[27 Pa.B. 5877]
[Continued from previous Web Page] 46. Section 73.45 (relating to dosing tanks)
Paragraph (5) of the existing regulation provides that the electrical connections to dosing tanks are to be moisture resistant and located at the highest point of the dosing tank or manhole extension. The Department determined that this subsection needed to be clarified to take into account local electrical codes and physical restraints limiting the location of electrical connections. Accordingly, the subsection has been revised to provide that unless otherwise regulated by local electrical codes, electrical connections shall be moisture resistant and located at a point higher than the inlet pipe or mounted above grade outside of the dosing tank or manhole extension within a tamper-resistant, lockable box.
47. Section 73.46 (relating to dosing pumps, siphons and lift pumps)
Existing § 73.46 outlines requirements relating to dosing pumps. The proposal amended certain requirements for dosing pumps and added requirements for siphons and lift pumps. A number of general comments were received. One commentator suggested that pumps should be submerged at all times to prevent the possibility of explosion and to keep the pump cool. Thus, it was suggested that the volume needed to submerge the pump be added to the minimum dosing tank volume. The heading of this section in the proposal stated, among other things, ''lift station pump.'' A question was raised as to whether that was the same as lift pump. The heading has been revised to make it clear that the term ''lift pump'' applies.
The Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers contains a recommendation that effluent pumps be submerged to prevent corrosion and explosions and to increase pump life. However, this recommendation is not applicable to all pumps on the market. The Board believes the adoption of the proposed language in subsection (a)(1) requiring the pumps to ''be rated by the manufacturer for handling of sewage effluent'' adequately addresses the concerns expressed regarding the possibility of overheating or of an explosion.
Subsection (a)(1) requires that dosing pumps be rated by the manufacturer for handling of sewage effluent. Some commentators suggested that the pumps should be approved by the manufacturer for that use, not rated. The Board notes that the term ''rated'' is the customary term used by manufacturers when establishing the list of appropriate uses for their products or equipment. Accordingly, the suggested change was not made.
Subsection (a)(12) of the proposal specified that siphon discharge lines be equipped with an observation port and ball valve. One commentator suggested that the requirement that the siphon discharge line be equipped with a ball valve is unnecessary and would add considerable expense. The commentator noted that an observation port (overflow pipe) is required as well as access to grade. If the flow needs to be stopped for a period of time, the septic tank may be pumped. The Board agrees with these comments. Accordingly, the requirement for the installation of a ball valve has been deleted in these final-form regulations.
Subsection (b) of the proposal, among other things, would have provided dosage and discharge rates for lift pumps meeting certain characteristics. Lift pumps would have been required to deliver a minimum dose of 100 gallons when used to lift effluent to the sand filter or be designed to discharge at a rate of 20-30 gallons per minute when used to lift effluent to the sand filter. These rates have been deleted in this final rulemaking and replaced with a requirement that the lift pumps be designed to discharge a minimum flood dose of 2 inches over the sand surface. This would make the requirement consistent with other revisions to the proposal effectuated in these final-form regulations.
Subsection (c) of the proposal specifies that dosing pumps used to pressurize a spray field distribution system be designed in accordance with specified sections of the regulations relating to individual residential spray irrigation systems. One commentator opined that methods other than pumps, such as siphons, may be used to pressurize these systems. The commentator believes the subsection would preclude the use of siphons in these systems.
Subsection (c) does not preclude the use of siphons. However, the Department is not aware of a siphon capable of achieving sufficient pressure to operate the sprinkler head of an individual residential spray irrigation system in a way that the effluent is properly distributed on the spray field. System designers contemplating siphons should check with the manufacturer to determine if use of the siphon is appropriate.
48. Section 73.51 (relating to general)
Existing subsection (e), which is renumbered as subsection (c), provides that soil moisture levels during the construction of the absorption area are to be such that a sample of the soil taken from the level of the proposed installation will crumble if compressed into a ball. One commentator suggested that the moisture level of the sample should be ''at or below field capacity (-0.1 to -0.3 bars),'' rather than be based on the crumble method. The commentator believes this would provide a scientific method of testing and an avenue to appeal a sewage enforcement officer's decision based on what is asserted to be a more subjective method used in the field.
The Board acknowledges that the crumble test may be a less scientific method of determining soil moisture than a tensiometer or other methods requiring specialized equipment. As a practical matter, however, most sewage enforcement officers do not have sophisticated equipment to determine soil moisture. In addition, under existing regulations, such as § 72.29 (relating to review of denials and revocations), a property owner may challenge decisions of a sewage enforcement officer related to onlot systems. Results of field capacity tests could be submitted in support of this challenge. The Board believes the existing process adequately addresses the issues raised by the commentator, and, therefore, there is no need to incorporate the changes suggested.
