ATS: OPTIONS FOR TOWNS

This handbook offers detailed information on the science, law, and performance of ATS. But the first questions brought to those of us who have produced this book usually are: What should we do right now? What can we do right now?

Towns and the state have typically relied on sewage infrastructure to direct growth to areas where the community wants growth and to inhibit growth where open space and rural character are desired. But, in the past decade it has become clear that projects of any size can be served by an on-site system, at least in theory. Having a sewer-avoidance district does not rule out applications for projects that produce far more sewage than can be handled by traditional septic. The only zoning-type prohibition is that, by state law, ATS are generally prohibited in drinking-water watersheds, with exceptions for remediation and certain public schools (see below for quotes from the statute and also Law and Order chapter, section 1.1.1.3), Permitting Authority Determination.

Background

Big Battles: The Price of Being Unprepared

There have been several well-publicized battles over projects dependent on ATS, with lessons to be learned therefrom.

At the start of the new millennium, the Stanwich School in Greenwich sought to undertake a major expansion. The site was unsuitable for traditional septic, and the school planned to use an AT system for wastewater. The systems at that time were little known in Connecticut and not widely trusted. (An early AT system at a condominium complex in Woodbury had numerous problems.) Opposition to the Stanwich School expansion provoked research on the performance of ATS and led to the passage of Public Act 02-129, which was widely supported by environmental organizations. It stated:

No permit shall be issued for an alternative on-site sewage treatment system, as defined in the Public Health Code, in a drinking water supply watershed unless the commissioner determines that (i) such system is the only feasible solution to an existing pollution problem and that the proposed system capacity does not exceed the capacity of the failed on-site system, or (ii) such system is for the expansion of an existing municipal or public school project or for new construction of a municipal or public school project on an existing municipal or public school site, in a municipality in which a majority of the land is located within a drinking water supply watershed.

The Greenwich project spotlighted the tension between the need and/or wish to develop and the shrinking availability of land to receive waste. It established a state recognition that the systems were not performing well enough to be suitable in a drinking-water watershed. The exception for remediation was acceptable to the environmental parties. The exception for "a municipality in which a majority of the land is located within a drinking water supply watershed" was an accommodation for the nearby town of Weston, which was also expanding a school on a difficult site. (The exception illustrates the political aspect of ATS policy, which has always been at least equal to the science considerations.)

In Madison, the 32-acre Griswold Airport property, adjacent to Hammonasset State Park, was opened up for development as a result of a most unfortunate or fortunate (depending on your point of view) land swap: The state traded away control of the access into the property for a bit of land in the marsh. Using traditional septic, the land was suitable for only a modest development; 10 acres of the property were in tidal wetlands. But the new owner wanted much more and applied for a 127-unit active-adult residential development. This would require use of an on-site packaged treatment system to treat more than 52,000 gallons per day (gpd) of waste. The town was divided between supporters and opponents, the latter shocked to discover that so many units could be permitted on such a sensitive parcel of land, the former convinced that with the right engineering the grand list of taxable property would increase with no harm done to the estuary.

The developer’s first choice had been an Amphidrome system. Opponents made a good case that this technology had not worked well in Connecticut. The only two installations were actually in Madison, at the Mews condominium development and at Daniel Hand High School. They were not functioning properly. (See tables and charts prepared by Herb Gram, in the chapter ATS Performance.) A different AT system at a Madison Stop & Shop was also troubled.

The system is essentially a separate sewer system for the development. It is a biological treatment system, and the water coming out of the system is clean enough to drink. When it works properly, the system is supposed to be beneficial to the environment and public health. — CTCentral.com, 11/27/07

The widely repeated claim that wastewater from the system would be clean enough to drink especially infuriated opponents. It was based on statements by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), which is legally required to assure that treated wastewater will meet drinking water standards at the property line or nearest water body. But these standards apply only to certain substances (nitrogen, particulate matter, and so forth), not to the spectrum of substances in wastewater. The standards apply to human beings, not smaller creatures. Moreover, ATS were not reliably meeting permit requirements.

A second high-profile and controversial project was the development of a large Family Y in Westport on land adjacent to Lees Pond in the Saugatuck River. The management applied for a permit for a "fixed activated sludge treatment" system. The facility would generate some 34,000 gallons per day of sewage. This technology had a shaky performance record in Connecticut, failing to meet permit requirements about 67 percent of the time.

The Westport fight was, if anything, more bitter and political than the controversy over the Madison project. Numerous crowded and expensive public hearings were held. The volunteer land-use commissioners and paid staff were under severe pressure from both sides. Debates were long, and votes generally were close.

The conflicts in Madison and Westport led to litigation and legislative challenges in the General Assembly. Sen. Ed Meyer of Madison, co-chairman of the Environment Committee, was one of several legislators who introduced bills addressing ATS. He called for a moratorium on their installation to give the DEEP time to develop a program for monitoring performance and enforcement of standards. Sen. John McKinney, ranking member of the Environment Committee, had ties to the Family Y (his own family had been substantial donors to the organization). He argued vehemently that opponents were NIMBY types who either did not understand the technology or were deliberately misrepresenting it.

Additional environmental groups joined the fray. The state Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 2007 investigated why there were so many underperforming AT systems in Connecticut. CEQ recommended a year’s moratorium to enable the DEEP to get the situation under control.

Also in 2007, The Nature Conservancy, which is active in the Saugatuck River watershed (including Westport), published a white paper on the issue, Alternative On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems: Watershed Implications. This paper is still the basic policy statement from the perspective of resource protection. It describes the different types of systems and makes a set of recommendations, including these: Permit considerations should be site-specific; the technology should be tested thoroughly for performance capability; municipalities should set standards for design, operation, and maintenance, and require financial guarantees that standards will be met; funds should be available for ongoing monitoring; and permit decisions should be based on community land-use planning, not what is technically feasible.

Advocates for water protection formed a loose network. For example, people from Madison testified in Westport. Herb Gram, a retired engineer with Citizens for a Clean Hammonasset, prepared tables and charts showing ATS failure rates. Richard Harris, a scientist with Harbor Watch/River Watch at Westport’s Earthplace, gathered data and testified on the threats to Lees Pond. Rivers Alliance testified in the legislature and at hearings that by and large the technology was not ready for prime time and that installations should be diligently monitored. Connecticut Fund for the Environment joined, adding law expertise.

Of course, ATS manufacturers and vendors responded with lively lobbying, and pro-ATS legislators introduced pro-ATS legislation.

Then, to the surprise of many, the usually quiet Health Districts sounded a loud alarm. Neil Lustig, representing the Connecticut Association of Directors of Health, testified in 2007 that unless the state could quickly come up with a well-funded, professional program for management of all decentralized wastewater systems (traditional septic and ATS), Connecticut was facing “an environmental and public-health disaster.” [emphasis added]

This startling announcement was seconded by testimony from Tom Cianchette of Total Septic Services, who predicted failure of 15,000 septic systems in Connecticut in the year ahead.

Regulatory Confusion

The underlying problem then and now is that the lines of responsibility for safe sewage management are seriously tangled, and the relevant agencies lack adequate personnel power. The Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for management of traditional septic systems with discharges of 5,000 gpd or less. This responsibility is exercised at the local level by municipal Health Departments and (for smaller communities) by Health District health departments, the two together totaling 77 health departments. Certified sanitarians may be used for management of permits.

On paper, the Health Districts appear to have considerable authority to write regulations. See, for example, this statutory language:

Sec. 19a-243. (Formerly Sec. 19-108). District rules and regulations. Powers of district. Meetings. Expenses. (a) Each board may make and adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the promotion of general health within the district not in conflict with law or with the Public Health Code. The powers of each district shall include but not be limited to the following enumerated powers: (1) To sue and be sued; (2) to make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers of the health district; (3) to make and from time to time amend and repeal bylaws, rules and regulations; (4) to acquire real estate; (5) to provide for the financing of the programs, projects or other functions of the district in the manner described in subsection (b) of this section; and (6) to have such other powers as are necessary to properly carry out its powers as an independent entity of government.

In practice, the Health Districts are often cautious in exercising regulatory authority. This caution is sometimes ascribed to lack of resources, sometimes to political concerns, sometimes to legal uncertainty.

The districts’ responsibility to regulate the small subsurface septic systems (less than 5,000 gpd) was delegated by the DEEP in the late 1970s and does not include ATS, which were not being used at the time. Mr. Lustig, while warning of disasters ahead, argued that the Health Districts should manage all small septic systems because they have the expertise, knowledge of field conditions, and a local base. What the DPH and Health Districts did not have, however, was money to initiate a program and regulations.

Other players in sewage management are municipalities’ Water Pollution Control Authorities (WPCAs). These bodies are created via a delegation of authority by the DEEP to towns under the Water Pollution Control Act. Typically, WPCAs are in charge of sewer systems, sewer planning, and sewer financing. In the absence of a formal WPCA, the authority is vested in the municipality's chief executive body, often a board of selectmen. But the WPCAs, like DPH, have broad powers should they care to exercise them.

Hope Springs Not Quite Eternal

For a brief time in 2007, it appeared that local management of small sewage systems would be improved and rationalized. Legislation (Public Act 07-231) provided for a takeover of small systems by DPH and the Health Districts. Most important, it addressed the problem of the potential for overuse of ATS to derail provisions for responsible growth and to have a cumulative impact that would pollute state waters. See underlined language below from this law.

(b) In establishing and defining categories of discharge that constitute alternative on-site sewage treatment systems pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, and in establishing minimum requirements for such systems pursuant to section 19a-36 of the general statutes, said commissioner shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: (1) The impact that such systems or discharges may have individually or cumulatively on public health and the environment, (2) the impact that such systems and discharges may have individually or cumulatively on land use patterns, and (3) recommendations regarding responsible growth made to said commissioner by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management through the Office of Responsible Growth established by Executive Order No. 15 of Governor M. Jodi Rell.

Much of the credit for this good language belongs to DPH, where people seemed willing to acknowledge what could go wrong with more use of ATS. Unfortunately, the needed funding, in the range of $800,000, never was attached to the law. DPH refused to proceed with the program without the money to do it properly. Permitting of small and large ATS is still done by DEEP.

The Old Saybrook Approach

The ability of towns to change laws to suit their needs (and wants) is a constant challenge to policy work, although it is not necessarily a bad thing. Above, we saw that Weston school projects were exempted from the law banning ATS in drinking-water watersheds. Such exemption is routine accommodation. The prize for sweeping change goes to Old Saybrook, which was in a decades-long fight with the DEEP over the town’s numerous old, inadequate, and failing septic systems. The solution appeared to be to install sewer lines and build a municipal wastewater treatment plant. But Old Saybrook, like many other communities, did not want to take this road for several reasons: sewers might encourage excessive population growth and development; they are expensive; they would discharge to Lomg Island Sound, which is already overloaded with nitrogen; and they would remove water from the local watershed, with no opportunity for recharge of local aquifers.

In 2003, one year after banning ATS in drinking-water watersheds, the legislature opened the door to greatly increased use of ATS, especially in Old Saybrook. The public did not exactly see this door opening, however, because the language was buried in the budget implementer, traditional home of suspect legislation (House Bill No. 6806, June 30 Special Session, Public Act No. 03-6, AN ACT CONCERNING GENERAL BUDGET AND REVENUE IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS).

The bill enabled the creation of Decentralized Wastewater Management Districts, which would be under the control of local Water Pollution Control Authorities rather than the DEEP or DPH.

Decentralized Wastewater Management Districts

The option of creating one’s own local wastewater management district has an advantage, in theory, of delivering control over wastewater management into local hands. However, it is not easy; it is not cheap; and it is not quick.

