope
• Meeting on March 6th, 2018 to discuss: – Guidance language for component sizing and approval process
to utilize unused capacity at wastewater treatment facility – Interest in the formation of Technical Workgroup to develop
testing protocols on pathogen removal related to groundwater separation
– Seeking an academic institute to conduct in depth analysis on multi residence flows
T5/GW Stakeholder Group Meetings
• Subgroups to be formed for remaining Comments – Compost toilet leachate met in October 2017
• Working with DEP, DAR and academic institution to analyze leachate
– Seasonal Campgrounds and Moldering Toilets to meet on March 29th, 2018
• Subgroups and dates to be determined for – Large System Category/Groundwater Threshold
– Nitrogen Sensitive Areas
Contact for the T5/GW Stakeholders Group
Marybeth Chubb
617-556-1029