49. Section 73.52 (relating to standard trenches)
Existing subsection (a)(1) provides that detailed engineering designs for standard trenches with slopes between 15% and 20% in relation to elevation are to be provided. For slopes between 20% and 25%, subsection (a)(2) provides that these systems be designed by a registered professional engineer. One commentator suggested that there is no reason for the distinction and suggested that engineering design requirements for trenches with slopes between 15% and 25% be uniform. The Board agrees. Subsection (a) has been revised accordingly. It should be noted that, consistent with the rationale provided in comment 1 of this Preamble, the references to professional engineers are being deleted and replaced with a generic term, ''designer.''
Existing subsection (b)(7) provides that when a trench is being constructed, the minimum width of the undisturbed earth between trenches is to be 5 feet. One commentator suggested that this requirement makes it difficult to fit an onlot system on the property and felt an approach allowing less separation would be more appropriate. The Board disagrees. The 5-foot requirement allows for equipment access for large systems and more lateral movement from systems located on slopes. Reducing this distance may very well result in hydraulic failure of the trenches. However, it is noted that an applicant may request a reduction in the required trench separation distances through the alternate/experimental system procedures of these final-form regulations.
Proposed subsection (c)(13) stated that geotextile fabric may be used to cover the top of the aggregate material used in the construction of trenches. IRRC noted that the use of geotextile fabric is authorized in other sections of the regulations, but that no definition of geotextile fabric is given. IRRC suggested, therefore, that the term be defined. The Board agrees that it would be appropriate to define the term. Accordingly, the term is defined in Section 73.1 of these final-form regulations.
One commentator noted that there was no provision in the proposal which would require the fitting of end caps on trench laterals. The commentator believes this requirement was inadvertently left out of a previous amendment to this section. The Board notes that end caps for pressure distribution systems are currently required under § 73.44(b)(5). The Board acknowledges there is no requirement for the gravity systems. Subsection (c)(16) of these final-form regulations requires end caps for gravity systems.
50. Section 73.53 (relating to seepage beds)
Existing paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) establish certain minimum separation distances between the individual seepage beds of onlot systems. One commentator suggested that the required distance between pressure-dosed seepage beds should be brought in line with gravity beds and pressure-dosed trenches. The commentator believes that a property owner who voluntarily pressure doses a system which could be gravity fed is penalized by the disparity. The Board acknowledges this comment and the regulation has been revised. The references to gravity distribution have been deleted. The final-form regulations merely provides that individual beds of a single onlot system are to be separated by a minimum of 5 feet. The requirement of paragraph (2)(ii) for a minimum separation distance of 20 feet where pressure distribution is required under § 73.43 has been deleted.
Paragraph (2)(iii) of the proposal provided that when elevated sand mound beds are used, this distance is to be measured from the toe of the sand. The paragraph has been renumbered paragraph (2)(ii) and clarified to provide that the distance between seepage beds is to be measured from the toe of the sand of each bed.
51. Section 73.54 (relating to subsurface sand filter beds and trenches)
The heading of this section has been revised to make it clear that the section applies to subsurface sand filter beds and trenches, not just subsurface sand filters.
Existing subsection (a)(2) provides that the average percolation rate is to be no greater than 90 minutes per inch to qualify for a subsurface sand filter. One commentator suggested that before qualifying for a subsurface sand filter, a percolation test must fail at 12--36 inches before a deeper test is run. The commentator asserts that this delays construction and increases costs. The commentator believes the regulations should allow a soils scientist to make a determination that the upper layer of soil will not percolate when this is obvious from the soil horizons, such as in areas where heavy argillic horizons overlay sandy C horizons.
The Board does not agree with this recommendation. Soils in the upper horizons are more effective at renovating sewage than are soils in the deeper horizons. A percolation test is a more accurate method of assessing soil permeability than the more subjective soil horizon evaluation, even when done by a soil scientist.
Existing subsection (a)(3) provides that the range of depths for percolation tests relating to the installation of subsurface sand filters is 36 to 72 inches. One commentator noted the maximum depth for the percolation test (72 inches) is inconsistent with the maximum depth at which the system can be installed (60 inches) under subsection (b)(1). The commentator suggested that subsection (b)(1) be revised to allow installation at a depth of 72 inches. The commentator asserts it is common to have argillic layers extending below 60 inches overlying sandy C horizons. The commentator also asserted there is no evidence that subsurface sand filters do not renovate adequately at a depth of 72 inches and believes there is considerable evidence that they work quite well.