Under legal pressure from the state, starting in the 1980s, to fix old, substandard septic systems in the town, Old Saybrook began negotiating the creation of its own plan for wastewater in the 1990s. Subsequent discussions and mediation led to the 2003 law enabling Decentralized Wastewater Management Districts. The process of setting up such a district began in 2003; the basic steps in the process were approved by the town in 2009, but the process still had not been completed as of September 2011. A court judgment in January 2011 modified a court judgment from 1997, which modified a court judgment from 1991. Such litigation-based management is not an efficient approach to wastewater planning.

As of September 2011, delegation of authority from the state to Old Saybrook for the management of ATS was still pending. However, work is starting on properties that can make do with traditional methods. The New London Day newspaper, on July 25, 2011, reported on the first fix in the new district. The contractor’s bid for upgrades on 25 properties came in at just under $250,000. An outdated, failing system in Saybrook Acres was replaced with an up-to-code conventional system, installed by the contractor with oversight from the WPCA and approval by the Connecticut River Area Health District.

The steps required to become a Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Management District are:

(1) Development of a detailed management plan for the entire district. This development almost certainly will require the services of an outside consultant. The plan must be approved by the DEEP and the DPH, in consultation with the local Health District.

(2) Approval by the town of the performance standards, the cost, the timetable, and the means of installing, upgrading, and maintaining a decentralized system. In Old Saybrook a major element here was passing a municipal ordinance.

(3) A delegation by the state DEEP to the municipality of the authority to manage the system under the WPCA.

(4) Funding for the entire operation. In Old Saybrook, money was made available and pledged from the Clean Water Fund, but it is unusual for the state to pay for the upgrade of private septic systems on private property, and such funding might be less available in the future — or indeed more available; it is difficult to predict. With grants and financial support from the town of Old Saybrook, the cost per household may range from about $9,000 (for a conventional system) to $28,000 (for an AT system).

(5) A Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) review if $100,000 or more is provided by the state. In the case of Old Saybrook, DEEP wrote up the required environmental impact evaluation (EIE) late, just prior to a key town vote. Rivers Alliance, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, and The Nature Conservancy protested, to no avail, that the EIE did not meet statutory standards.

A caveat in using the decentralized wastewater statute as a template for numerous municipalities is that few WPCAs have staff or board members able and willing to take on management of hundreds (or thousands of ) individual or clustered systems.

The Old Saybrook management plan calls for installation of 300 to 500 residential ATS, although no residential ATS have previously been permitted in Connecticut. The standard assurance has been that residential ATS have worked well in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. However, studies indicate that ATS performance in those states has been on average mediocre.

Potential advantages of becoming a Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Management District are:

Write Your Own Law: Other Possibilities

There are numerous municipalities and communities with problems similar to those in Old Saybrook. Many are communities along the shores of large water bodies (the Sound, lakes, and rivers). The Connecticut Federation of Lakes in recent years has advocated for a faster, less expensive process for setting up decentralized districts. But there has been little interest among state agency people, in part because there is no money to fund program changes.

Environmental advocates likely would oppose any legislation that would make it easier to pollute water legally. ATS tend to be suspect because of their shaky performance thus far. Mother Nature is far more reliable. But, in theory, a program could be devised that would guarantee high performance. Some of those in our group are working precisely on this issue, either in engineering or policy work or both.

It may be that a modification of existing wastewater law could provide for a well-managed, fully funded, community-based use of small ATS. But to truly protect water resources, the permits, monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement would all have to be at a much higher level than required so far.

(The problems of irregular small flows can be mitigated in cases where it is possible to combine flows prior to treatment and discharge. The negative would be that recharge of aquifers would not be taking place where the water had been withdrawn. On the frontier of small-scale sewage treatment are composting toilets, including urine-separating fixtures. These are making an appearance here and there in Connecticut.)

The possibility of initiating a change of law is much stronger if at least one of your legislative representatives has senior status in the majority party or if the governor likes your plan. If your plan is not protective of the environment, it will run into opposition from environmental organizations, possibly water companies, and possibly the DEEP, DPH, and other agencies.

Creating ATS Avoidance or Welcome Areas

A town’s or city’s WPCA appears to have the authority to create ATS-avoidance areas and ATS-welcome areas, just as it can create sewer-avoidance areas and sewer-development areas. This kind of planning should be done jointly with the planning officials and residents who are working on the local Plan of Conservation and Development.

If a community has sewer-avoidance areas, one of the first questions in ATS planning would be: Should the sewer-avoidance and ATS-avoidance areas be the same?

If the goal of the sewer avoidance area is to discourage intense development, then the area should also exclude ATS, perhaps with certain exceptions — for example, for remediation. Any project that appears to depend on public sewer service can be rewritten to use an AT system instead of a sewer line.

The ban or encouragement of ATS will be more effective if it is also part of the town Plan of Conservation and Development, which, under new state policy, should be more consistent than in the past with the regional and state plans.

Keep in mind that, in litigation, a town “plan” is the zoning map. The Plan of Conservation and Development is relevant but not pre-eminent. Therefore, zoning and planning officials should work together.

Presently, the only regulation of the location of ATS is the statute that prohibits them in drinking-water watersheds. Local ATS planning should not rely on this state law to hold up. It could be changed overnight. The town should develop its own rules. Redundancy here is a good idea. A town could simply adopt part or all of the state statutory language in its own regulations.

Very often town and city governments approve of good programs for everyone in town except themselves. The temptation for a municipality would be to exclude schools and municipal buildings from an ATS-avoidance area. ATS are advertised as an economical and easy way to treat school wastewater. But, school administrators should be wary of convenience claims. We have seen that schools are particularly challenging for ATS and their dependent bacteria. Our records include many sad school stories, in which systems have not worked as promised and guarantees have not covered the things that went wrong.

Ordinances and Regulations

Municipalities have broad (but not unlimited) power to write local governance rules in the form of regulations and ordinances. Municipalities have ordinances governing noise, blight, recycling, liquor sales, water-use restrictions during droughts, parking, and, yes, wastewater management.

WPCAs are created by ordinance, and one requisite step in creating a Decentralized Wastewater Management District is the adoption of an ordinance. The Old Saybrook decentralized district ordinance describes the management program, requirements, timelines, permit conditions, enforcement, funding, and more. Unfortunately, it still relies heavily on an old concept of septic system failure, namely, that the sewage has to be backing up or erupting out of the ground to be considered failing.

By contrast, we maintain that when ATS do not meet their permit requirements, they are failing.

The whole point of modern wastewater management is not just to eliminate contact with pathogens but also to treat the effluent so that it does not overload receiving soils and waters with excess nutrients and other contaminants. Unfortunately, most legislators and government officials tend to be forgiving toward system failures that do not involve perceptible sewage.

We have heard hundreds of complaints to the effect that if a system works on average (meaning half the time), that should be adequate; that a few exceedances a month are not serious (even those involving startling spikes in bacteria); that reliable controls of nitrogen and phosphorus are too expensive; that building infrastructure capable of dealing with storms and high water is also too expensive.

This tolerance of low performance is unacceptable and will lead to increased pollution of state waters. On the other hand, even the most reputable vendors and operators cannot guarantee performance if the input to their systems is extremely variable or harmful to the necessary bacteria.

Any program that relies on ATS for wastewater treatment must include both enforceable standards and controls over input.

Most ATS manufacturers and vendors do have educational materials for the user. But, like the instructions one gets with any appliance, these tend to be misplaced and forgotten. User education must be ongoing, especially as households change hands. We recommend that education requirements be incorporated into any ordinance or contract governing ATS.

Coordinated Rules. When a municipality is considering upgrading its program for sewage management, coordination of authorities is important. The Health District, WPCA, Selectmen or Town Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Commission, and so forth may all have relevant rules, guidelines, and goals. For example, Westport, which has one of the most forward-looking ordinances (created in 2006), had to reconcile rules sought by the Representative Town Council with WPCA rules.

The Westport ordinance also excluded systems under 5,000 gpd, which means that should household-size septic systems of the AT type become more commonly permitted by the state, the protections in the ordinance will not cover that eventuality.

On the other hand, the ordinance covers a wide range of Private On-site Wastewater Disposal (POWD) system technologies by means of a certification process through a professional engineer and the Town Engineer. This frees the town from trying to define and regulate each type of technology that might be described as nontraditional. The Old Saybrook Board of Selectmen clearly struggled with this problem as they were setting up their Decentralized Wastewater Management District. At times, town officials, attorneys, and people testifying were evidently not talking about the same technologies.

Financial Guarantees. Towns permitting ATS should by ordinance or regulation require financial guarantees to cover liabilities and costs should one or more systems fail. Guarantees and penalties for nonperformance go a long way to inspiring vendors, owners, and operators to meet permit requirements. The guarantees should cover long-term operation and maintenance. Short-term warranties are not much use.

Westport’s 2006 ordinance was an important step forward in the effort to protect water quality and the town at the same time. Each town is different, and legal advice will definitely be needed, but Westport can be used a model.

The Westport ordinance is rigorous, and some town officials have complained that it is too burdensome. But maintaining good hygiene and protecting resources of course become increasingly expensive as wastewater engineering becomes more elaborate.

Recommendations for ATS Permitting

Some in our group are skeptical that ATS ever can be made to work well in the field, if only because it is so difficult to control owner abuse of the systems. Others believe that with high standards, strict monitoring, and consistent enforcement, ATS have a place in a balanced approach to wastewater management. Here follow recommendations for ATS permitting in places where traditional septic will not work, and there is a compelling reason to try an alternative technology.

Certifications

There are two approaches to permitting: (1) prescriptive, which means rules are written and it is assumed that, if you follow the rules, the outcome will be satisfactory; (2) performance, which means that you will be judged on actual results. A combination of the two is probably best.

ATS programs frequently require certification of operators or the technology. This requirement is in line with a prescriptive approach, and clearly reasonable qualifications should be a requirement. It would be risky to send out a traffic engineer to inspect a sewage treatment plant. But superior personnel qualifications and a stellar performance by the technology in test runs do not guarantee satisfactory performance in the field.

Connecticut officials appear to be leaning toward certifications for operators and for various nontraditional management technologies. Reasonable tests of competence are in order. But the tests that really count come with field performance. No level of certification, even summa cum laude grades in denitrification, should relieve a person or technology of the requirement to meet permit standards in the field reliably. If that is not happening, the certification should be canceled.

Test Methods

Water-quality test methods should be standard for ATS, preferably statewide or watershed-wide, or at least within the permitting area (most likely, a municipality, village, or zoning area).

It makes no sense to have testing done exclusively by people who stand to gain if the test results are good and to lose if results are bad. That is expecting too much of human nature. Nevertheless, honor-system self-testing is the normal method of testing in Connecticut. It is cheap and often politically preferable.

For reliable test results, occasional independent, unannounced tests are essential. These should be randomized to some extent; however, a close reading of monthly reports will often yield indicators that something is wrong, and the unannounced testing can focus on these problems.

Here are examples of such indicators: School testing is always done Monday morning before the start of classes; test results decline for several months, and then tests are missed for two or three months, and then the results are much better; not all the monitoring wells are being tested; test results decline and the work is transferred to a new laboratory, whereupon test results improve; neighbors or others report an odor or algae blooms downslope of the discharge region.

Reliable test results depend on maintaining the test infrastructure. For example, if monitoring wells are not dug properly, they can dry up and obviously won’t be serviceable for groundwater testing.

There are a variety of sampling techniques, but a key variable is where the sample is taken. We recommend testing for water quality at the point the effluent leaves the system and enters the leaching field.

