[27 Pa.B. 5877]
[Continued from previous Web Page] 25. Section 72.33 (relating to well isolation distance exemption)
Subsection (b) of the proposal provides that a local agency may, at its sole discretion, waive the isolation distance requirements of this section when a repair to a malfunctioning system is being considered under the provisions of § 73.3, which outlines the policy regarding corrective measures for malfunctioning sewage disposal systems. One commentator suggested that the proposed language allows the local agency to waive the requirement for a hydrogeologic study when a sewage system is proposed to be too close to a well in a repair situation at an existing structure. Although the commentator believes this waiver authority is a good idea, the commentator questions the legality because she believes the act makes no distinction between repairs and new systems in this regard.
Section 8(f) of the act provides, in relevant part, that any ''minimum distance requirement between a private well and a proposed absorption area specified in the regulations . . . shall not be applicable if the local agency finds, after reviewing appropriate groundwater studies submitted by an applicant, that the installation of a proposed individual sewage system does not pose a threat of pollution to any well on the same lot within the distance specified by regulation.'' The key word in the quoted language is ''installation.'' Installation, in effect, means the installation of a new system. Thus, a repair not involving replacement by means of a new system is separate and distinct from an installation. This analysis of the legality of the provision should address the commentator's concerns.
Subsection (c)(1) of the proposal provides that the request for an exemption from the well isolation distance requirements must, inter alia, contain appropriate ground water studies. One commentator and IRRC recommended that this subsection specify the types of groundwater studies which would be required. Accordingly, they suggested that the term ''appropriate'' be replaced by ''required'' to make it clear what is required. The Board disagrees with this recommendation. Section 8(f) of the act, which is the basis for the regulatory provision, provides that the local agency's determination on the exemption application be made after ''reviewing appropriate groundwater studies submitted by an applicant . . . .'' Moreover, the types of groundwater studies appropriate for a specific situation are necessarily case and site specific. The types of studies appropriate for specific environmental situations are constantly evolving. In any event, the local agency may utilize the services of an expert who can determine the type of study which is appropriate for the specific site.
Subsection (c)(2) of the proposal provides that the request for this well isolation distance exemption also include the payment of fees or costs incurred by the local agency to review the groundwater study submitted. The same commentators suggested that these groundwater studies be reviewed for the local agency by a qualified professional geologist with expertise in ground water studies and that the payment required be only for the services of such geologists. The Board disagrees. Section 8(f) of the act does not set forth the qualifications required for personnel reviewing these studies. It merely provides that the local agency conduct the review. In addition, there are professionals other than professional geologists who are qualified to review these studies. SAC does not believe the Board is authorized to establish minimum qualifications for personnel reviewing these studies, in part, because professional qualifications are governed by other statutes.
Subsections (d) and (e) contained references to an ''exception'' from the well isolation distances. A more appropriate term is ''exemption'' and the term ''exception'' has accordingly been replaced.
26. Section 72.41 (relating to powers and duties of sewage enforcement officers)
Subsection (i) of the proposal incorporates provisions of section 8(e) of the act relating to conflicts of interest. In particular, the subsection provides that sewage enforcement officers may not provide consulting, design or related services regulated under the act within the municipality or local agency by which the officer is employed unless the services are set forth in a fee schedule, the fees for these services are paid directly to the municipality or local agency and the consulting or design work is reviewed and a permit is issued by another sewage enforcement officer employed by the entity issuing the permit.
The Board received a number of comments regarding this provision. These comments address various scenarios which are more fully described in the Comment and Response Document. Among the concerns raised was that there appears to be nothing in the regulations which would prevent sewage enforcement officers working for the same company from reviewing each other's work. The Board disagrees. Existing subsections (g) and (h) explicitly prohibit this kind of activity. Another commentator objected to the requirement that the fees for consulting or design services under the circumstances described in this Preamble be set in a fee schedule of the local agency and that the fees be paid directly to the local agency. The provisions are mandated by section 8(e) of the act.
27. Section 72.42 (relating to powers and duties of local agencies)
Proposed subsection (a)(14) relating to continuing maintenance has been renumbered as subsection (a)(24) for ease of reading. Subsection (a)(21) of the proposal (subsection (a)(20) of these final-form regulations) sets forth a time frame and certain procedures for site suitability review, soil probe testing or soil percolation testing which may be necessary following the receipt of a permit application. Among other things, the proposal provides that an applicant is to have a site prepared for testing in accordance with instructions which must be provided to the applicant at least 48 hours before the scheduled testing. If the applicant does not follow the instructions, the applicant may not submit soil tests performed by another sewage enforcement officer and is not entitled to a refund in the event the local agency fails to comply with the time limits for review specified in proposed subsection (a)(21). IRRC believes this type of site preparation is for standard soils tests and that the regulation should provide ''at least some guidance on the site preparation required for the tests.'' IRRC believes providing guidance will also prevent extraneous requirements from being imposed on the applicant.
The Board does not believe it is necessary to amend the regulation along the lines suggested. There are various types of soil conditions within this Commonwealth. Site preparation requirements are generally specific to the types of testing being conducted and thus, there is a need for flexibility. For many years, the Department, local agencies and the regulated community have utilized a guidance document, Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers, which contains detailed procedures for site preparation and soils testing. The Manual includes diagrams which would be extremely difficult to translate into regulatory text.