The Department is unaware of any documentation that subsurface sand filters work well at a depth of 72 inches since they are currently required to be installed at a depth of no more than 60 inches and no proposals for the installation of alternate or experimental systems at deeper levels have been submitted. Moreover, the commentator provided no information substantiating the belief that subsurface sand filters do renovate adequately at a depth of 72 inches. The Board and the Department encourage the evaluation of these systems through the alternate/experimental system process. To be consistent with subsection (b)(1), the range of depths at which percolation tests may be run under subsection (a)(3) has been revised by reducing the maximum depth from 72 to 60 inches.
Proposed subsection (a)(3) also would have changed the range of the acceptable average percolation rates for subsurface sand filters from 3-90 minutes per inch to 6-90 minutes per inch. Comments were received suggesting that the change of the minimum from 3 to 6 was inconsistent with the acceptable minimum percolation rate of 3 inches per minute applicable to elevated sand mounds while the sand utilized in both cases is the same. The Board agrees and appropriate changes have been made reestablishing the minimum percolation rate as 3.
52. Section 73.55 (relating to elevated sand mounds)
Subsection (c)(1) of the proposal outlined proposed gradation and quality specifications for sand used in elevated sand mounds. The Board received a number of comments indicating that the proposed specifications were too lenient, especially with respect to fine sand. Among other things, it was asserted that the proposed sand specifications allow too many fines and the presence of these fines leads to system failure. Subsection (d) of the proposal provided mechanisms for determining compliance with the gradation and quality specifications outlined in proposed subsection (c).
The technical staff of the Department reviewed the sand specifications and held a series of meetings with the Pennsylvania Aggregate and Concrete Association. In light of the comments received and the further review, subsection (c) has been completely revised and proposed subsection (d) deleted. The review has resulted in an improved sand specification which has more stringent sieve analysis criteria, a soundness test and a better uniformity coefficient. These specifications are based on Department of Transportation specifications outlined in subsection (c) and are currently being used for the construction of free access intermittent sand filters in individual residential spray irrigation systems and have been incorporated into sections of these regulations relating to elevated sand mounds, subsurface sand filters and buried sand filters serving individual residential spray irrigation systems. As a result, the maximum allowable sand passing through the no. 200 sieve will be 10%. Sand specifications for free access sand filters are more stringent because the filter surface is small and requires sand with a higher uniformity coefficient. Most of the sand specified in these regulations will be available Statewide in Department of Transportation certified stockpiles, which should ensure the reliability and availability of the product. Sand for free access filters, however, will be available from suppliers of sand blasting sand as well as various other suppliers.
Proposed subsection (c) also would require sand suppliers to provide certification to the sewage enforcement officer and the permittee that all sand supplied meets the requirements of the subsection. One commentator suggested that the language be clarified to make it clear that the certification applies to every source of the sand (such as a quarry) and list the amount of sand delivered. This would ensure that all sand is documented as to origin and compliance with Department specifications. The Board has incorporated this suggestion into these final-form regulations. Similar requirements are provided in § 73.162(b)(3) with respect to aggregate used in intermittent sand filters utilized with individual residential spray irrigation systems.
Proposed subsection (e)(4) would have prohibited the stacking of absorption areas vertically on a slope greater than 8%. Two commentators suggested that the term ''stacking'' is undefined and subject to varying interpretations. They also were concerned that the language did not provide for separation distances that, if followed, would be defined as ''not stacking.''
The Board acknowledges these concerns. Section 73.55 incorporates, as standard technology, elevated sand mounds on relatively steep slopes which were evaluated under specific criteria as alternate systems. One of the criteria was that these systems be placed on the site to take advantage of down gradient dispersion of effluent through a critical and restricted soil window. Placing systems above or below each other on a grade doubles the hydraulic loading on the down gradient window and may cause mounding. The ''stacking'' was not evaluated and the Board and the Department are not aware of any information which indicates that stacking elevated sand mounds on slopes greater than 8% can be accomplished without causing a hydraulic problem. Where sites are not conducive to a single elevated sand mound bed installation, elevated sand mound trenches may be proposed. These systems have sufficient trench separation to eliminate hydraulic concerns.