Permit Standards

Acceptable and preferred permit standards are given below. The best technology today is capable of high performance and its use should be encouraged.

Treatment standards in Connecticut and elsewhere are based on drinking-water standards. This sounds highly protective, and proponents of ATS have frequently boasted, “The water is clean enough to drink!” (Not exactly true.) What is lost in the rhetoric is that drinking-water standards are not necessarily appropriate for environmental protection.

That statement, based on science, is likely to evoke scornful guffaws from the uninformed. But if one thinks about it, elements in wastewater that might not harm a full-grown human can have quite an effect on the tiny plants and animals in aquatic environments. In particular, the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater can result in algae blooms and other harmful biochemical changes afflicting waters.

The standards here are drawn from a Connecticut DEEP permit for Max’s Place restaurant in Old Saybrook, having a waste flow of 4,000 gpd.

Frequency of Sampling and Reporting

Monthly reporting is the standard for surface-water discharges and larger on-site ATS discharging to the ground. But the industry tends to resist monthly or even quarterly sampling for residential-size units. The frequency preferred by the industry is twice a year at most, going to once a year or even less often if the system is passing the tests.

The arguments against monthly sampling are that it is too expensive to monitor numerous small systems so frequently, and that, if the system is working satisfactorily for several months, it will probably continue to work well.

The idea that once a small system is working well it can be relied on to continue this way is bogus. The small systems are more susceptible to disruptions than most large systems (excepting perhaps those for schools and seasonal resorts). The bacteria on which the system depends need to be fed regularly and appropriately. Think of them as pets that must be well treated or they will die. They are, in fact, living organisms. Variations in flow, toxic substances, stormwater infiltration, penetration of cold air, disturbance of the site, mechanical breakdowns, and other not unusual events can knock out the system. Months and even years can go by before the problem is discovered.

The counter argument offered by optimists is: There’s no need to be concerned about small malfunctions and exceedances. These won’t have much of an impact. It’s not a huge deal if these little installations fail; it’s the big systems we have to worry about.

However, if small ATS are deployed intensively, the many small impacts can add up to major water impairment. Five hundred household systems in a single watershed may discharge some 500,000 gallons per day. No one in Connecticut would think of allowing a treatment plant with this capacity to run for months without oversight. But, in fact, small systems are equally likely to fail, with cumulative negative effects rivaling those of malfunctioning large systems.

It is true that monthly sampling is burdensome and expensive. For one thing, if a problem is detected, it must be fixed. But there are software and hardware for electronic tracking and reporting, making the job easier.

The consensus recommendation of our group is that monitoring of household-size ATS should be done monthly and no less than quarterly until the system has met its permit requirements for 18 months consecutively. At that time, monitoring can be decreased to twice annually. If the property changes hands, more frequent monitoring should be required until it is apparent that the new householders are not stressing or turning off the system. (People can turn off a system accidentally, or on purpose because of electricity costs, noise, or the like.)

The reason for caution and frequent monitoring is that the health of our waters and public health are at stake.

Electronic Systems

One reason ATS permitting and performance have been especially erratic in Connecticut is the outmoded reliance on paper records and paper files. Permits are filed in one place; monthly reports in another. The operator fills out paper forms; the laboratory fills out paper forms; the state gets paper forms.

There are software and hardware available to do all tracking and even to do some enforcement (such as the generation of warning letters or notices of penalties). Most often communities want less expensive systems with a more limited capability. Connecticut has been working toward setting up an electronic tracking system. Electronic tracking is part of the Old Saybrook program, although the focus is more on detecting whether AT systems are turned on or off rather than finding out how well they are working.

The Carmody Company is the best known for electronic wastewater management, and it services the Massachusetts Test Center for Barnstable County Health District, on Cape Cod. Town officials or other interested parties should consult with a company of this sort in the planning stage of any sort of on-site disposal program. The Test Center actually has the capability to record electronically levels of permitted elements such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The technology the Test Center uses to do this is probably too expensive for most facilities, but, looking ahead a few years, it is not difficult to imagine that such monitors could be installed with the infrastructure. More imminent would be widely available portable probes that inspectors could use to assess water quality on the spot, skipping the step of sending samples to a lab.

Today it is realistic to expect that findings by inspectors and laboratories will be submitted electronically to the oversight authority in order to facilitate tracking and enforcement. New or retrofitted ATS should have interior monitors to communicate whether the entire system is turned off or on, and whether certain essential components, such as blowers, are working. In addition, flow can be tracked.

Combining Wastewater Flows

It is so difficult to assure that small ATS will function well over time that it is best to avoid numerous small installations when possible. Even when the technology itself is superior, the variability of input can defeat the system.

If the wastewater from many individual households can be combined for treatment in a single facility, this activity can solve several problems:

· The flow quantity will be steadier. Not all the families will go on vacation at the same time.

· The quality will be more uniform. Not all the families will strip furniture at the same time.

· It will be easier to manage a system with a single contract operator than dozens of small systems from different vendors with different operators.

Summary Of Recommendations

SAMPLE DOCUMENTS

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Operating agreement means an agreement as specified in Section 30-232(2).

Operation, maintenance and replacement reserve means a reserve as specified in Section 30-233.

Operator means person(s), corporation(s), association(s) or other legal entities that are responsible for the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the POWDS and ensuring compliance with all permits and applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations.

Owner means person(s), corporation(s), association(s) or other legal entities that own the facilities and assets of the POWDS and any successor to any of the foregoing. The owner may also be the operator if it meets all the requirements of this division for an operator.

Private on-site wastewater disposal system or POWDS means any on-site wastewater disposal system serving one or more structures that has a design flow capacity in excess of 5,000 gallons of effluent per day and that is owned, operated or maintained by a nongovernmental entity, including any individual septic tanks, pumps, lines, treatment facilities, drain fields, reserve fields, lift stations and appurtenances thereto that are part of such system.

The purpose of this division is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Town residents by ensuring proper maintenance and repair of privately owned and operated on-site wastewater disposal systems that discharge large amounts of effluent into the groundwater or surface water within the Town. This division applies to all on-site wastewater disposal systems serving one or more structures that have a design flow in excess of 5,000 gallons of effluent per day and that are owned, operated or maintained by a nongovernmental entity.

The penalty for violation of this division shall be a fine not exceeding $99.00, payable to the Town, for each violation. Each day that such violation is continued after receipt of notice from the WPCA or his or her designee, such violation shall be deemed a separate offense and may be cited and fined as such. Such penalties shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the Town.

The citation hearing procedure provided in C.G.S. § 7-152c is hereby established as the Town's citation hearing procedure to be followed when citations pursuant to this division are issued. The First Selectman is authorized to appoint Hearing Officers and to issue rules and regulations governing the operation of the citation hearing procedure, provided that such rules and regulations are consistent with C.G.S. § 7-152c.

State law reference— Penalties for ordinance violations, C.G.S. § 7-148(c)(10)(A).

Owner(s) and/or operator(s) shall be jointly and severally liable for their respective obligations under this division.

The WPCA is authorized to promulgate regulations to administer this division.

No new POWDS, or expansion of an existing POWDS, shall be constructed, installed or operated within the Town unless the following conditions have been met:

Permits. All required final permits shall have been obtained from governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the siting, construction and operation of such systems, including but not limited to the State Department of Environmental Protection, the State Department of Public Health, the Westport-Weston Health District and its successors, the Town Conservation Commission and the Town Planning and Zoning Commission. The owner will supply copies of all such permits and approvals to the WPCA, and will notify the WPCA immediately should any such permits or approvals expire, be revoked or be modified.

The owner, operator, Town and the WPCA shall have entered into an agreement providing for:

Regular inspection, monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of equipment and facilities of the POWDS;

The establishment and maintenance of financial reserves for operation, maintenance, capital expenses and emergency repairs and remediation;

The imposition and collection of user charges and assessments for connection to and use of the POWDS, if the owner is not the sole user of the system;

Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations governing the POWDS, including this division;

Any other provisions that the WPCA may deem necessary for the protection of the Town and its residents.

The operating agreement shall specifically incorporate all standards for inspection, monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement applicable to the POWDS under Federal, State and local laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the owner's discharge permit, and under the operating guidelines recommended by the manufacturers of all components of the POWDS.

Operation, maintenance and replacement reserve; emergency reserve. The owner, the Town, the WPCA and a financial institution acceptable to the Town shall have entered into an escrow agreement or agreements, in such form(s) and upon such terms and conditions as are satisfactory to the WPCA, providing for the operation, maintenance and replacement reserve and the emergency reserve as specified in Section 30-233

Indemnification. The owner and the operator shall have entered into an agreement indemnifying the Town from any loss, liability, costs and expenses incurred by the Town with respect to the inspection, monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of part or all of the POWDS and any remediation associated with the POWDS, which agreement shall require payment of such costs within 30 days of receipt of the Town's invoice for the same.

Insurance. The owner shall agree to maintain, during the life of the POWDS, policies of property insurance for the replacement value of the insurable components of the POWDS, commercial general liability insurance and pollution liability insurance, all with limits acceptable to the WPCA, naming the Town as an additional insured, which policies shall be issued by an insurer licensed to issue insurance in the State and with a rating acceptable to the WPCA.

Engineer's certification. The WPCA shall have received a certification from a professional engineer with expertise in wastewater systems stating that the POWDS as designed and constructed will adequately process sanitary sewage and waste as required by and in conformance with all applicable laws and permits and setting forth the maintenance, repair and replacement needs or recommendations for the POWDS for 20 years, together with an estimation of likely expenses. The Town Engineer shall review the certification and all supporting documents and make a recommendation to the WPCA regarding the adequacy of such certification.

Contracts and certifications. The WPCA shall have received a copy of the current contract between the owner and the operator, if applicable, and copies of all current licenses and certifications required by Federal, State or local law and regulations for persons operating the POWDS.

Discharge permit documentation. The WPCA shall have received copies of all documentation, including, but not limited to, plans and specifications, submitted by the owner to the Department of Environmental Protection or other regulatory authority in support of its application for a discharge permit.

(1) An operation, maintenance and replacement reserve in an amount sufficient to fund the cost of at least five years (or more, as may be determined by the WPCA) of monitoring, inspection, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the POWDS and all components thereof; and

(2) An emergency reserve in the amount of 100 percent of the anticipated replacement costs of all equipment and materials of the POWDS, including installation, design and supervision costs and the cost of replacement or reconstruction of the collection system(s) and drain field(s).

(b) The operation, maintenance and replacement reserve shall be funded with cash. The emergency reserve shall be funded with cash and/or cash equivalents as shall be approved by the Town's Financial Director. The operation, maintenance and replacement reserve and the emergency reserve shall be established pursuant to an escrow agreement or agreements in such form(s) and upon such terms and conditions as are satisfactory to the WPCA. The escrow agreement or agreements shall provide, among other things, for the prompt replenishment of amounts expended from such reserves.

(c) From time to time, the WPCA shall reassess the cost of monitoring, inspecting, repairing and/or replacing any POWDS. Within 30 days from the date of notice from the WPCA, the owner shall deposit such amount in the operation, maintenance and replacement reserve and/or the emergency reserve as may be necessary to fund the increase, if any, in such costs.

(c) Transfer of ownership. The owner shall notify the WPCA prior to any transfer of the property upon which the POWDS is located.

(d)Reports; information required. The owner shall supply to the WPCA, at least annually or more frequently if required by the WPCA:

(1)A certification with supporting documentation from a financial institution that the required operation, maintenance and replacement reserve and the emergency reserve are being maintained and funded in accordance with this division and the requirements of the operating agreement and escrow agreement or agreements.

