BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD - Board of Health members continued to debate at their May 8 meeting the pros and cons of allowing the use of alternative septic systems in town.

Because the board had questions about the issue for Freehold Area Health Department (FAHD) official Margaret Jahn, who was unable to attend the meeting due to personal reasons, the discussion will continue at the June meeting.

While the board discussed the cost of alternative vs. conventional systems, it remains unclear to members what the actual difference in price is between the two methodologies.

Board members referred to a list the FAHD gave them of four alternative systems already in use in town.

The list did not provide the specific locations of the systems, but in a later interview Jahn said the four alternative septics are scattered around the town, with one on Route 539, one in a subdivision and another having an Allentown address. The particular alternative systems in use are infiltration systems, meaning that instead of using stone in their septic beds, they use an infiltration system.

According to Jahn, the infiltration systems are technologically advanced systems like drip irrigation or aeration systems and do not require maintenance contracts.

Jahn said the only drip irrigation system approved in town thus far is at Alan Papp's residence on Meirs Road. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved Papp's application because the municipality does not yet have an alternative septic ordinance.

Board of Health Chairman Dr. S. Perrine Dey said that new alternative systems are designed to operate efficiently in less-than-normal soils such as those with a high water table or a low percolation.

"If [the alternative systems] fail, there is a higher chance of groundwater contamination, as compared to the old 199 septic system," he said.

Board member Dr. Curtis Byrnes said that one of the board's concerns is the degree to which the new technology could be used for large-scale development in areas of town that currently could not be developed in a feasible manner. He said that from a public health perspective, there must be monitoring of these types of systems.

Byrnes said the alternative systems could also pose a safety issue, since more houses could be built on ground that could not sustain conventional systems. In addition, Byrnes said that more people would be at risk if an alternative system were to fail.

Dey said such systems have been used in other states for at least 20 years. He said that David Molski has discussed installing alternative septics on his Dreamland Farm subdivision on Schoolhouse Road.

According to Dey, most of the lots on the site would have to be dug into at least 25 feet deep to install a conventional septic, making a standard system more expensive to use at an estimated cost of $110,000.

In an interview, Molski said the estimated cost Dey provided was inaccurate. According to Molski, a conventional system would cost about $60,000, and that having to dig deeper would add another $10,000 to the price.

Molski estimated that the alternative septic would cost much less than a conventional system, at $25,000. He said the main system for all the alternative septics on his property would cost $230,000.

While Board of Health member George King said the maintenance contracts on such systems could cost the homeowner $2,000 a year, both Jahn and Molski said they are much less expensive, in the range of $150 per year.

Board members had stated at the meeting that alternative septics cost twice as much to build as the conventional type, but Jahn and Molski both said this is also incorrect. Jahn said costs could depend on the conditions of the site and that alternative systems would not necessarily cost more to install.

As for building in areas that currently cannot be developed, Jahn said that the DEP is "adamant" that any new construction using an alternative system must also qualify for the use of a conventional septic system.

Any alternative system would have to be registered with the FAHD, according to Jahn.

"It's a matter of a paper trail," she said. "The homeowner must register and show [us] they have an ongoing contract."

Such registration would require only a nominal fee, she said.

King said the FAHD should take water-quality tests to ensure that the systems are working properly.

"It could work mechanically but not be treating anything," he said.

Dey said that when the new technology plugs up, there is a release of contaminants but that the monitoring system should be aware of any problems before that happens.

King said he got information about alternative systems from the Internet. He stated that such systems have been discouraged in Michigan because maintenance and design review fees are "10 times" the cost of a conventional system.

Board member Kathy Freiberger said she could foresee problems when homes with alternative septics change hands, since the original owners may have understood how the system worked while new owners may not.

Dey said it bothers him that the DEP has not written out the specs for alternative systems.

"Why are they insisting that municipalities write the rules?" he asked.

King said that Delaware and Pennsylvania have codes with very detailed design parameters for alternative systems.

"Other states have gone that extra mile," he said.

Molski said that in areas of Pennsylvania and New York where alternative septics are used, the effluent is so clean that residents are allowed to use it in their sprinkler systems.