The proposed language of subsection (e)(4) has been deleted and is replaced with language which provides that ''locating multiple absorption areas so that one absorption area is placed hydraulically upgradient or downgradient from the other may cause the lower absorption area to fail because of excessive hydraulic loading from the upper absorption area. Unless the potential for such an impact is shown to be nonexistent by the applicant through the alternate/experimental system process, this type of absorption area placement is prohibited.'' This change is incorporated in subsection (d)(4) of these final-form regulations.
Subsection (e)(5) of the proposal limits sewage loading to an absorption area of an elevated sand mound on slopes of 8-12% to 500 gallons per day. One commentator asserted that this restriction would limit the size of a residence to be served by such a system to a maximum of 4 bedrooms. As a result, the commentator believes, residences with more than 4 bedrooms in these circumstances would need to utilize 2 elevated sand mounds and would potentially require 4 suitable sites where replacement testing is required. It was suggested that loading requirements for the systems be based on the type of structure served (single family residence) rather than flow.
The Board agrees with the commentator that the restriction would limit the size of the residence in some cases, but disagrees with the commentator's suggestion that the loading requirements for the systems be based on type of structure served. The loading capabilities of the systems are necessarily governed by the size of the absorption area available. Following publication of the proposal, the Department became aware of situations where the absorption areas were larger than anticipated and fully capable of achieving a load of more than 500 gallons per day. In light of this information, the proposal to limit loading to 500 gallons per day has been deleted.
53. Section 73.62 (relating to standards for holding tanks)
Proposed subsection (b) would have increased the required minimum capacity of a holding tank from 1,000 gallons to 3,000. Existing subsection (c) requires that holding tanks be equipped with an audible and visual warning device to indicate when the tank is filled to within 75% of its capacity. One commentator expressed concerns about the proposed increase in the minimum capacity and questioned the need for an audible warning device. The commentator noted that seasonal homes on leased State park and forest lands are served by previously approved holding tanks which have a capacity of 1,000 gallons and do not have audible alarms. The commentator acknowledged that approval of these systems was intended to eliminate pollution from then existing earthen privies. However, the commentator believes the proposed increase would require the installation of 3,000 gallon tanks on these homes. The commentator suggested there be an exception for these homes with respect to the requirement for audible alarms because they would disturb the neighborhood.
The current required minimum 1,000 gallon capacity of a holding tank will be retained. Following publication of the proposal, the Department received additional information regarding the capacity of holding tank pumper trucks used in rural areas. Many of these trucks have capacities of 1,000 to 1,500 gallons. The Board and the Department suggest that the sizing of a holding tank can be adjusted by the property owner or lessee (provided the lessee has authorization from the property owner) if an existing tank is inadequate or requires pumping too frequently.
The requirement for an audible warning device is being retained. In a sense, the commentator documented the need for an audible warning device. When a seasonal dwelling is not occupied and a holding tank is near overflow, the alarm alerts others that there is an imminent overflow. This allows action to be taken to avert public health problems associated with an insufficient maintenance of a holding tank.
54. Section 73.64 (relating to chemical toilet or other portable toilet)
The proposed amendments to this section would have deleted the requirement that permits be issued for the use of chemical or other toilets. The Board received a number of pro and con comments regarding this proposed change. Some commentators noted that enforcement of the existing permitting requirement by local agencies has been inconsistent from area to area and permit fees were allegedly unnecessary and extreme in some cases. Other commentators suggested that the permit requirement be retained because there have been occasions when the number of toilets provided for public events had been inadequate. Other commentators suggested that this section be revised by prescribing that a minimum number of chemical toilets be provided based on some formula.
The Board acknowledges the concerns expressed in the comments. The Board also notes that, in the past, enforcement of this requirement has been spotty and it perceives no reason to believe this situation will improve in the future. The Board believes that reinstating the permit requirement for chemical toilets will only perpetuate the existing problem of spotty enforcement. However, the proposal has been revised to provide an option for local agencies to require permits for chemical or other portable toilets. This will allow local agencies desirous of requiring permits for these toilets to do so while excusing those which do not.
With respect to the suggestion that these final-form regulations establish some minimal number of toilets for public events, the Board believes that the customer and the supplier can establish the number of units needed or the frequency of service, or both, since either may be adjusted to provide adequate maintenance and service. Moreover, the number of toilets required is necessarily event specific.
The proposed amendments also would have provided that when permanent use of a chemical or other portable toilet is proposed, these toilets would be considered retaining tanks. This provision has been deleted from these final-form regulations. Chemical or other portable toilets may only be used on a temporary basis as provided in this section.