(2)A certification from a professional engineer with expertise in wastewater systems setting forth the maintenance, repair and replacement needs or recommendations for the POWDS for the next year, together with an estimation of likely expenses, and stating without reservation that the condition of the POWDS, together with the operating budget and the satisfaction of the maintenance, repair and replacement needs, is such that the POWDS is capable of meeting all applicable requirements for its operation.

(3) The operating budget for the POWDS for the most recently completed year, showing all amounts expended on maintenance, repair and replacement.

(4)Financial statements and other documentation providing proof of compliance by the owner and the operator with Subsection (b) of this section.

(5)Copies of the current contract between the owner and the operator, if applicable, and of all current licenses and certifications required under applicable law or regulation for persons operating the POWDS.

(6) Copies of all monitoring, inspection and maintenance reports, and any other reports required by or submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection or other regulatory authority.

(7) Proof that the owner is maintaining the insurance policies required by Section 30-232(5).

(e) Annual inspection. The POWDS shall be inspected annually (or more frequently if required by the WPCA) by the Town Engineer, or by a professional engineer or consultant hired by the Town and paid for by the owner or operator and who is independent of the owner and operator, to certify system condition, capacity and function. The WPCA shall determine the date and time of such inspection, and the owner shall provide such engineer or consultant with access to the property to conduct the inspection and shall supply such engineer or consultant with records demonstrating that the operator has met the requirements of the operating agreement for inspection, maintenance and repairs. The owner shall reimburse the Town for the Town's expenses in connection with such inspection within 30 days of receipt of the Town's invoice for the same. If the inspection is performed by a Town employee, the amount of such reimbursement shall be a reasonable estimate of such employee's time.

(f) Notification. The owner or operator shall notify the WPCA immediately of any malfunction of the POWDS or the results of any test that do not meet State standards for effluent quality.

(a) In the event that the owner becomes insolvent, goes into bankruptcy or receivership, dies, voluntarily dissolves or ceases to exist; fails to maintain or fund the reserves as provided in Section 30-233; fails to make repairs or modifications required by the operator, the WPCA or any other regulatory agency; or otherwise is unable, unwilling or fails to operate the POWDS in full compliance with applicable laws, regulations and permits, including any provision of the operating agreement or this division, the Town has the right, but not the obligation, to take the following actions, in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity:

(1) Repairs. The Town or its designees may enter the property and perform any necessary inspection, testing, maintenance, repairs, replacements or remediation, at the Town's expense, which costs shall be reimbursed to the Town either directly by the owner or from the operation, maintenance and replacement reserve or the emergency reserve. To the extent there remains any deficiency in the amount to be reimbursed to the Town by the owner, a lien in the amount of such deficiency shall be placed on the premises upon which the POWDS is located.

(2) Cease operation. Subject to the approval of the Director or his or her designee of the Health District, the Town may, or may cause the owner, to cease operation of the POWDS.

(3) Sewer. The Town may require that all structures serviced by the POWDS be connected, at the owner's expense, to a public sanitary sewer system, but only if such connection is permitted under the laws, regulations and policies of the State and the WPCA.

(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner remains solely responsible for all liability associated with the POWDS, including, but not limited to, the costs of installation, monitoring, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement and remediation. Transfer of ownership of the POWDS to any successor owner shall not relieve the prior owner from any or all liabilities arising under this division or under any other applicable law or regulation or as a result of any breach of the operating agreement. The owner or prior owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the Town for all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, that the Town must incur to provide for the proper operation of the POWDS or to ensure compliance with this article and any other applicable law and regulation.

⁽¹⁹⁾Editor's note— The 1981 Code stated that this division was adopted on December 5, 2006 (with an effective date of December 15, 2006).

Serving the Towns of East Haddam, East Hampton, Haddam, Hebron, Marlborough & Portland

To protect the public health and welfare within the District, through the prevention of public health nuisances, hazards and environmental degradation that may have a detrimental impact upon the quality of the ground water and surface water within its boundaries.

To help local Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) Commissions implement and comply with sewer avoidance policies to all areas within the towns of the Chatham Health District where onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater is deemed feasible.

To define wastewater management practices and generate data on existing subsurface sewage disposal systems including septage pumped out within the District.

subsurface sewage disposal systems within the District and require periodic inspections of these systems.

All onsite subsurface sewage disposal systems in the Chatham Health District with 5,000 gallons per day or less design discharge are subject to this regulation.

This regulation is subject to the Connecticut Public Health Code regulations Sections 19-13-B100A, 19-13-B103 (including the Technical Standards, forms and appendices) and19-13-B104 and all amendments.

If not defined below, all definitions will be based upon those found in Section 19-13-B103b and the Technical Standards of the Connecticut Public Health Code as amended.

Director means: Director of Health of the Chatham Health District or designated agent

Failing system means: A Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, a.k.a. a septic system, or any other onsite wastewater system where wastewater discharges to the ground surface, into an open watercourse, backs up into the house or otherwise causes health hazards or nuisance conditions.

Malfunctioning system means: A Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, a.k.a. a septic system, where wastewater overflows the outlet baffle, backs up into the riser(s) above the tank or backs up into the house sewer line, backflow from the leaching system is observed, or other evidence that the system is not performing as designed.

Permit to Discharge means: A permit issued to the owner by the Director to authorize or allow the discharge of a stated amount of wastewater to an on-site subsurface sewage disposal system for a stated period of time.

Pump out means: The removal of septage from any part of a subsurface sewage disposal system by a licensed cleaner.

Registered cleaner means: A State licensed installer or cleaner registered in the Chatham Health District.

Subsurface Sewage Disposal System means: A system consisting of a house sewer, a septic tank followed by a leaching system, any necessary pumps and siphons, and any groundwater control system on which the operation of the leaching system is dependent.

System Owner means: Owners of record of property within the District served by a subsurface sewage disposal system.

Any person engaged in the business of cleaning, pumping or disposing of septage within the District, shall be licensed by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health,and registered with the District.

Annual registration is the responsibility of the State licensed cleaner or installer and shall be on forms approved by the District. Registration may be submitted to any District office, or, when available, may be completed electronically through the District’s web based record management system. It is the responsibility of the registered cleaner to notify the District of any changes in registration. The registration period is annual, from July 1 through June 30, and shall be completed by July 15th of the current year.

Registration includes name, business name, address, CT cleaner or installer license number, phone number, and any other electronic contact information requested. The District shall provide a current list to the WPCA’s of the member towns of all registered individuals. Failure to submit pumping reports, as described in Section 7 may result in suspension of an individual’s registration within the District.

A. All registered cleaners shall apply for a pump out permit on forms approved by the District.

owner and the District on forms approved by the District that includes system owner location (site of origin), destination of load (where it will be disposed), date of cleaning, septic tank size, amount pumped and location of tank, and a statement of proper function or malfunction and any other information deemed necessary by the District to establish the cleaning record.

3. If water conditioners or backwash from water treatment systems are discharging to the subsurface sewage disposal system, it shall be noted on the cleaning record.

Completed pump out information, with all items observed noted, is required to be

sent by the registered cleaner to the District within thirty (30) days of when the

A. Systems constructed on or after January 1, 2000 are subject to application for renewal of the Permit to Discharge upon the effective date of this regulation. Said renewal will be issued upon compliance of this regulation. Renewals will be issued based upon submission of a recent pumping report within the last five (5) years, indicating that nofailure or malfunctions were detected, and proper permits were issued.

B. Systems constructed before January 1, 2000 shall be inspected by a registered cleaner within five years from the adoption of this regulation. Inspection will consist of tank

pumping and visual walk over of the leaching area. Further investigation by the registered cleaner may be necessary if the system is malfunctioning.

1. Permits to Discharge shall be issued or renewed by the Director to system owners whose subsurface sewage disposal systems meet the conditions listed below.

Cesspools and steel septic tanks are not considered to be in compliance with the

Public Health Code and Technical Standards. A Permit to Discharge will allow the owner to discharge a specified number of gallons per day to the subsurface sewage disposal system described on the permit, and may include additional restrictions on use of the system or of the property.

2. Permits to Discharge shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended in accordance with Section 8.B.5 of this regulation, for a period not to exceed five (5) years .Information regarding operation and maintenance, special requirements, restrictions and exceptions will be included on the permit.

system which is deemed by the Director to meet at that time all the requirements

system which is deemed by the Director to meet at that time all the requirement of this regulation, or

system, provided that no failure or malfunction is detected during the inspection

4. A report by the registered cleaner of a malfunctioning or failed system shall be

5. The Director of Health may revoke, suspend, or not renew a permit to discharge upon the determination by the Director that the system is malfunctioning or has failed.

a. An order or determination shall be sent to the owner of the property containing

taken to the Commissioner of Public Health by filing a written appeal within three

b. An appeal does not stay the enforcement of the order. If no appeal is taken the

A. Responsibility to keep the Permit to Discharge valid is that of the system owner. If a permit is not renewed after 45 days of the expiration date an order will be issued. Failure to maintain a valid permit will result in denial of applications under Section 19-13-B100a

of the Public Health Code for building additions, improvements, accessory structures, change of use, until proper renewal of Permit to Discharge has been achieved. Upon the failure renew a permit to discharge and its expiration, the district will initiate an action under the provisions of C.G.S. 19a-206 and seek the imposition of a civil penalty of $100 day until such time as a new permit is issued. In addition, the District will seek to recover court costs and legal fees as necessary to obtain compliance with this section.

B. If an individual does work within the District without a District registration, or

considered a violation of this regulation. The district shall initiate an action under the provisions of C.G.S. 19a-206 and seek the imposition of a civil penalty of not less $100 a day for each separate violation of the regulation.

C. Complaints shall be filled with the State Department of Public Health, which oversees the licenses of septic system installers and cleaners under Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 393a, Sec 341f, that states the department may take action under section 19a-17 for any of the following reasons: (1) The license holder has employed or knowingly cooperated in fraud or material deception in order to obtain his license or has engaged in fraud or material deception in the course of professional services or activities; (2) illegal, incompetent or negligent conduct by a license holder in his work; or (3) violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation adopted hereunder.

The Director will develop a public information program for subsurface sewage disposal system owners, which may include, but not be limited to, the use, operation and maintenance of on-site septic systems.

The Board of Health shall establish such fees as deemed necessary to implement this regulation.

The Chatham Health District is authorized to adopt regulations as provided under its Bylaws and Section 19a-243 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

This regulation shall become effective after review by the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Environmental Engineering Section and affirmative vote of the Board of Health, and sixty (60) days following publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the member towns of the District.

In any case where this regulation is found to be in conflict with any provision of the Public Health Code or any State Statute, the more restrictive shall apply. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remainder of said regulation shall not be affected thereby.

The Town of Old Saybrook, in accordance with C.G.S. § 7-247(b), does hereby establish a decentralized wastewater management district.

The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health and the environment of the Town of Old Saybrook by establishing a decentralized wastewater management district within which improvements to the treatment of Wastewater will occur by implementing the requirements as set forth herein. It is not the purpose of this ordinance to allow new construction on any Lot or to install an AT System as a means by which additional bedrooms or increased occupancy may occur, beyond that which would otherwise be permitted by the Public Health Code as applied to such Lot. Furthermore, compliance within this ordinance does not relieve any Property Owner or Person of the obligation to comply with all other rules, regulations and policies of the Town, the Public Health Code (including Technical Standards adopted thereunder) or the Department of Public Health.