Subsection (a)(20)(v) provided that an applicant was required to have a site prepared for soil testing in a manner required by ''this section.'' The quoted phrase has been deleted and replaced by ''the local agency'' to make it clear where the requirements for site preparation originate from.
Proposed subsection (a)(24) (subsection (a)(23) in these final-form regulations) would require local agencies to ensure that individual residential spray irrigation systems are sampled at least once a year by the property owner and establishes effluent limits with respect to the discharges. Component characteristics to be sampled include fecal coliforms, biological oxygen demand, suspended solids and disinfectant residual or effectiveness. Individual effluent samples could not exceed a 5 day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of 60 mg/l and suspended solids concentration of 100 mg/l. In addition, chlorine residuals would have been required to be maintained at a range of 1.0--2.0 ppm, unless a higher level is required to control disease producing organisms.
One commentator asserted that the effluent limits proposed would not protect the public health and environment. The commentator noted that following a sand filter, a 5 day Biological Oxygen Demand of 30 mg/l or less and a suspended solids of 20 mg/l would be expected. The commentator also believes there would be a problem with the system violating the fecal coliform standard of 200 colonies/100 ml if the suspended solids are 100 mg/l.
The sampling requirements and effluent limits have been adjusted in these final-form regulations to more closely reflect the effluent quality from a functional sand filter and the Department's requirements relating to monitoring requirements for other surface discharge systems. Accordingly, the term ''biological oxygen demand'' has been modified to ''carbonaceous biological oxygen demand.'' The effluent limit for the 5-day BOD has been reduced from 60 to 25 mg/l and the suspended solids concentration limit reduced from 100 to 30 mg/l. In addition, the phrase ''Chlorine residual shall be maintained at a range of 1.0--2 .0 ppm . . . .'' has been revised to read: ''Free chlorine residual shall be maintained at a range of 0.2--2.0 ppm . . . .'' This revision better describes the form of chlorine to be measured and provides a more realistic measure of free chlorine residual.
IRRC indicated that the language of the same subsections relating to fecal coliform organisms should be clarified. This language has been clarified to provide that the effluent limit is to be ''not greater than 200 fecal coliform organisms per 100 milliliters in a single sample.''
Another commentator believes proposed § 72.25(h) (relating to issuance of permits) gives municipalities, not local agencies, the responsibility to assure proper operation and maintenance of these systems. That section provides, in relevant part, that prior to the issuance of a permit for an individual residential spray irrigation system, the local agency must require documentation that the municipality in which the system is to be located has taken action to assure compliance with the operation and maintenance provisions of § 73.167 (relating to operation and maintenance) for the life of the system. The commentator is essentially correct, but appears to misconstrue the application of this section. Section 7.6(6) of the act provides that the system owner must annually test the discharge for the effluent components outlined and a copy of the test results must be sent to the local agency. If the sampling indicates there are problems, action must be taken by whatever agency or entity has assumed responsibility for assuring proper operation and maintenance of these systems. That entity or agency could be the municipality acting under the authority of section 7.3(4) of the act, or a local agency which has assumed responsibility for a program under section 8(a) of the act or which has established a sewage management program under section 8(b)(4.1) of the act.
28. Section 72.43 (relating to powers and duties of the Department)
Subsections (f)--(h) of the proposal outlined amended procedures and criteria relating to the suspension, revocation and reinstatement of sewage enforcement officer certifications. One commentator provided extensive comments suggesting clarification of various provisions of these subsections. For the most part, these comments were later withdrawn. In spite of the withdrawal of these comments, subsections (f) and (h) have been modified to make it clear what constitutes a suspension or revocation of a certificate. IRRC asserted that in some situations, there are two essentially separate penalties for the same infraction. While there are in fact separate penalties for the same infraction in some instances, the seriousness of the penalty is determined by the degree of culpability associated with the action. The subsections have been revised to incorporate culpability factors appropriate to the penalty. Thus, a certificate would be revoked where a sewage enforcement officer ''knowingly'' conducted some proscribed activity, while suspension penalties are based on a lesser standard of negligence.
29. Section 72.44 (relating to reimbursement)
Subsection (d)(5) of the proposal provided that to qualify for 85% reimbursement under section 6(c) of the act, a local agency must, among other things, employ or contract with a qualified soil scientist. That subsection further provided that, to qualify for 85% reimbursement, a soil scientist must be a person ''who has documented experience in the characterization, classification, mapping and interpretation of soils as they relate to the function of an onlot sewage system'' and meet certain other educational and certification requirements. One commentator asserted that the definition of ''a qualified soils scientist'' for purposes of 85% reimbursement is inconsistent with the definition of a ''qualified soils scientist'' outlined in section 2 of the act (35 P. S. § 750.2) because it does not require the soils scientist to be a certified sewage enforcement officer, while the definition in the act does. The commentator, therefore, recommends that the qualifying language be deleted.