55. Section 73.162 (relating to intermittent sand filters)
The proposal, which added this section, outlines certain criteria related to intermittent sand filters used in the installation of individual residential spray irrigation systems. Subsection (b)(2) of the proposal would have required that sand supplied for free access sand filters meet Department of Transportation specifications for type A sand. One commentator suggested that this type of sand is not appropriate for use in a sand filter. As noted in paragraph 52 of this Preamble, sand specifications have been under review by the Department. Subsection (b)(2) has been revised as outlined in paragraph 52 of this Preamble.
Subsection (b)(1)(v) provided specifications regarding precast tank tops which support access covers for free access sand filters. One commentator suggested that, as written, the language requires the use of these tank tops in all cases. The commentator recommended that the use of nonconcrete tank tops be authorized. The Board agrees. The provision has been revised to implicitly allow for other types of tank tops by specifying that the requirements therein are applicable if precast slabs are used as tank tops.
Subsection (b)(3)(viii) of the proposal provided that when two sand filters or chambers are required to treat septic tank effluent, the duplicate units are to be flooded alternately. One commentator asserted that these should be flooded simultaneously rather than alternatively through a header pipe and delivery line. The Board acknowledges the comment. This subsection has been revised in these final-form regulations to provide that the duplicate units, at the discretion of the designer, be flooded alternately, simultaneously or by periodically using ball valves.
Subsection (c)(1) of the proposal would have prohibited the installation of sand filters in areas where bedrock is encountered above the proposed depth of the sand filter or where the seasonal high groundwater table rises above the proposed depth of the sand filter unless a concrete bottom and sides are used. The Department became aware of other methods which are as effective as concrete in providing protection to buried sand filters in these areas. Accordingly, the final-form regulations been revised to authorize material other than concrete so long as the designer considers measures to prevent filter and liner damage and groundwater contamination.
Subsection (c)(2)(ii) of the proposal provided that the minimum sand filter area for buried sand filters serving a single family residence would be based on a maximum hydraulic load of 0.67 gallons per day per square foot. One commentator asserted that free access sand filters have a loading rate of 5 gallons per day per square foot. The commentator suggested that additional studies should be done to determine the safe loading rate for in-ground sand filters and that the proposed rate of 0.67 was onerous.
The Board notes that this research is currently being conducted under the auspices of Delaware Valley College. The rate specified in the proposal translates to 1.5 square feet per gallon per day. To make this figure consistent with the design requirements for Department permitted sand filters, the rate has been revised to 1.15 square feet per gallon per day in this final rule. This requirement may be reevaluated upon completion of the research project being undertaken at Delaware Valley College.
Another commentator noted that subsection (c)(2) specifies the size of the buried sand filter, but asserts that there is no distinction between that required for septic tank effluent and that required for aerobic tank effluent. The commentator asserts there is considerable evidence to support a smaller filter size for aerobic tank effluent. The Board agrees. Accordingly, a new paragraph is being added to subsection (c)(2) which provides that where aerobic treatment precedes a sand filter, a 1/3 reduction to the filter area may be used to size the filter.
56. Section 73.165 (relating to disinfection)
Subsection (a) of the proposal provides that disinfection of effluent by chlorination is required prior to spraying. One commentator suggested that disinfection should be expanded to include methods other than chlorination, such as the use of ultraviolet light and ozone generation. The commentator asserts that chlorination presents certain difficulties to a homeowner such as the handling and toxicity of chlorine, monitoring of concentrations and maintenance of equipment. It was suggested that ultraviolet light disinfection is not toxic, easy to use and maintain and requires no use of chemicals. The commentator also suggested the same could be said for ozone generation except that power demands and complexity are greater than ultraviolet light.
The Board does not agree that either ozone disinfection ultraviolet light technology are currently viable options. SAC believes that ozone disinfection technology provides an unacceptable risk of explosion. The Board believes ultraviolet light technology currently available is not conducive for use in conjunction with sewage effluent from a sand filter. Maintenance problems associated with dirt buildup on the ultraviolet light glass and the masking of biota from ultraviolet light exposure are common problems in larger systems currently in use and these problems have not been eliminated from smaller units. The Department is interested in, and encourages the use of, new methods of disinfection. The use of new methods and ultraviolet disinfection may be proposed under the alternate/experimental procedures of §§ 73.71 and 73.72.
57. Section 73.167 (relating to operation and maintenance)
The proposal included a provision which would require the designer of an individual residential spray irrigation system to provide an operation and maintenance manual to the permittee. IRRC suggested that the regulation should specify whether the manual must be written by the system designer or whether factory manuals prepared by the manufacturer of the tanks, filters and spray equipment would suffice. A provision has been added which provides that these manuals may be submitted as supplements to an operation and maintenance manual. IRRC also suggested that a frequency of inspections of tanks and related equipment should be specified in paragraphs (1) and (2). A frequency of inspections of every 6 months has been incorporated into the regulations.