As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE – A permanent non-habitable structure which is not served by a water supply and is used incidental to residential or non-residential buildings. Accessory Structures include, but are not limited to, attached and detached garages, covered entrance ways, screened and enclosed three-season (non-winterized) porches/sunrooms, open decks, tool and lawn equipment storage sheds, gazebos, and barns, etc. Accessory Structures also include in-ground and above-ground pools.

ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM - A sewage treatment system serving one or more buildings that utilizes a method of treatment other than a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System and that involves a discharge to the ground waters of the state.

AT [advanced treatment] SYSTEM – A type of Alternative Sewage Treatment System that provides reduction of effluent nitrogen concentration, as provided in the Upgrade Program Standards and the DEP Delegation.

AT LOT – (i) any Non-Water Proximity Lot that requires the installation of an AT System, as provided in Section 8C(3) herein, and (ii) any Water Proximity Lot.

AT PERMIT -- A permit evidencing the approval of, and issued by, the WPCA upon the WPCA's determination that an AT Lot complies with the requirements of this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards.

AT SYSTEM OPERATOR – A person who is qualified to provide operations and maintenance services for the specific AT Systems selected for use in the WWMD. An AT System Operator is required to meet training and experience requirements set forth by the WPCA and the DEP Delegation.

AT SYSTEM INSTALLER – A person who is qualified to install the AT Systems selected for use in the WWMD. AT System Installers are required to meet training and experience requirements set forth by the WPCA and the DEP Delegation.

BUILDING ADDITION – Any structural modification or alteration that results in an increase in habitable floor area of the building served that does not increase the design flow or required effective leaching area of the Subsurface Sewage Disposal System including, but not limited to, the modification of attic, basement or garage space into habitable space or the addition of dormers.

BUILDING CONVERSION – The act of winterizing a seasonal use building or portion thereof into year round use by providing one or more of the following: (i) a positive heating supply to the converted area; (ii) a potable water supply which is protected from freezing; or (iii) energy conservation in the form of insulation to protect from heat loss.

CHANGE IN USE – Any structural, mechanical or physical change to a building which allows the occupancy to increase; or any change in the activities within a building to expand or alter such building or the use thereof such that, when the building is fully utilized, the design flow or required effective leaching area of the Subsurface Sewage Disposal System will increase. A Change in Use also includes any internal change to a building which, while not increasing the square footage of habitable space, changes the configuration in such a way that there is an increase in design flow of the Subsurface Sewage Disposal System.

CONSTRUCTION – Any of the following activities: Building Addition; Building Conversion; Accessory Structure; Teardown/Rebuild; or new construction on a Vacant Lot or Lot.

COMMUNITY SEWERAGE SYSTEM – Any Sewerage System serving two or more residences in separate structures which is not connected to a municipal sewerage system or which is connected to a municipal sewerage system as a distinct and separately managed district or segment of such system.

DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM - Managed Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, managed Alternative Sewage Treatment Systems or Community Sewerage Systems that discharge sewage flows of less than five thousand gallons per day, are used to collect and treat domestic sewage, and involve a discharge to the ground waters of the state.

DEP - State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, acting by its Commissioner or duly authorized representative.

DEP DELEGATION – The delegation of authority from DEP to the WPCA to issue AT Permits.

DIRECTOR OF HEALTH - The Director of Health for the Town of Old Saybrook, or authorized agent (except such authorization shall not extend to issuing orders under the Public Health Code).

DPH - State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, acting by its Commissioner or duly authorized representative.

FAILED SYSTEM – Any Subsurface Sewage Disposal System or AT System that allows Wastewater to discharge or flow from it into the interior of any building served or into any storm drain, stream, water body, gutter, street, roadway or public place, or if Wastewater discharges from said system to the surface or subsurface of any property or otherwise so as to create a nuisance or condition detrimental to health as determined by the Director of Health or as designated by the Public Health Code.

FINAL INSPECTION – An inspection conducted by, as applicable, the Director of Health or the WPCA, after the Upgrade Program Standards have been implemented, but prior to the issuance of a WWMD Permit.

INITIAL INVESTIGATION – The first Investigation of (i) a Non-Water Proximity Lot, pursuant to Section 8 herein, or (ii) a Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot, pursuant to Section 7D herein. Initial Investigations shall be conducted by the Director of Health.

INVESTIGATION – An assessment by the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, of a Lot, a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System or an AT System that may include, but is not limited to, a review of system components including materials, size and location, and an assessment in order to determine adequate separation distance to maximum ground water and ledge rock and sizing of the leaching system. An Investigation may be conducted for, among other purposes, the following: for Initial Investigation and Final Inspection purposes; for the purpose of obtaining information to determine appropriate design parameters; and for the purpose of determining compliance with this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards.

LOT – A parcel of land within the WWMD that is occupied or capable of being occupied by one or more principal buildings and customarily incidental accessory buildings or uses, and which meets the minimum area, width, and other applicable requirements of the Town of Old Saybrook zoning regulations for the zone in which such parcel of land is located, or is a legal non-conforming parcel, as defined in such zoning regulations and which conforms to the ordinances of the Town of Old Saybrook.

MALFUNCTIONING SYSTEM – Any Subsurface Sewage Disposal System or AT System as applicable, that exhibits a condition or conditions which, if not timely corrected, will, in the judgment of the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, result in a Failed System. Backflow from leaching system into septic tank, wastewater overflowing the outlet baffle, back-up into the building sewer or riser, or evidence that the system is not performing as designed, is an indication of a Malfunctioning System.

PERSON – Any individual, group of individuals, corporation, limited liability company, association, partnership or public or private entity, including a district, county, city, town, or other government unit.

PHASED IMPLEMENTATION -- The gradual implementation of the Upgrade Program Standards, which shall take place over time, as set forth in Sections 7A and 8A herein.

PROPERTY OWNER – Any Person who alone, jointly or in common with others has legal title to any real property located in the WWMD.

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE - The State of Connecticut Public Health Code, including "Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems" established by DPH pursuant to Section 19-13-B103d(b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, as established pursuant to C.G.S. § 19a-36, as may be amended.

SEPTIC TANK CLEANER – Shall mean any septic tank cleaner licensed by the State of Connecticut in accordance with C.G.S. § 20-341a et seq. and registered with the Director of Health in accordance with this Ordinance.

SEPTIC TANK INSTALLER – Shall mean any septic tank installer licensed by the State of Connecticut in accordance with C.G.S. § 20-341a et seq. and registered with the Director of Health in accordance with this Ordinance.

SERVICE CONTRACT – A written contract between a Property Owner and an AT System Operator which provides for operation and maintenance services for an AT System on a Property Owner’s Lot. Service Contracts shall meet the guidelines set forth by the WPCA and the DEP Delegation, which will include periodic visits to and inspections of the AT System, regular operation and maintenance as recommended by the AT System manufacturer, remote monitoring of the AT System and responses to alarm conditions to remedy alarm conditions, periodic sampling and analysis per the DEP Delegation, and written reports in support of the AT System Permit renewal process. Service Contracts shall be for a period of 5 years or the life of the AT Permit, whichever is less. Service Contracts shall be signed by both the Property Owner and the AT System Operator, and a copy shall be provided to the WPCA. SEWERAGE SYSTEM – Any device, equipment, appurtenance, facility and method for collecting, transporting, receiving, treating, disposing of or discharging Wastewater, including, but not limited to, Decentralized Systems within the WWMD.

SSDS LOT – (i) any Non-Water Proximity Lot with an existing Subsurface Sewage Disposal System that satisfies the Public Heath Code and the Upgrade Program Standards without the need to install an AT System, as provided in Section 8C(1) herein; (ii) any Non-Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot for which the proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System satisfies the Public Health Code and the Upgrade Program Standards, as provided in Section 8D herein; and (iii) any SSDS Upgrade Lot.

SSDS PERMIT – A permit evidencing the approval of, and issued by, the Director of Health upon the Director of Health's determination that an SSDS Lot complies with the requirements of this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards. An SSDS Permit shall set forth standards for operation and maintenance of a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System and any permit conditions and provisions as are set forth in the Public Health Code. An SSDS Permit shall be deemed equivalent to a Permit to Discharge pursuant to Section 19-13-B103e(h) of the Public Health Code.

SSDS UPGRADE LOT – Any Non-Water Proximity Lot with an existing Sewerage System that requires upgrading in order to satisfy the Upgrade Program Standards requirements but does not require an AT System, as provided in Section 8C(2) herein.

SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM – A system consisting of a house sewer, a septic tank followed by a leaching system, any necessary pumps and siphons, and any ground water control system on which the operation of the leaching system is dependent.

TEARDOWN/REBUILD – Any tearing down and rebuilding of all or a portion of a structure, or the repair, replacement or rebuilding of a damaged structure.

UPGRADE PROGRAM STANDARDS - The program and standards set forth in that certain document entitled "Town of Old Saybrook Wastewater Upgrade Program Standards," as such Upgrade Program Standards may be revised from time to time in accordance with the procedure set forth therein. A copy of the Upgrade Program Standards as in effect on the effective date of this ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Upgrade Program Standards, as revised from time to time, shall be on file at the offices of the WPCA and the Director of Health. The Upgrade Program Standards set forth remediation standards, including pollutant limits, performance requirements, design parameters and technical standards for application to sewage discharges in the WWMD for the improvement of Wastewater treatment to protect public health and the environment.

WASTEWATER – Domestic and commercial sewage consisting of water and human excretions or other waterborne wastes incidental to the occupancy of a residential building or a non-residential building, as may be detrimental to the public health or environment, but not including manufacturing process water, cooling water, wastewater from water softening equipment, blow down from heating or cooling equipment, and water from cellar or floor drains, or surface water from roofs, paved surfaces or yard drains.

WATER PROXIMITY LOT – A Lot that is designated as a Water Proximity Lot on the map identified in Section 5A herein. Every Water Proximity Lot shall be deemed to be an AT Lot.

WWMD - The decentralized wastewater management district in the Town of Old Saybrook established in accordance with C.G.S. § 7-247(b) and this ordinance.

WWMD PERMIT – WWMD Permit shall mean, as applicable, an SSDS Permit and/or an AT Permit.

WPCA - The Town of Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority acting by its duly authorized agents.

In accordance with C.G.S. §§ 7-245 and 7-247, the following approvals and consultations have occurred:

A. On _________, 2009, the Commissioner of DEP approved an engineering report entitled _________________________, and dated ______, 2009, which report has determined that the existing Sewerage Systems within the WWMD may be detrimental to public health or the environment and that Decentralized Systems are required.

B. On _______, 2009, the Commissioner of DPH concurred with such DEP approval after consultation with the Director of Health in accordance with C.G.S. § 7-247(b).

C. The Director of Health has approved this ordinance pursuant to the Director of Health’s authority under C.G.S. § 19a-207, and C.G.S. § 7-247(a).

D. The Town of Old Saybrook, in consultation with the Director of Health, has acted in conjunction with the WPCA to establish the WWMD.

E. On ______________, 2009, WPCA applied to DEP for delegation to issue AT Permits.

F. On _______________, 2009, the Director of Health authorized certain individuals working on behalf of the WPCA to act as agents of the Director of Health for determinations made under 19-13-B104a, et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies for Alternative Sewage Treatment Systems.

A. The Town of Old Saybrook WWMD is hereby established, and the boundaries of the WWMD are shown on the map entitled "Old Saybrook Wastewater Management District Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut," prepared by Fuss & O'Neill and dated __________, 2009, which map is on file in the town clerk’s office and is hereby made a part of this ordinance.

B. The town clerk shall record a copy of this ordinance in the Old Saybrook Land Records and shall index this ordinance in the grantor index in the name of each Property Owner as listed in the records of the assessor’s office on the effective date of this ordinance.