Other commentators, while acknowledging the inconsistency between the definitions, assert that requiring the qualified soils scientist to be a sewage enforcement officer places a burden on soils scientists which is not placed on engineers or geologists and limits the number of soils scientists available to contract with local agencies seeking 85% reimbursement. One commentator asserts that there would, at most, be only 12 individuals who would meet the criteria for a qualified soils scientist if the definition in the act was applied.
The Board has considered these comments related to this issue and determined that, for the sake of consistency, the definition in the act should apply. Accordingly, the qualifying language in the proposal has been deleted in these final-form regulations.
30. Section 72.52 (relating to conditions of certification or reinstatement of certification)
The heading of this section has been revised to make it clear that the provisions relate to the reinstatement of a sewage enforcement officer's certification, as well as the original certification.
Existing subsection (a)(3) provides that the Certification Board may recertify a sewage enforcement officer whose certification has been revoked. The Certification Board suggested that the term ''recertify'' and its progeny be revised to refer to reinstatement of certification to be consistent with the terms used in the act. The suggestion has been incorporated into these final-form regulations.
A new subsection (a)(4), has been added to provide that a requirement for certification as a sewage enforcement officer is that the applicant's certification has not lapsed due to failure to complete mandatory training during a previous renewal cycle unless training has been subsequently completed.
Subsection (b) of the proposal specified, inter alia, that applicants for renewal of sewage enforcement officer certification who are employes of the Department would not be subject to the renewal fee requirements. Although not raised in the public comments, the Department discerned an issue with respect to the payment of the renewal fee by sewage enforcement officers employed by other Commonwealth agencies. The language has been revised to provide that these sewage enforcement officers would not be required to pay the renewal fee so long as their sewage enforcement officer activities are limited solely to Commonwealth service.
31. Section 72.58 (relating to Certification Board hearings and procedures)
Existing subsection (a) outlines the procedures for appealing actions of the Department relating to the suspension or revocation of sewage enforcement officer certification to the Certification Board. The Board received comments from the Certification Board suggesting that the procedures be revised, especially with respect to specifying the grounds for appeal when a request for a hearing is filed with the Certification Board. In response to these comments, the procedures outlined in subsection (a) have been revised to provide that if a request for a hearing does not specify the grounds for appeal, the secretary of the Certification Board may notify the appellant that the appeal does not specify the grounds for appeal and that the appellant must file an amended appeal and request for a hearing within 30 days of receipt of notification. The Certification Board may dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to do so. Subsection (a) has also been revised to provide that the adjudications of the Certification Board are to be in accordance with 1 Pa. Code Part II (relating to general rules of administrative practice and procedure).
Chapter 73--Standards for Onlot Sewage Treatment Facilities 32. Chapter 73--General revisions
During the comment period, the Department interacted with SAC, other organizations and individuals with expertise in the area of onlot system design and siting to improve the technical standards for onlot systems in Chapter 73. This resulted in numerous changes to these standards to allow system designers more flexibility, to eliminate requirements which were determined to be unnecessary and to clarify others. In addition, input from groups was solicited by the Department to improve standards. For example, the Pennsylvania Aggregate and Concrete Association assisted the Department in establishing better standards for sand and aggregate in elevated sand mounds and sand filters. This type of input resulted in numerous changes to these final-form regulations in the following sections as more fully described in the Comment and Response Document:
Section 73.1--a definition for ''dosing pump'' has been added and the definition of ''undisturbed soil'' has been slightly modified; § 73.14(b)(6)--clarified the term ''excessive,'' § 73.16--included subsurface sand filters and added leaching chambers as a standard system; Table B--reformatted to make it more readable; § 73.31(d)--clarified the minimum septic tank opening size; § 73.44(b) and (c)--deleted the undefined term ''individually designed system''; § 73.44(b)(12)--eliminated a chart of hole sizes versus gallons per minute to allow for more design flexibility; § 73.46(a)(8) and (b)(1)--corrected incorrect references to ''subsection''; § 73.51(a)--added a specification for coarse aggregate as recommended by the Pennsylvania Aggregate and Concrete Association; § 73.161(a)--clarified the listing of other sections applicable to spray irrigation systems; § 73.162(b)(1)(vi)--deleted the requirement for minimum and maximum tank depth for sand filters; § 73.162(b)(1)(vi) and (vii)--deleted the requirement for a specific amount of freeboard above the sand in a sand filter tank and clarified the standard for minimum tank access opening; § 73.162(b)(2) and (4)--modified the sand and aggregate specifications for a free access sand filter as recommended by the Pennsylvania Aggregate and Concrete Association; § 73.162(b)(4)(viii), (ix) and (xi)--expanded the options available to a designer to configure multiple sand filter dosing plumbing, limited the size of the central distribution piping and provided for optional splash block material; § 73.162(c)(3)--provided a minimum depth standard for aggregate over the bottom drain of the sand filter and deleted the mandatory use of geotextile material between aggregate layers; § 73.165(a) clarified the term 200/100 milliliters of fecal coliform organisms; § 73.165(b)--clarified the maximum depth standard for erosion chlorinators; § 73.166(a)(3)--allowed design flexibility in protection spray irrigation lines against freezing; § 73.166(a)(6)--deleted the need for uniform distribution of effluent in a spray irrigation system and minimized the number of spray nozzles required; and § 73.167--established a minimum standard for frequency of operational inspections of spray irrigation systems.33. Section 73.1 (relating to definitions)
The Board received comments with respect to certain terms defined in this chapter.