Paragraph (3)(i) of the proposal provides that chlorine residual sampled after the contact/retention tank must be maintained at a concentration of at least 1.0 ppm. One commentator asserted that information provided at training courses sponsored by the Department indicated that chlorine contact time is to be a minimum of 30 minutes. The commentator believes that the method of achieving 30 minute chlorine contact time by allowing one dose to accumulate in the pump tank prior to pumping will not work. The commentator asserts that this method does not insure that the last effluent to the pump tank will be the last discharge to the spray field. The commentator also suggested that the minimum chlorine residual of 1.0 ppm may not be possible if tablet chlorinators are used.
The existing regulations themselves do not specify a chlorine contact time of 30 minutes. The regulations are very general and chlorine contact time has been outlined in guidance documents issued by the Department in conjunction with training courses related to the design of individual residential spray irrigation systems. This guidance is incorporated into §§ 73.165 and 73.167. System designers are to design a system capable of both achieving the contact time and meeting the fecal coliform effluent limit. There are various methods of achieving the desired result, one of which is manufactured chlorine contact tanks. In-line chlorination followed by a 30 minute contact time in the storage tank may also result in a satisfactory effluent because the system is dosed once per day in the early morning when influent flow is very low. With respect to the proposed minimum chlorine residual requirement of at least 1.0 ppm, the minimum level has been reduced to 0.2 ppm to accommodate the use of tablet chlorinators. The Board notes, however, that some tablet feeders have performed poorly and care should be exercised in the choice of this equipment.
F. Benefits and Costs
Executive Order 1996-1 requires a cost/benefit analysis of the final-form regulations.
These changes to Chapters 71--73 are necessary to make the existing regulations consistent with recent amendments to the act and to update some technical standards for onlot sewage treatment systems.
Some proponents of new residential subdivision plans will qualify for an exemption from sewage facility planning requirements for their development. In addition, developers and builders will be able to receive deemed approvals if an agency responsible for reviewing sewage facilities plans or onlot sewage system permit applications, or both, does not act in a time period specified in the act or these regulations. This elimination of some planning and the requirements for action within certain time frames are expected to be of benefit to builders, developers, realtors and mortgage lenders.
The Department's authority to impose limitations on new land development as a result of a municipality's lack of an adequate comprehensive sewage facilities plan is limited to certain circumstances. This limited authority will benefit developers, realtors and mortgage lenders who will now be able to sell and finance lots in these areas. However, there is expected to be a cost to property purchasers and builders because appropriate sewage facilities might not be available. Property owners and builders will not be able to build on these lots until the municipality complies with planning requirements due to severe public health hazards in the municipality.
Developers are authorized to make their own public notifications which were formerly within the sole province of a municipality or local agency when they propose significant developments. This will benefit developers, builders, realtors and mortgage lenders because they will not have to wait for the municipality to make the public notification and as a result, the review process will be shortened and construction may begin more quickly if the plan is approved.
The Department has initiated a compliance assistance program related to these amendments. Municipalities involved in developing official sewage facilities plan update revisions are eligible for up to 50% reimbursement from the Department for the costs incurred in developing these plans. In addition, penalties assessed for failure to develop or implement the plans will be deposited in a special fund. Municipalities assessed penalties may later apply for a return of these monies to help them correct sewage related problems. The Department will continue to work closely with PENNVEST and other sewerage project funding agencies to ensure that viable sewage plans are implemented.
The Department will continue to pay 50% of the costs incurred by local agencies to administer the onlot permitting program. Local agencies also qualify for 85% reimbursement if they meet certain criteria specified in these regulations. In addition, local agencies which assume delegation for new land development also qualify for 85% reimbursement. Fees collected and penalties assessed by local agencies will be retained by the agency for use in the administration of the program and abating public health hazards associated with sewage facilities. The Department will continue to work closely with PENNVEST and the Housing Finance Authority to provide low interest loans to property owners experiencing malfunctioning onlot systems.
The Department's ongoing commitment to the research and development of new and alternative means of onlot sewage disposal will allow more property owners to comply with a broader range of options outlined in the regulations. In addition, the Onlot System Hotline will provide a source of independent information on the Department's requirements and, thus, aid in compliance.
Local agencies which have a quality permitting program will benefit from an opportunity to apply for and receive up to 85% reimbursement for the costs of these activities instead of the current 50%. This is expected to reduce the local costs of administering the program and provide a better local agency to serve the needs of the affected public.