It shall be unlawful to discharge Wastewater in the WWMD unless a WWMD Permit authorizing said discharge has been obtained pursuant to this ordinance, except as follows:

A. A Lot for which a permit has been issued by the DEP pursuant to C.G.S. § 22a-430 shall not be required to obtain a WWMD Permit so long as such DEP permit is in full force and effect. For purposes of this Section 6, except as provided in the DEP Delegation, a WWMD Permit shall not be deemed to be a permit issued by the DEP pursuant to C.G.S. § 22a-430.

B. Due to the Phased Implementation, no Lot shall be required to have a WWMD Permit until an order is issued for such Lot, or the Property Owner is otherwise contacted by the Director of Health in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

A. Implementation of the Upgrade Program Standards for Water Proximity Lots shall take place in phases over time. Therefore, the Upgrade Program Standards shall not be deemed to apply to any particular Water Proximity Lot until the earliest to occur of the following:

(i) At the time of a proposed a) lot line revision or other activities that affect soil characteristics or hydraulic conditions, or b) Change in Use or Construction on a Water Proximity Lot that has an existing Sewerage System, the Director of Health shall issue an order to abandon the existing Sewerage System pursuant to Section 10A(1) herein, and the WPCA shall issue an order to install an AT System pursuant to Section 10A(2) herein.

(ii) At the time of proposed Construction on a Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot, the Director of Health shall conduct an Initial Investigation of said Lot, as set forth in Section 7D herein;

(2) Malfunctioning or Failed System. At such time as the Director of Health issues to the Property Owner of a Water Proximity Lot an Order to Abate a Nuisance or Health Hazard pursuant to Section 19-13-B103c(f) of the Public Health Code, or identifies a Malfunctioning System, the Director of Health shall issue an order to abandon the existing Sewerage System pursuant to Section 10A(1) herein, and the WPCA shall issue an order to install an AT System pursuant to Section 10A(2) herein; and

(3) In Due Course. In due course during the Phased Implementation, if the Director of Health and the WPCA have not already issued orders to the Property Owner of a Water Proximity Lot pursuant to Subsections (1)(i) or (2) above, the Director of Health and the WPCA shall issue such orders.

(4) In no event shall the design flow of the Change in Use or Construction exceed that which would otherwise be allowed for an SSDS Lot.

B. At the applicable time in accordance with the Phased Implementation, the Director of Health shall issue a notice of entry into the program under the Phased Implementation to each Property Owner and thereafter conduct an Initial Investigation as provided herein. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, the Property Owner or its designee/agent shall file with the Director of Health an application (on a form to be provided by the Director of Health) pursuant to Section 19-13-B103e(c) of the Public Health Code. The Director of Health may issue such notice to a Property Owner simultaneously with the issuance of its order pursuant to Section 10A(1) herein and the WPCA's order pursuant to Section 10A(2) herein.

C. Except as set forth in Section 7D below, (i) every Water Proximity Lot shall have an AT System and (ii) Water Proximity Lots that are not vacant lots shall not require an Initial Investigation.

D. Prior to the start of proposed Construction on a Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot, the Director of Health shall conduct an Initial Investigation of said Lot. The Initial Investigation shall be for the purpose of determining whether a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System that complies with the requirements of the Public Health Code and the Upgrade Program Standards could be installed on said Lot. As part of the Initial Investigation, the Property Owner may provide, or the Director of Health may request, additional information to determine compliance with this Section.

(1) In the event the Director of Health determines that a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System compliant with the Public Health Code and Upgrade Program Standards is feasible on said Lot, then the WPCA shall issue an order to install an AT System pursuant to Section 10A(2) herein.

(2) In the event the Director of Health determines that a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System compliant with the Public Health Code and Upgrade Program Standards is not feasible on said Lot, then said Lot shall not be eligible for a WWMD Permit. Neither a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System nor an AT System shall be installed on said Lot.

(3) In no event shall the design flow of the Construction exceed that which would otherwise be allowed for an SSDS Lot.

E. An AT Permit for a Water Proximity Lot shall be issued following compliance with the orders issued pursuant to this Section 7.

§ 8. Implementation of Upgrade Program Standards – Non-Water Proximity Lots.

A. Implementation of the Upgrade Program Standards for Non-Water Proximity Lots shall take place in phases over time. Therefore, the Upgrade Program Standards shall not be deemed to apply to any particular Non-Water Proximity Lot until the earliest to occur of the following:

(1) Change in Use or Construction. Prior to the start of a proposed a) lot line revision or other activities that affect soil characteristics or hydraulic conditions, or b) Change in Use or Construction on a Non-Water Proximity Lot, the Director of Health shall conduct the Initial Investigation of such Non-Water Proximity Lot;

(2) Malfunctioning or Failed System. At such time as the Director of Health issues to the Property Owner of a Non-Water Proximity Lot an Order to Abate a Nuisance or Health Hazard pursuant to Section 19-13-B103c(f) of the Public Health Code, or identifies a Malfunctioning System, the Director of Health shall conduct the Initial Investigation of such Non-Water Proximity Lot; and

(3) In Due Course. In due course during the Phased Implementation, if an Initial Investigation of a Non-Water Proximity Lot has not already occurred pursuant to Subsections (1) or (2) above, the Director of Health shall contact the Property Owner to schedule an Initial Investigation of such Non-Water Proximity Lot after issuing a notice as provided herein.

B. At the applicable time in accordance with the Phased Implementation, the Director of Health shall issue a notice of entry into the program under the Phased Implementation to each Property Owner. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, the Property Owner or its designee/agent shall file with the Director of Health an application (on a form to be provided by the Director of Health) pursuant to Section 19-13-B103e(c) of the Public Health Code.

C. The Initial Investigation of every Non-Water Proximity Lot with a Sewerage System shall be for the purpose of determining whether such Sewerage System requires upgrading to satisfy the requirements of the Upgrade Program Standards. As part of the Initial Investigation, the Property Owner may provide, or the Director of Health may request, additional information to determine compliance with this Section.

(1) If the existing Sewerage System on a Non-Water Proximity Lot satisfies the Public Health Code and the Upgrade Program Standards requirements and does not require an AT System, such Lot shall be deemed to be an SSDS Lot. The Director of Health shall issue an SSDS Permit for such Non-Water Proximity Lot.

(2) If the existing Sewerage System on a Non-Water Proximity Lot requires upgrading in order to satisfy the Upgrade Program Standards requirements but does not require an AT System, such Lot shall be deemed to be an SSDS Upgrade Lot. The Director of Health shall issue an order to upgrade the existing Subsurface Sewage Disposal System pursuant to Section 9A herein.

(3) If the existing Sewerage System on a Non-Water Proximity Lot requires, in addition to satisfying other elements of the Upgrade Program Standards, the installation of an AT System, such Lot shall be deemed to be an AT Lot. The Director of Health shall issue an order to abandon the existing Sewerage System pursuant to Section 10A(1) herein, and the WPCA shall issue an order to install an AT System pursuant to Section 10A(2) herein.

D. The Initial Investigation of every Non-Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot shall be for the purpose of determining whether the proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System for such Lot satisfies the requirements of the Public Health Code and the Upgrade Program Standards. If the proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System on a Non-Water Proximity Lot that is also a Vacant Lot satisfies the Public Health Code and the Upgrade Program Standards requirements (including but not limited to the Upgrade Program Standards requirements for Vacant Lots), such Lot shall be deemed to be an SSDS Lot. Upon Final Inspection of such SSDS Lot following construction of said proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal System, and a determination by the Director of Health that such construction satisfies the requirements of this ordinance, the Public Health Code, and the Upgrade Program Standards, the Director of Health shall issue an SSDS Permit for such Lot.

E. A WWMD Permit for a Non-Water Proximity Lot shall be issued following a Final Inspection and, if applicable, compliance with any orders issued pursuant to this Section 8.

A. Orders. The Director of Health shall order the Property Owner of an SSDS Upgrade Lot to upgrade such Lot’s Sewerage System in accordance with the Upgrade Program Standards.

B. SSDS Permits. Upon Final Inspection of an SSDS Upgrade Lot following an upgrade pursuant to an order, and a determination by the Director of Health that such upgrade satisfies the requirements of this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards, the Director of Health shall issue an SSDS Permit for such Lot.

(1) The Director of Health shall order the Property Owner of an AT Lot with an existing Sewerage System to abandon such AT Lot’s Sewerage System.

(2) Upon issuance of such Director of Health order to abandon, the WPCA shall order such Property Owner to install an AT System using an AT System Installer and in accordance with the Upgrade Program Standards. No such WPCA order shall be issued until after written notice to the Property Owner and a public hearing in accordance with C.G.S. § 7-257.

B. AT Permits. Upon Final Inspection of an AT Lot following the installation of an AT System pursuant to an order, and a determination by the WPCA that such installation satisfies the requirements of this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards, and upon receiving a copy of a valid executed Service Contract between the owner of the AT Lot and an AT System Operator, the WPCA shall issue an AT Permit for such Lot. The permit shall state that failure to notify the WPCA of a termination or expiration of such Service Contract or a change in the AT System Operator shall be a violation of the AT Permit.

A. A WWMD Permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of issue unless sooner revoked as provided in Section 15 herein.

(1) The renewal process for SSDS Permits shall be consistent with Section 19-13-B103e(h)(2) of the Public Health Code and this Section 11B.

(2) The Property Owner shall have the septic tank inspected and cleaned by a Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer properly licensed by the State of Connecticut to perform such service.

(3) The Property Owner or contracted Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer shall inform the Director of Health at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the inspection and cleaning except in case of emergency.

(4) The inspection and cleaning must be performed within ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the existing SSDS Permit.

(5) The Director of Health shall have the right to observe the inspection and cleaning at his/her discretion, and to require such tests, based upon conditions observed and as the Director of Health deems appropriate, to determine whether or not said system is malfunctioning or failing.

(6) The report on inspection and cleaning of the septic tank must disclose to the Director of Health if there is evidence of a Malfunctioning System or a Failed System. Any Malfunctioning System noted must be repaired within sixty (60) days of such inspection and cleaning, or the Director of Health may issue a temporary permit for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Any Failed System must be repaired on a schedule as determined by the Director of Health.

(7) The Director of Health shall have the authority to waive the inspection and cleaning of the septic tank if he/she determines that inspection and cleaning are not necessary because of limited use or because of a recent cleaning or inspection of the septic tank or Subsurface Sewage Disposal System.

(8) Applications for permit renewals shall be on forms developed by the Director of Health and include elements for consideration, as provided above.

(1) The renewal process for AT Permits shall be consistent with the DEP Delegation and this Section 11C.

(2) The Property Owner shall have the AT System inspected by its AT System Operator prior to renewal of the AT Permit. Said inspection shall include a report to be filed in connection with the AT Permit renewal for approval by WPCA summarizing the condition of the AT System and its components, the septic tank and (to the extent visible) the leaching system. The report shall summarize operational history of the AT System over the life of the current permit, including any malfunctions and remedial measures taken. The AT System Operator shall note any deficiencies or malfunctions in the AT System that would negatively impact performance of the AT System and shall recommend (and Property Owner shall implement) corrective measures to remedy such deficiencies prior to such permit renewal.

(3) Unless in the discretion of the WPCA there is a valid reason to the contrary, the septic tank associated with the AT System shall be inspected and cleaned by a Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer registered with the Director of Health as provided herein, properly licensed by the State of Connecticut to perform such service.

(4) The Property Owner or AT System Operator shall inform the WPCA at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the AT system inspection, except in case of emergency.