A definition of ''geotextile'' has been added. ''Geotextile'' is defined as ''material consisting of mesh polypropylene, polyester, nylon or similar material used to prevent migration of fine aggregate into coarser aggregate.''
One commentator asserted that the term ''experimental sewage systems'' was not defined. That term is defined in existing § 73.1. However, the definition has been revised somewhat to be consistent with the definition which now appears in the act.
The proposal defined ''lift pump'' as ''[a] submersible pump used to convey effluent to the sand filter and from the sand filter to the chlorine/retention tank.'' A number of commentators suggested that this definition be modified because of a belief that the definition does not encompass all of the uses specified in Chapter 73. One commentator also suggested that the definition should include conveyance to an in-ground system.
Some of the comments regarding lift pumps appear to be based on a misunderstanding regarding their use. Lift pumps do not connect a treatment tank to a distribution box or header pipe. This connection is accomplished by a gravity line or, in the case of a pressurized system, a dosing pump in a dosing tank. For the purposes of Chapter 73, a lift pump is used only as part of an individual residential spray irrigation system to convey effluent to the sand filter. Standards for lift pumps are outlined in § 73.46(b).
The proposal incorporated the definition of the term ''soil mottling'' as outlined in section 2 of the act. One commentator, a professional soils scientist, noted that the term ''soil mottles'' has been retired from the lexicon of soils science. The term now used for soil characteristics that indicate saturation and reduction, which can be observed in the field, is ''redoximorphic features.'' Another commentator noted that what used to be referred to as ''drainage mottling'' is now termed ''redoximorphic concentrations and depletion of iron.''
The term ''soil mottling'' is defined in the act. In addition, the term ''mottling'' is found in a majority of the Soil Conservation Surveys in use in this Commonwealth and is commonly used to identify soil characteristics that indicate saturation and reduction. Accordingly, the term ''soil mottling'' has been retained in these final-form regulations. However, the term ''redoximorphic features'' has been added as a parenthentical to ''soil mottling'' to indicate that the two terms have similar meanings.
34. Section 73.3 (relating to policy)
Subsection (b) outlines the policy with respect to corrective measures for malfunctioning sewage systems constructed in accordance with Chapter 73. Among other things, the existing policy provides that the Department and sewage enforcement officers are to ''first consider all individual and community sewage systems described in this chapter in the correction of existing malfunctions and, when the systems are not physically possible, to provide the best technical guidance possible in attempting to resolve existing pollution or environmental health problems.''
The existing policy indicates that sewage enforcement officers, as well as the Department, are to make determinations regarding this policy. To more accurately reflect the responsibilities regarding this policy, the term ''sewage enforcement officer'' has been replaced by the term ''local agency'' because the local agency retains the ultimate responsibility for setting forth this policy in the administration of the act within its jurisdiction.
A concern was raised that the phrase ''when the systems are not physically possible'' is impractical. The phrase ''are not physically possible'' has been deleted and replaced with ''cannot be constructed in accordance with this chapter.''
Subsection (b) of the proposal also outlines a policy regarding isolation distances. That policy provides that when application of best technical guidance results in an absorption area or spray field encroaching on the regulated isolation distance to a well, proper well abandonment procedures or relocation of the well should be considered. One commentator suggested that consideration be given to the existing isolation distance between the well and disposal area when evaluating the relocation of wells in a repair situation. The commentator believes, for example, that if the malfunctioning system is 70 feet from the well and the absorption area can be installed 90 feet from the well, the property owner should not have to abandon and relocate the well.
The Board believes the comments are reasonable, but that other provisions of these regulations adequately address the commentator's concerns. A sewage enforcement officer may allow an isolation distance of less than 100 feet between a well and an absorption area to accommodate a repair. The policy described in subsection (b) also provides that when a required well isolation distance must be encroached to site a repair system, the proper well abandonment procedure or relocation of the well should be considered. If a property owner does not wish to consider well relocation as an option to accommodate a repair, the property owner may employ an expert to assess the impact of the isolation distance encroachment and submit the expert's findings to the local agency in support of that position. This procedure is outlined in § 72.33.
Subsection (b) of the proposal also expanded the types of onlot sewage systems which could be considered or used in repair situations. The proposal provided that the policy would not limit or preclude the use of experimental systems, but also would not preclude the use of small flow treatment systems permitted under The Clean Streams Law. Although no comments were received regarding this particular provision, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to clarify that the policy also does not preclude the use of holding tanks, but only when no other alternatives are available. The policy has been so clarified in these final-form regulations.
35. Section 73.11 (relating to general)
Subsection (c) of the proposal incorporated a provision which would allow a permit to be modified to authorize a property owner to use a newly installed septic tank as a holding tank pending the completion of the rest of a sewage system when weather or soil conditions prevent completion of the proposed sewage system prior to occupancy of the house. The proposal also outlined certain sections of the regulations which would be applicable in these situations.