Local agencies which meet certain criteria will be given authority under a delegation agreement to review and approve or disapprove sewage facilities planning modules relating to new land developments. Developers, builders, realtors and mortgage lenders in areas where a local agency has entered into such a delegation agreement are expected to benefit from the more streamlined process since the Department will not be involved in the review process except in an oversight capacity. In addition, the local review is expected to result in a one-stop review process.
The Sewage Facilities Program will benefit from the review fees charged to applicants for sewage facilities planning approvals from the Department. The fees will be deposited in a special fund created under section 13.2 of the act (35 P.S. § 1750.13b). These fees will be used for, among other things, training of sewage enforcement officers, onlot sewage system research and municipal outreach programs. Developers and other applicants will experience an increased cost for the review of their sewage facilities plans.
Individuals who propose to build a new dwelling to replace an existing dwelling in accordance with the criteria specified in these regulations will benefit from provisions which allow the activity without the need to obtain a permit for sewage facilities. The Commonwealth is expected to experience a cost of continued pollution in cases where the existing system is old and substandard.
Some owners of properties or lots which are too small to support both a well and an onlot sewage disposal system will benefit from an exemption from isolation distance requirements which will permit them to build a residence anyway. The same property owners may experience a cost if they have to treat or upgrade, or both, their water supplies where an expert they relied upon made an erroneous determination with respect to the isolation distance, and hence the exemption.
Property owners, developers, builders, realtors and mortgage lenders will benefit from a streamlined review process for alternate onlot sewage system proposals. In addition, the reclassification of several current types of alternate systems and technologies as standard technology and the implementation of individual residential spray irrigation system standards are expected to make much land previously unusable for these systems more readily available for development.
The mandatory filing system for permit applications will be a small cost to local agencies, but will provide a more organized and readily available source of information for the affected public.
The expanded powers and duties of local agencies will pose more of an administrative cost to the local agencies. However, these costs are expected to be largely offset by the fees the local agencies are now authorized to charge for these expanded services. Developers and builders will have to absorb these higher fees, but are expected to benefit from improved and more streamlined services from the local agency.
The clarified conflict of interest provisions related to the employment of sewage enforcement officers will result in local agencies losing the services of a sewage enforcement officer when conflicting employment is occurring. This will necessitate the services of a replacement sewage enforcement officer, by contract or otherwise. Some sewage enforcement officers will not be able to continue consulting activities and still act as a sewage enforcement officer in certain circumstances.
Applicants for a permit to install an onlot sewage system on a lot which was tested by a previous sewage enforcement officer and determined to be unsuitable for an onlot sewage system will benefit from a fairer assessment process for retesting the same lot. Local agencies will bear the cost of additional soils testing and administrative fees associated with the retesting.
Local agencies applying for reimbursement from the Department for expenses incurred in the administration of the onlot permitting program will benefit from an extension of the application deadline outlined in these final-form regulations.
Sewage enforcement officers and onlot system installers will benefit from the training courses the Department will develop and administer as a result of these regulations. There will be costs to the Commonwealth to develop and administer these courses.
Purchasers of property will benefit from clauses and warnings required in sales contracts associated with the sale of properties or lots which are exempt from the planning or permitting requirements under the regulations. These exemptions may result in the property or lot being unsuitable for building or otherwise less valuable.
The Department and the public will benefit from provisions which allow actions against sewage enforcement officers who act in violation of applicable law in their capacity as consultants. Developers will benefit from provisions which require the Department to provide technical information regarding sewage treatment systems and the authority of the Department to waive its review of sewage facilities plans.
G. Sunset Review
These final-form regulation will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the Department to determine whether the regulations effectively fulfill the goals for which they were intended.
H. Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on March 12, 1996, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 26 Pa.B. 1491 to IRRC and the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for review and comment. In compliance with section 5(b.1) of the Regulatory Review Act, the Department also provided IRRC and the Committees with copies of the comments received, as well as other documentation.
In preparing these final-form regulations, the Department has considered the comments received from IRRC and the public. No comments were received from either of the Committees.
These final-form regulations were deemed approved by the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee on May 27, 1997, and was deemed approved by the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee on May 27, 1997. IRRC met on June 5, 1997, and disapproved the amendments in accordance with section 6(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.6(a)). Under section 7(b) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.7(b)), the Department determined it was desirable to implement the final-form regulations without revisions or modifications recommended by IRRC and submitted a report to the Standing Committees of the House and Senate on September 22, 1997. The Committees did not act on the Department's report within 14 days of receipt of the Department's report. These final-form regulations were accordingly deemed approved on October 6, 1997, and may thus be promulgated in accordance with section 7(d) of the Regulatory Review Act.