(5) The Property Owner or contracted Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer shall inform the WPCA at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the inspection and cleaning except in case of emergency.

(6) The inspection and cleaning must be performed within ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the existing AT Permit.

(7) The WPCA shall have the right to observe the inspection and cleaning at its discretion, and to perform such tests as the WPCA deems appropriate to determine whether or not said system is malfunctioning or failing.

(8) The report on inspection and cleaning of the AT System must disclose to the Director of Health and WPCA if there is evidence of a Malfunctioning System or a Failed System. Any Malfunctioning System noted must be repaired within sixty (60) days, or the WPCA may issue a temporary permit for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Any Failed System must be repaired on a schedule as determined by the Director of Health.

(9) The WPCA shall have the authority to waive the inspection and cleaning of the AT System and its septic tank if it determines that inspection and cleaning are not necessary because of limited use or because of a recent cleaning or inspection of the AT System.

(1) Any Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installers providing services under this Ordinance shall be licensed by the State of Connecticut and be registered with the Director of Health and WPCA. The criteria and standards for such registration shall be adopted by the Director of Health and WPCA.

(2) All Septic Tank Cleaners and Septic Tank Installers shall file reports as required by WPCA and Director of Health on forms approved by them, within thirty (30) calendar days of such inspection, through a reporting system as directed by the WPCA and Director of Health. Any Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer filing reports using any other method may be removed from the registration list as provided in the criteria and standards provided above. The Director of Health and the WPCA shall provide training on the reporting system at no cost to the Septic Tank Cleaner or Septic Tank Installer.

A. SSDS Lots. Every SSDS Lot shall be subject to standards established by the Director of Health for effective supervision, management, control, operation and maintenance. The Property Owner shall operate and maintain the Subsurface Sewage Disposal System in accordance with such standards, which shall be set forth in the SSDS Permit.

B. AT Lots. Every AT Lot shall be subject to standards for effective supervision, management, control, operation, monitoring and maintenance, which standards shall be established by the WPCA in accordance with the DEP Delegation. The Property Owner shall execute a Service Contract with an AT System Operator to operate and maintain the AT System in accordance with such standards, which shall be set forth in the AT Permit, and in accordance with any additional standards established by the manufacturer of the AT System. In the event repair or replacement work is required in order to ensure the continued effective operation of an AT System, the Property Owner shall apply for a repair permit from the WPCA prior to conducting such work.

A. The Director of Health and the WPCA shall have the right of entry to any land in the WWMD for the purpose of conducting Investigations for the purpose of determining compliance with this ordinance and the Upgrade Program Standards and performing such tasks as the Director of Health or the WPCA determine are advisable for such purpose. Except in the case of an emergency, if access to the interior of a structure is required, the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, shall send a written notice to the Property Owner.

B. If access to the property or structure is denied, the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, shall notify the Property Owner in writing that the WWMD Permit for such Lot shall be revoked. The Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, shall determine the severity of the situation and may revoke the WWMD Permit immediately if he/she deems this appropriate, and for WPCA actions, thereafter hold a hearing in accordance with its regulations. In the event access is denied prior to the initial Investigation (i.e., prior to the issuance of a WWMD Permit), the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, may initiate legal proceedings in accordance with Section 15B herein and assess penalties in accordance with Section 18 herein.

A. SSDS Lots. At the time of the Initial Investigation of a Lot that is not a Vacant Lot, for the purpose of determining whether such Lot meets the criteria to be designated as an SSDS Lot, the Director of Health may grant exceptions from one or more of the provisions of the Public Health Code in accordance with Section 19-13-B103d.

B. AT Lots. In the event that an AT System is not feasible to install on an AT Lot, the WPCA may propose alternatives (for example, a Community Sewerage System) to one or more of the provisions of the Upgrade Program Standards; provided, however, that any such alternatives are approved by the DEP, DPH, and/or the local Director of Health as applicable.

A. Enforcement of this ordinance as to each Lot prior to a determination as to whether such Lot is an SSDS Lot or an AT Lot shall be the responsibility of the Director of Health. Enforcement of this ordinance for SSDS Lots shall be the responsibility of the Director of Health. Enforcement of this ordinance for AT Lots shall be the responsibility of the WPCA, except that, to the extent there is a Public Health Code violation on an AT Lot, the Director of Health shall also have enforcement authority.

B. In the event that: (i) a Lot within the WWMD is determined by the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, to be out of compliance with the provisions of this ordinance or the Upgrade Program Standards; (ii) an AT System or a Subsurface Sewage Disposal System is a Malfunctioning System or a Failed System; or (iii) the Property Owner has not complied with the conditions of the WWMD Permit, the following actions shall be taken by the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable:

(1) If a WWMD Permit has been issued for such Lot, the WWMD Permit shall be revoked and the Property Owner shall be given notice of said revocation and of the violation(s) occurring and shall be ordered to immediately abate the condition(s) cited in such notice. Such notice shall comply with the provisions of Subsection (3) below.

(2) If a WWMD Permit has not been issued for such Lot, the Property Owner shall be given notice of the violation(s) occurring and shall be ordered to immediately abate the condition(s) cited in such notice. Such notice shall comply with the provisions of Subsection (3) below.

(ii) Set forth the violation(s) of this ordinance, the Public Health Code, the Upgrade Program Standards, the applicable rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, or the WWMD Permit.

(iii) Specify a specific date for the correction of the violation(s), including interim or emergency measures.

(iv) Be served upon the Property Owner personally, or by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the Property Owner at the address of the Property Owner as set forth in the records of the town assessor, or, if applicable, be served upon a resident agent for the receipt of service for the Property Owner as designated in the records of the Connecticut Secretary of State. If one of more Persons to whom such notice is addressed cannot be found after diligent effort to do so, service may be made upon such Persons by posting the notice on or about the property that is the site of the violation(s).

(v) Be filed in the records of the Director of Health and/or the WPCA records, as applicable. Notification shall be forwarded to the building official of the Town of Old Saybrook.

(4) In the event an Investigation of the Lot is required in order to determine whether the violation(s) have been corrected, then, at the end of the period of time allowed for the correction of the violation(s), the Director of Health or WPCA, as applicable, shall conduct an Investigation of the Lot.

(i) If, upon such Investigation, the violation(s) are determined to have been corrected, the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, shall reinstate or reissue, as applicable, a WWMD Permit.

(ii) If, upon such Investigation, the violation(s) are determined not to have been corrected, the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, may seek such relief as may be available at law or equity, in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Public Health Code, the Code of the Town of Old Saybrook or this ordinance.

(5) In the event an Investigation of the Lot is not required in order to determine whether the violation(s) have been corrected, then, if, at the end of the period of time allowed for the correction of the violation(s), the violation(s) are determined not to have been corrected, the Director of Health or the WPCA, as applicable, may seek such relief as may be available at law or equity, in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Public Health Code, the Code of the Town of Old Saybrook or this ordinance.

(1) Any Property Owner who receives a decision of the Director of Health that is adverse to the Property Owner may appeal such decision of the Director of Health in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S. § 19a-229.

(1) Any Property Owner who has been issued an order by the Director of Health pursuant to Section 10(A)(1) herein shall have the right to appeal such order to the DPH in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S. § 19a-229.

(2) Any Property Owner who has been issued an order by the WPCA pursuant to Section 10(A)(2) herein shall have the right to appeal such order in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S. § 7-257.

(3) Any Property Owner who is aggrieved by a decision of the WPCA to deny an AT Permit to such Property Owner shall have the right to appeal such decision as provided in C.G.S. § 22a-437.

(4) Any Property Owner who has been issued a notice of violation and abatement order by the WPCA shall have the right to appeal said notice in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S. § 22a-437.

Fees may be established and are hereby authorized and assessed as follows: For permits issued by the Director of Health, by the Board of Directors for the Connecticut River Area Health District in accordance with § 19a-243 for Public Health Code; and for the WPCA, consistent with Town Ordinances and § 7-245 of the General Statutes, the fee schedule shall be in writing and shall be effective upon majority vote of the WPCA following a public hearing, of which legal notice has been published in a newspaper having a general circulation in the Town of Old Saybrook not less than five (5) days prior to such hearing, and upon subsequent publication of notice of such adoption in a newspaper having a general circulation in the Town of Old Saybrook.

As provided in § 7-148(c)10 Conn. Gen. Stat., any person who shall violate any provision of this ordinance or who shall refuse or fail to obey an order of the Director of Health or the WPCA to comply with this ordinance, the Upgrade Program Standards or any rule or regulation adopted hereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100 for each day of each violation, as assessed by the WPCA, after expiration of the specified reasonable consideration period as determined by the WPCA; provided, however, that the penalty set forth in this section is not exclusive and, when the violation is also a violation of the provisions of any federal, state or local law, then such additional penalty, or remedy or enforcement set forth in any such statute, regulation or ordinance, shall pertain in addition to the penalty provisions of this Section, including but not limited to the powers the Director of Health.

Except as provided below, as to the WWMD, this ordinance shall supersede Chapter 173 of the Code of the Town of Old Saybrook (Ordinance 75, Sewage Disposal Systems). Said Chapter 173 shall remain in full force and effect as to:

B. each Lot within the WWMD until such time as an order is issued for said Lot or the Property Owner of said Lot is otherwise contacted by the Director of Health in accordance with Sections 7 or 8 herein.

A. AT Permits: Within ten (10) business days of the change in ownership of an AT Lot for which an AT Permit has been issued, such new Property Owner shall file with the WPCA, on a form provided by the WPCA such information as it may request, including but not limited to, any change in the information on such permit, evidence that the Service Contract has been assigned to the new owner(s), and confirmation that the new owner(s) understands and will comply with the WWMD Ordinance and permits issued thereunder. Upon receipt, review and approval of the completed form by the WPCA, the AT Permit shall be transferred to the new Property Owner.

B. SSDS Permits: Within ten (10) business days of the change in ownership of an SSDS Lot for which an SSDS Permit has been issued, such new Property Owner(s) shall file with the Director of Health on a form provided by such Director of Health, any changes in the information on such permit, and confirmation that the new owner(s) understands and shall comply with the WWMD Ordinance. Upon receipt, review and approval of the completed form by the Director of Health, the SSDS Permit shall be transferred to the new Property Owner.

Any liens associated with the WWMD recorded against a Lot within the WWMD in favor of the Town, the WPCA, or the Director of Health shall be paid/discharged in full upon the transfer of ownership for consideration.

Wastewater Management District Resolutions and Referendum Questions

                      TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK

                       BOARD OF SELECTMEN

            RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN APPROPRIATION

OF $42,171,200 FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DECENTRALIZED

    WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DECENTRALIZED

 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND A BOND AUTHORIZATION IN

AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $42,171,200 TO FINANCE SAID APPROPRIATION,

   AND RECOMMEND1NG THAT THE TOWN PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING OF

               ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE SYSTEMS

     RESOLVED, that the Board of Selectmen recommends that the

Town of Old Saybrook aappropriate $42,171,200 for the design and

construction of decentralized wastewater management systems within

the Decentralized Wastewater Management District to be established

pursuant to a Town ordinance. The appropriation may be expended for

construction related costs, including research, design and

construction, design review and construction administration,

program related costs, including program development and

management, advanced treatment selection processes, and remote

monitoring; and financing cost, including legal and administrative

fees, interest expense on temporary borrowings, and other costs

related to financing the project, in the the amounts as follows:

          Construction Related Costs          $39,896,200

          Program Related Costs                   275,000

          Financing and Bond Issuance Cost     $2,000,000

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

          TOTAL                               $42,171,200

     The appropriation shall include any federal. state or other

grants-in-aid received for the project. The Board of Selectmen may

reduce or modify the scope of the project, and the entire

appropriation may he expended on the project as so reduced or

modified. The amount authorized to he expended for each purpose

shall not exceed the amount set forth opposite each purpose,

provided that the Board of Selectmen, upon the recommendation of

the Water Pollution Control Authority and with Board of Finance

approval, may, by resolution, transfer unexpended funds among

purposes, so long as the total appropriation is not increased.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Selectmen recommends that

the Town of Old Saybrook finance the appropriation by (i) issuing

its bonds, notes,or other obligations in an amount not to exceed

S42,171,200, which bonds, notes or other obligations may be secured

in whole or in part by revenues from property owners, by the full

faith and credit of the Town, or both, (ii) using Town funds or in-

kind service; for the project, and (iii) using any federal, state

or other grants-in-aid or other funds received for the project.