Commentators representing the sewage enforcement officer community expressed reservations about this provision. Since system installers determine when a system is to be installed, there was a concern that the installers would invoke this provision every time they mistime or run late on a project, citing unexpected rain, and the like. A second concern expressed was that this provision would create administrative nightmares in rapidly growing areas. It was suggested that local agencies be authorized to establish conditions in the permit relating to the use of septic tanks in the situations described in the proposal.
The Board agrees with the recommendation that conditions be established. Accordingly, a phrase has been added to these final-form regulations. In addition, the sections of the applicable regulations outlined in the proposal have been revised to outline only those sections of the regulations which are not applicable so as to more clearly define the extent of the exception.
Existing subsection (f) prohibits discharges from roof gutters, foundation drainage and surface runoff to a treatment tank. A number of commentators suggested that discharges from floor drains should also be prohibited, except in cases where showers and laundries in basements are connected to floor drains. The Board agrees and the suggested revision has been made.
36. Section 73.12 (relating to site location)
Existing subsection (a) outlines certain characteristics which render an absorption area unsuitable for the installation of an onlot system. Among the characteristics is an absorption area is unsuitable in areas where completed flood mapping is not available, but the soil has been mapped or identified as floodplain soil or a floodprone area. Some commentators noted that there are areas within this Commonwealth with broad floodplains. However, there are many areas that are in floodplains, but are not designated as being in either floodways or floodprone areas in maps. It was suggested that the existing language be replaced with a presumption contained in the definition of ''floodway'' in § 105.1 (relating to definitions). The Board has agreed to this recommendation. Accordingly, subsection (a)(2) has been revised by adding a sentence providing that ''[w]here there is no flood mapping, a floodway extends 50 feet from the top of the stream bank as determined by the local agency.'' That provision does not, however, apply to spray fields.
Existing subsection (b), in essence, provides that fill must be in place for 4 years before an absorption area may be placed therein. The Board received a number of comments raising questions about the application of the section in relation to proposed § 73.14(a)(1)(iv) (relating to site investigation). It was also noted that this section appears to conflict with a provision of proposed § 73.14(a)(1)(iv) which would have provided a limited exception to this requirement. That exception was that an onlot system may be installed in fill soil that has remained undisturbed for a period of less than 4 years if a soil scientist has determined that natural soil conditions have been reestablished.
As evidenced by the numerous questions outlined in the Comment and Response Document, the proposed changes to § 73.14(a)(1)(iv) have the potential to create administrative problems for both the local agency and the Department. In light of this, the proposed amendment to § 73.14(a)(1)(iv) has been deleted except for the last sentence, which has been retained in this rule. That sentence provides clarification that ''[e]excavating soil to system installation depth for the purposes of installing the system may not be considered disturbing the soil.'' It should also be pointed out that the Board believes the existing regulations and related administrative processes adequately address onlot system proposals in areas where soils have either been filled or excavated.
37. Section 73.13 (relating to minimum horizontal isolation distances)
Existing subsection (b) establishes required minimum horizontal isolation distances between certain features and enumerated types of tanks. One commentator suggested that other features be added to eliminate what is asserted to be a great disparity that exists in the distances required by different local agencies. It was also suggested that an isolation distance be included between spray fields and swimming pools.
These suggestions have been incorporated into the final rule. Isolation distances of 10 feet have been established for detention basins, retention basins and stormwater seepage beds. In addition, a 100 foot isolation distance has been established between swimming pools and spray fields.
Proposed subsection (c) would have provided that building sewers would be required to meet certain isolation distances outlined in subsection (b). This proposal has been deleted from these final-form regulations because it would have been impossible to meet the proposed regulation where a sewer line and a water line enter a small residential structure.
38. Section 73.14 (relating to site investigation)
Proposed subsection (a)(1)(iv), which concerned the installation of onlot sewage systems in fill soil, has been revised as discussed in paragraph 36 of this Preamble relating to site location.
Proposed subsection (b) established certain criteria to be utilized in site investigations relating to the establishment of spray fields. Subsection (b)(2) and (3) of the proposal would have required that soil profile evaluations be spaced within 10 feet outside the perimeter of the proposed spray field. One commentator suggested that soil profiles be considered within the perimeter of the spray field, particularly where the spray field is in excess of 20,000 square feet. The commentator also requested that a provision be added authorizing a sewage enforcement officer, at his discretion, to require additional soil profiles on the perimeter or inside the spray field.
The Board partially agrees with the commentator's suggestion that soil profile evaluation be within the perimeter of the proposed spray field. Accordingly, the language of proposed subsection (b)(2) and (3) has been revised to make it clear that these evaluations are to be spaced at specified intervals within 10 feet of the perimeter of the proposed spray field. However, the Board does not fully agree with the commentator's request for discretionary authority to require additional soil profiles, at least in the manner requested, because it is much too broad. However, the Board acknowledges a need for additional testing in some circumstances. Accordingly, a new subsection (b)(4) has been added which essentially provides that additional soil profiles may be required if a sewage enforcement officer identifies specific enumerated trends in soil profiles or surface features which document variable soil conditions.
Subsection (b)(5) of the proposal, renumbered as subsection (b)(6) in these final-form regulations, provided that a permit for an individual residential spray irrigation system would be denied if a limiting zone was indicated by bedrock or excessive coarse fragments within 16 inches of the mineral soil surface. To be consistent with the definition of ''rock'' under the term ''limiting zone,'' the language has been revised to provide that the limiting zone is indicated by bedrock or coarse fragments with insufficient fine soil to fill voids located within 16 inches of mineral soil surface.
39. Section 73.15 (relating to percolation tests)
This section outlines the procedures and measurements required for percolation tests, which are a tool for determining whether a proposed absorption area is suitable for the installation of an onlot sewage disposal system. One commentator suggested that the existing provisions of this section are too stringent and asserted that applications for over 80% of the permits for installation of onlot sewage disposal systems would not meet the standards. The Board disagrees. No other commentator expressed similar concerns and the procedures outlined in the existing regulations have been utilized without any major problems since 1983. Moreover, the permit denial rate for onlot sewage system applications is only 9% in this Commonwealth.
Paragraph (7) of the proposal outlined a revised method for calculating the results of a percolation test. The proposed method specified the results of the tests for holes that drain too slow or too fast. A number of commentators suggested that the proposed language be fine-tuned to fully delineate the calculation process. Among the issues raised were whether the absorption area could include the percolation test holes.
The proposed subsection has been substantially revised. A provision has been added which states that absorption areas may be placed over holes with no measurable rate of drop when the average percolation rate for the proposed absorption area is within specified limits. This is because the absorption area would be sized large enough with the use of a drop rate of 240 minutes per inch to accommodate a slowly permeable area. The proposal also stated that when the rate of drop in a percolation test hole using 10 minute intervals is too fast to obtain a measurable rate, the hole would be considered a failed hole. This has been clarified to make it clear that a percolation test hole may not be used in calculating the arithmetic average percolation rate if it is dry at the end of a 10 minute testing interval. In addition, a provision has been added which states that a proposed absorption area may not be installed over the dry holes where more than 1/3 of the percolation test holes are dry at the end of the 10 minute testing interval unless the local agency determines that an anomaly caused the fast percolation rate and a retest of the area is within acceptable percolation test rate limits. If there is no anomaly, percolation tests from the remaining holes which are within the acceptable limits may be accepted by the local agency when they are supplemented with additional percolation testing conducted outside of the area in which the dry percolation holes were found.
40. Section 73.16 (relating to absorption and spray field area requirements)
The proposal incorporated existing requirements establishing minimum aggregate absorption area requirements for treatment tank effluent and proposed requirements for calculating the minimum square footage necessary for spray fields. Spray fields are areas where effluent from individual residential spray irrigation systems are discharged.
A number of commentators noted that the formula in Table A for calculating the absorption area requirements for all systems except elevated sand mounds where average percolation rate is 16-30 minutes per inch was erroneous. The commentators were correct. The parenthetical (Avg Perc Rate--30) should be (Avg Perc Rate--15). The appropriate correction has been made.
An issue was raised with respect to the interpretation of Table A. If the average percolation rate falls between the increments outlined in Table A, which increment is applicable? For example, the average percolation rate may be 5.6, and the increments in Table A are 3-5 and 6-15. Which increment would apply? In this case, the standard rules for rounding off numbers apply and thus, the average would fall within the 6-15 increment.
One commentator suggested that proposed Table B, which outlined the formula for calculating the square footage of spray fields, be clarified. Table B has been substantially revised for simplicity and ease of use. In addition, the minimum square footage required for spray fields under various soil characteristics (depth to rock and depth to water table) and slopes have been revised. Proposed Table B established minimum spray field area requirements for three and four bedroom residences and established various incremental differences to be utilized to calculate the required spray field for residences with more than four bedrooms. The Board and the Department have determined that the proposed increments were confusing and accordingly, Table B has been revised to establish minimum spray field areas for three bedroom residences under the various conditions outlined in Table B and the additional spray area required for each additional bedroom over three. For purposes of illustration, if there are five bedrooms proposed, and the soil characteristics are 16 to 20 inches depth to rock and 10 to 40 inches depth to water table and the slope is less than 12%, the required spray field would be 60,000 square feet (40,000 for three bedrooms plus 20,000 for the two additional bedrooms 10,000 each).
41. Section 73.17 (relating to sewage flows)
This section outlines the sewage flows of various types of residential and commercial establishments which are to be utilized in the design of community onlot sewage systems. The proposal outlined revisions and clarifications to the table establishing figures for minimum design flows expressed in gallons per unit. For most residential units, the minimum number of gallons per unit were proposed to be increased. The Board received one public comment strongly supporting the revised figures. This commentator believes the revised figures will eliminate some malfunctioning systems which have occurred.
Another commentator suggested that the section be clarified to make it clear that the flows outlined in § 73.17 are to be used strictly for the design of onlot systems and not for calculating the flows for the design or allocation of flows to a domestic wastewater treatment system. The Board agrees and appropriate clarifying language has been inserted as a lead-in to this section as well as the text of subsection (a).