 -FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Selectmen recommends that

the Town of Old Saybrook provide ongoing funding of administrative

costs for the decentralized wastewater management systems within

the Decentralized Wastewater Management District at funding levels

acceptable to the Town and the State.

                    TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK

                     BOARD OF SELECTMEN

 RESOLUTION TO CALL SPECIAL TOWN MEETING AND REFERENDUM VOTE

     WHEREAS, the Board of Selectmen has approved an ordinance

to establish the Decentralized Wastewater Management District

(the "District"); and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Selectmen has recommended that the

Town of Old Saybrook appropriate $42,171,200 for the design

and construction of decentralized wastewater management

systems within the District and issue the Town's bonds, notes

or other obligations in an amount not to exceed $42,171,200,

and that the Town provide ongoing funding of administrative

costs for the systems (the "Project"), and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Finance has recommended this

appropriation and bond authorization and ongoing funding.

     BE IT RESOLVED, that the ordinance entitled

"Decentralized Wastewater Management District" (the

"Ordinance"), as approved by the Board of Selectmen, shall be

submitted to a Special Town Meeting to be held on Wednesday,

July 29, 2009 in accordance with the attached Warning of

Special Town Meeting.

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the attached detailed

appropriation and bonding resolution for the Project (the

"Resolution") is hereby approved and shall be submitted to a

Special Town Meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 in

accordance with the attached Warning of Special Town Meeting.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Connecticut General

Statutes Section 7-7, as amended, the Board of Selectmen

hereby submits the Ordinance and the Resolution to a vote upon

the voting machines or the ballot on Tuesday, August 11, 2009

between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Ordinance and the Resolution

shall be placed upon the voting machines or the ballot under

the following headings:

      QUESTION 1. SHALL THE TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK

      APPROVE THE DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER

      MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE?

      QUESTION 2. SHALL THE TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK

      APPROPRIATE $42,171,200 FOR THE DESIGN AND

      CONSTRUCTIQN OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER

      MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DECENTRALIZED

      WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ISSUE THE

      TOWN'S BONDS, NOTES OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS IN AN

      AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $42,171,200 TO FINANCE SAID

      APPROPRIATION, AND PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING OF

      ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE SYSTEMS?

     Voters approving said Ordinance will vote "Yes" and those

opposing said Ordinance will vote "No", Voters approving said

Resolution will vote "Yes" and those opposing said Resolution

will vote "No".

     Voting will be in the Old Savbrook High School Gymnasium,

1111 Boston Post Road, Old Savhrook, Connecticut. Persons

qualified to vote in town meetings of the Town of Old Savbrook

who are not electors shall vote in the Old Saybrook High

School Gymnasium, 1111 Boston Post Road, Old Saybrook,

Connecticut. Absentee ballots will be available from the Town

Clerk's Office.

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that, in their discretion, the Town

Clerk is authorized to prepare a concise explanatory text

regarding said Resolution, and the First Selectman is

authorized to prepare additional explanatory materials

regarding said Resolution, such text and explanatory materials

to he subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and to be

prepared and distributed in accordance with Section 9-369b of

the Connecticut General Statutes.

                              BOARD OF SELECTMEN

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

                               Michael A. Pace

                               First Selectman

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

                               William A. Peace

                               Selectman

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

                               Velma Thomas

                               Selectman

                       TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK

                       SPECIAL TOWN MEETING

      RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE $42,171,200 FOR THE DESIGN AND

        CONSTRUCTION OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

      SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

  DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF BONDS, NOTES OR OTHER

 OBLIGATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $42,171,200 TO FINANCE SAID

        APPROPRIATION, AND TO PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING OF

               ADMINSTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE SYSTEMS

BE IT RESOLVED:

SECTION 1. That the Town of Old Saybrook appropriate $42,171,200

for the design and construction of decentralize wastewater

management systems within the Decentralized Wastewater Management

District to be established pursuant to a Town ordinance. The

appropriation may be expended for construction related costs,

including research, design and construction, design review and

construction administration: program related costs, including

program development and management, advanced treatment selection

processes, and remote monitoring: and financing costs, including

legal and administrative fees, interest expense on temporary

borrowings, and other costs related to financing the project, in

the amounts as follows:

         Construction Related Costs      $39,896,200

         Program Related Costs               275,000

         Financing and Bond Issuance Cost  2,000,000

                                         -----------

         TOTAL                           $42,171,200

      The appropriation shall include any federal, state or other

grants-in-aid received for the project, The Board of Selectmen may

reduce or modify the scope of the project, and the entire

appropriation may be expended on the project as so reduced or

modified. The amount authorized to he expended for each purpose

shall not exceed the amount set forth opposite each purpose,

provided that the Board of Selectmen, upon the recommendation of

the Water Pollution Control Authority and with Board of Finance

approval, may, by resolution, transfer unexpended funds among

purposes, so long as the total appropriation is not increased.

     SECTION 2. That the Town of Old Saybrook finance the

appropriation by (i) issuing its bonds, notes or other obligations

in an amount not to exceed $42,171,200, (ii) using Town funds or

in-kind services for the project, and (iii) using any federal,

state or other grants-in-aid or other funds received for the

project. The bonds, notes or other obligations may, in whole or in

part, be (i) payable solely from all rates, charges, rents, fees,

assessments and other realized income derived or to be derived

from the ownership, operation, use of services of the

decentralized wastewater management systems, including, but not

limited to all decentralized wastewater management systems

connection and use charges and benefit assessments pertaining to

the decentralize wastewater management systems (hereinafter the

"Revenues"), or (ii) general obligations of the Town secured by

the irrevocable pledge of the full faith and credit of the Town,

or both. The bonds, notes or other obligations shall be issued

pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended. The

bonds, notes or other obligations may be sold as a single issue or

consolidated with any other authorized issues of bonds or notes of

the Town. The bonds, notes or other obligations may be in the form

of project loan obligations issued to the State of Connecticut

under the State's Clean Water Fund Program. The Treasurer shall

keep a record of the bonds, notes or other obligations. The bonds,

notes or other obligations shall be signed in the name and on

behalf of the Town by the First Selectman and Treasurer, shall

hear the Town seal or a facsimile thereof and shall each recite

that every requirement of law relating to its issue has been fully

complied with and that such bond, note or other obligation is

within every debt and other limit prescribed by law. The terms,

details and particulars of such bonds, notes or other obligations

shall be determined by the Board of Selectmen and Treasurer. Said

bonds, notes and other obligations shall be sold by the Board of

Selectmen and Treasurer at public sale, by negotiation or to the

State under the Clean Water Fund Program, in their discretion. If

the bonds, notes or other obligations are sold by negotiation, the

purchase agreement shall he approved by the Board of Finance.

     SECTION 3. That the First Selectman and Treasurer are

authorized to issue temporary notes in anticipation of the receipt

of the proceeds of said bonds, notes, or other obligations,

including issuing and renewing temporary notes in the form of

interim funding obligations issued to the State of Connecticut

under the State's Clean Water Fund Program in anticipation of the

receipt of the proceeds of said bonds, notes, other obligations or

project loan obligations. The temporary notes shall be signed by

the First Selectman and Treasurer and shall bear the Town seal or

a facsimile thereof The temporary notes shall he issued with

maturity dates in accordance with the Connecticut General

Statutes, as amended, or the State's Clean Water Fund Program, as

applicable. The temporaly notes shall each recite that every

requirement of law relating to its issue has been fully complied

with, that such note is within every debt and other limit

prescribed by law, and that the notes, in whole or in part, are

(i) payable solely from the Revenues or (ii) general obligations

of the Town secured by the irrevocable pledge of the full faith

and credit of the Town, or both. The net interest cost on such

notes, including renewals thereof, and the expense of preparing,

issuing, and marketing such notes, to the extent paid from the

proceeds from the issuance of bonds, notes, other obligations or

project loan obligations, shall he included as a cost of the

appropriation.

     SECTION 4. That the Town hereby declares its official intent

under Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986, as amended, that the project costs may be paid from

temporary advances of available funds and that the Town reasonably

expects to reimburse any such advances from the proceeds of

borrowings in an aggregate principal amount not in excess of the

amount of borrowing authorized for the project; that the First

Selectman and Treasurer are authorized to bind the Town pursuant

to such representations and agreements as they deem necessary or

advisable in order to ensure and maintain the continued exemption

from federal income taxation of interest on the bonds, notes or

temporary notes authorized by this resolution, if issued on a tax-

exempt basis, including covenants to pay rebates of investment

earnings to the United States in future years; and that the First

Selectman and Treasurer are authorized to make representations and

agreements for the benefit of the holders of the bonds, notes or

temporary notes to provide secondary market disclosure information

and to execute and deliver on behalf of the Town an agreement to

provide such information with such terms and conditions as they,

with the advice of bond counsel, deem necessary and appropriate,

including bonds, notes or temporary notes issued by the State

under the State's Clean Water Fund Program.

     SECTION 5. That the bonds, notes, temporary notes or other

obligations, or any portion thereof, may bear interest which is

includable in the gross income of holders thereof for Federal

income tax purposes pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,

as amended, as the issuance of such taxable bonds, notes,

temporary notes or other obligations is hereby determined to be in

the puhlic interest.

     SECTION 6. That the First Selectman and Chairman of the

Water Pollution Control Authority, or their designees, are

authorized to contract with engineers, contractors and others on

behalf of the Town and to approve construction expenditures for

said project.

     SECTION 7. That the First Selectman, or his or her designee,

is authorized to apply for and accept or reject any Federal,

State or other grants and loans for the project and to execute and

deliver to the State a project loan and project grant agreement

for and on behalf of the Town, and the Board of Selectmen,

Treasurer and other Town officials and employees are authorized to

take all actions necessary and proper to obtain such grants and

loans, to implement such project loan and project grant

agreement, to complete the project and to issue the bonds,

notes, temporary notes or other obligations to finance the

appropriation.

     SECTION 8. That the Town of Old Saybrook provide ongoing

funding of administrative costs for the decentralized wastewater

management systems within the Decentralized Wastewater Management

District at funding levels acceptable to the Town and the State.

538012v4        7/17/2009, 6:06:54 PM

Chapter 5: OPTIONS FOR TOWNS

Background

Big Battles: The Price of Being Unprepared

Regulatory Confusion

Hope Springs Not Quite Eternal

The Old Saybrook Approach

Decentralized Wastewater Management Districts

Write Your Own Law: Other Possibilities

Creating ATS Avoidance or Welcome Areas

Ordinances and Regulations

Recommendations for ATS Permitting

Certifications

Test Methods

Permit Standards

Frequency of Sampling and Reporting

Electronic Systems

Combining Wastewater Flows

Summary Of Recommendations

SAMPLE DOCUMENTS