The proposal outlined revisions and clarifications to the table establishing minimum design flows expressed in gallons per day for certain types of establishments. However, the proposal did not outline revisions relating to the table relating to the Biological Oxygen Demand per day (BOD/DAY) for those establishments. Appropriate adjustments for BOD/DAY have been made in these final-form regulations based on recommendations of SAC.
A number of commentators suggested that the listing of the types of establishments for which flows are specified in the tables could be significantly expanded. Among the establishments allegedly not included in the tables are fire houses, medical/dental practice offices, stores and restaurants. The Board notes that some of the establishments the commentators assert are not included in the tables are, in fact, included in the existing regulations. The list accompanying the proposal published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin included only those types of establishments for which design flows were proposed to be revised or clarified. In any event, it is not feasible to list all types of establishments. Moreover, some types of establishments, such as fire houses, experience considerable variation in sewage flows. To address the gaps in the listing of the types of establishments, subsection (c) has been modified to make it clear that an applicant proposing a type of establishment not listed in the regulation may submit information regarding average daily flows obtained from meters of similar establishments. The peak daily flow of such a proposed facility is to be calculated by multiplying the average daily flow of the similar establishment by two.
One commentator questioned the need to raise the proposed daily flows for each space in a mobile home park from 250 gallons per day to 400 gallons per day. This commentator suggests that experience indicates daily flows of less than 200 gallons per day from mobile home units. The Board agrees that the average daily flow from each mobile home unit is about 200 gallons per day. However, the design flows outlined in the regulation are peak flows which must take into account inflow and infiltration where mobile home parks are proposed. The increase from 250 to 400 gallons per day is based on county health departments' experience with hydraulic overloads to community onlot systems serving mobile home parks and a peaking factor of 2 times the average daily flow.
Subsection (d) of the proposal required that food preparation facilities install ''adequately designed'' pretreatment units and traps to reduce grease and BOD prior to their discharge to an individual or community sewage system. One commentator suggested that the standard for the design of the pretreatment units be ''in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications'' rather than ''adequately designed.'' It was also suggested that standards for grease removal and BOD reduction be established. The Board notes that most grease traps used in onlot systems are individually designed rather than manufactured. With respect to establishing standards for grease removal and BOD reduction, this would require monitoring of effluent by the local agency after initiation of operation and would be impractical in light of the additional administrative burden it would impose on local government.
42. Section 73.21 (relating to specifications)
Subsection (j) of the proposal specified that the use of portland cement grouting would be prohibited for connecting building sewers to treatment tanks. Because of the prohibition, some commentators inquired whether other types of grouting may be used to make these connections. The proposal has been revised to make it clear that watertight mechanical seals or hydraulic grouting may be used in making these connections. Hydraulic grouting specifically made for watertight connections, such as piping to concrete tankage, is widely available under various brand names. The material usually contains bentonite clay as an ingredient. Portland cement tends to crack and does not adhere well to nonconcrete surfaces.
43. Section 73.31 (relating to standards for septic tanks)
Subsection (a)(1) of the proposal rephrased the requirement that the minimum liquid septic tank capacity for any installation be 900 gallons. As further modified by proposed subsection (b)(4) septic tank installations are to consist of tanks with multiple compartments or multiple tanks. A concern was expressed that if a contractor uses two 500 gallon septic tanks to meet the 900 gallon minimum capacity, the first tank will fill up so rapidly that the second tank will not serve the purpose of a secondary tank but rather will become a primary tank. The Board does not share this concern because the first compartment of a multiple-tank installation will fill with solids and would require pumping long before it will have a significant impact on the quality of the effluent from the second compartment. In addition, other commentators support the requirement of a two compartment septic tank because of a belief that these requirements have been proven to improve the quality of the effluent that is sent to the soil absorption area and will prolong the life of the system.
Subsection (a)(2) of the existing regulation provides that the required septic tank capacity is to be based on the calculation of daily flow. The daily flow includes, among other things, the discharge from water softeners. One commentator believes that the discharge of super-saline water softener backwash effluent is deadly to absorption areas. The Board disagrees. The National Sanitation Foundation has concluded that a search of the relevant literature indicates there has been no deleterious effect from the discharge of water softener backwash salt on the hydraulic conductivity of soils in septic tank absorption areas and that it is better to discharge the backwash to a septic system than to discharge to separate dry wells or ditches.
Subsection (b)(4) of these final-form regulations provide that septic tank installations are to consist of tanks with multiple compartments or multiple tanks. During the comment period, the Department was advised by tank manufacturers that if the proposal to require multiple compartments was adopted, the manufacturers would need extra lead time to manufacture these tanks. Accordingly, as noted in Section A of this Preamble, the effective date of this subsection is January 7, 1998.
Subsection (d)(1) was proposed to be revised to provide, among other things, that the top of the septic tank containing the manhole or the top of a manhole extension is to be extended to grade, rather than be not more than 12 inches below grade as is currently required. The Board received a number of comments opposing the revision as well as comments in favor. Those supporting the revision believe the extension of the manhole access to grade would ensure that septic tanks are cleaned properly through the manhole port rather than the inspection port. Those opposing expressed concerns regarding aesthetics, safety and unauthorized access. The comments also indicated that the safety and nuisance concerns outweigh the value of the ''at grade'' manhole to the property owner. In view of the comments received, the proposed language has been deleted and the original language of the second sentence of this subsection has been reinserted.
Subsection (d)(1) currently provides that the grade level access covers be secured by bolts or locking mechanism or have sufficient weight to prevent access by children. Some commentators expressed concerns as to how to define a ''child'' for purposes of determining the sufficient weight appropriate to prevent access by children. Given the difficulty of defining exactly what a child is and variability in the sophistication of the adult population, the Board believes it is appropriate that the weight of the cover be sufficient to prevent access by any unauthorized individual. The last sentence of this subsection has been revised accordingly. This subsection was also amended to clarify the required size of the access opening to the tank as being a manhole with an inside dimension of at least 20 inches square (20 × 20).
The proposal indicated that subsection (e), which provides that a maximum 4-inch diameter inspection port with a sealed cover must be installed to grade level above the inlet tee of a septic tank, would be deleted. One commentator noted that blockage of the inlet baffle of a septic tank is very common. Eliminating the requirement that an inspection port be installed to grade would make it very difficult to identify and repair the blockage. The Board agrees. Accordingly, subsection (e) is reinserted in these final-form regulations. The Board acknowledges that this reinsertion could create problems in that a pumper could damage the inlet, but this in not anticipated to be a major problem.
44. Section 73.41 (relating to general)
Subsection (b) of the existing regulation requires that absorption areas over 5,000 square feet be divided into equal areas. The proposal would have clarified that the equal areas are not to exceed 5,000 square feet. One commentator questioned why equally divided absorption areas need to be limited to 5,000 square feet given the extent of hydrologic and geologic analysis that is typically part of a system siting. The proposal to limit the size of the absorption areas to 5,000 square feet was based on the belief that reaeration of the absorption area (limited to the perimeter of the system) would be minimal in systems above 5,000 square feet. More recent information indicates that perimeter reaeration becomes insignificant in systems larger than 1,000 square feet. The Board believes limiting the size to 1,000 square feet would be impractical. Moreover, the existing language has been interpreted in various ways by different sewage enforcement officers, resulting in uneven application throughout the Commonwealth. Accordingly, subsection (b) has been deleted in these final-form regulations.
45. Section 73.44 (relating to pressurized distribution design)
Subsection (a)(1) of the existing regulations provides that piping used in a pressurized effluent system must, among other things, meet the Department's current standards as listed in the Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers. The Sewage Advisory Committee suggested that the reference to the standards in the technical manual be deleted. The suggested change has been made.
Subsection (b) sets forth design standards for seepage beds of 2,500 square feet or less. Proposed subsection (b)(1) specified, among other things, that check valves are prohibited on all delivery pipes, not those of 25 feet or less as is the current requirement. A commentator supported this change, but suggested that the problem of water hammer in the force line must be addressed as a result. The commentator also suggested that check valves may be needed in some instances, particularly to get from the pump tank to the absorption area.
The Board agrees that the problem of water hammer in the force line should be addressed. Accordingly, a provision has been added to subsection (b)(1) which provides that thrust blocks may be installed in delivery lines when the system designer determines that water hammer may be a problem. As to the commentator's belief that check valves are needed in some instances, the Board notes that check valve usage has been directly linked to the buildup of an anaerobic scum layer which clogs pipe orifices and sand interfaces. The regulations formalize a Department policy banning the use of check valves. Thus, where pumped volume is large because of pipe length, a transfer tank should be installed to pump effluent to a second tank at the elevation of the base of the absorption area or spray field or a larger volume of effluent should be pumped during each pump cycle.
Subsection (b)(2) of the proposal provides, among other things, that a transfer tank may be used between the treatment tank or storage tank and the dosing tank where the distance from the treatment tank to the absorption area would cause excessive backflow into the dosing tank. One commentator inquired as to what is considered ''excessive backflow'' in these circumstances. Excessive backflow is that volume of flow back to the dosing tank which will result in a failure to meet the design specifications related to frequency of dose and equal distribution. The system designer may use a transfer tank in these cases to overcome the dose volume lost in long pipe runs.
One commentator suggested that in light of previous recommendations from the Department that lateral end cleanouts be installed on pressure dosed systems, the recommendation should be codified in this section. The Department made this recommendation because of problems associated with the clogging of 3/16 inch holes in the laterals, as currently required under subsection (b)(5). The proposed amendments to this subsection enlarged the size of the holes in the laterals and are finalized in this regulation. Since larger hole sizes (at least 1/4 inch) are now required, clogging should not be a problem. Cleanouts are optional and may be used at the applicant's discretion.
Subsection (c)(2) of the proposal (subsection (c)(1) of these final-form regulations) would have required that discharge holes be at least 3/16 of an inch for systems using pumps in individually designed systems or where seepage beds are greater than 2,500 square feet. One commentator suggested that the discharge hole should be at least 1/4 inch, not 3/16ths. The Board agrees and has made the appropriate revision.
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