I. Findings of the Board
The Board finds that:
(1) Public notice of proposed rulemaking was given under sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201 and 1202) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1 and 7.2.
(2) A public comment period was provided as required by law and the comments were considered.
(3) These regulations do not enlarge the purpose of the proposal published at 26 Pa.B. 1491.
(4) These final-form regulations are necessary and appropriate for the administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts identified in Section C of this Preamble.
J. Order of the Board
The Board, acting under the authorizing statutes, orders that:
(a) The regulations of the Department, 25 Pa. Code Chapters 71--73, are amended by amending §§ 71.1--71.3, 711.11, 71.14, 71.21, 71.22, 71.31, 71.32, 71.41, 71.43, 71.44, 71.51, 71.53--71.55, 71.62--71.65, 71.72, 71.73, 71.75, 72.1, 72.2, 72.21, 72.22--72.28, 72.31, 72.41--72.44, 72.52--72.55, 72.58, 73.1--73.3, 73.11--73.17, 73.21, 73.31, 73.32, 73.41--73.45, 73.51--73.55, 73.62, 73.64, 73.65, 73.71, 73.72; and by adding §§ 71.58, 71.59, 71.81--71.83, 72.32, 72.33 and 73.161--73.167 to read as set forth in Annex A, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the regulations.
(b) The Chairperson of the Board shall submit this order and Annex A to IRRC and the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees as required by the Regulatory Review Act.
(c) The Chairperson of the Board shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau, as required by law.
(d) This order shall take effect as set forth in Section A of the Preamble.
JAMES M. SEIF,
Chairperson(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 27 Pa.B. 3000 (June 21, 1997).)
Fiscal Note: 7-294; (1) General Fund; (2) Implementing Year 1997-98 is $934,162; (3) 1st Succeeding Year 1998-89 is $879,467; 2nd Succeeding Year 1999-00 is $1,074,812; 3rd Succeeding Year 2000-01 is $1,270,157; 4th Succeeding Year 2001-02 is $1,465,502; 5th Succeeding Year 2002-03 is $1,660,847; (4) Fiscal Year 1996-97 $2.5 million; Fiscal Year 1995-96 $2.5 million; Fiscal Year 1994-95 $2.5 million; (7) Sewage Facilities Enforcement Grants; (8) recommends adoption.
The increased costs to the Sewage Facilities Enforcement Grants Appropriation have been included in the 1997--1998 Governor's Executive Budget Proposal and have also been carried forward for planning purposes.
Annex A
TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Subpart C. PROTECTION OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 71. ADMINISTRATION OF SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING PROGRAM
Subchapter A. GENERAL
GENERAL § 71.1. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
* * * * * Clean Water Act--The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251--1387).
Delegated agency--A municipality, local agency, multimunicipal local agency or county or joint county department of health to which the Department was delegated the authority to review and approve subdivisions for new land developments as supplements to the official plan of a municipality in which the subdivision is located.
Equivalent dwelling unit--For the purpose of determining the number of lots in a subdivision only as it relates to the determination of planning exemptions and fees for planning module reviews under this chapter, that part of a multiple family dwelling or commercial or industrial establishment with flows equal to 400 gallons per day. These flow figures are not intended to be used for the calculation of flows for the design of community sewerage systems or for the allocation of flows related to community sewerage systems. Community sewerage system flows for design and permitting purposes shall be calculated using the procedures established in the Department's Domestic Wastewater Facilities Manual (DEP-1357).
Individual residential spray irrigation system--An individual sewage system which serves a single dwelling and which treats and disposes of sewage using a system of piping, treatment tanks and soil renovation through spray irrigation.
* * * * * Municipality--A city, town, township, borough or home rule municipality other than a county.
* * * * * Official plan revision--A change in the municipality's official plan to provide for additional, newly identified future or existing sewage facilities needs, which may include one or more of the following:
(i) Update revision--A comprehensive revision to an existing official plan required when the Department or municipality determines the official plan or one or more of its parts is inadequate for the existing or future sewage facilities needs of a municipality or its residents or landowners.
* * * * * (iii) Special study--A study, survey, investigation, inquiry, research report or analysis which is directly related to an update revision. The studies provide documentation or other support necessary to solve specific problems identified in the update revision.
(iv) Supplement--A sewage facilities planning module for a subdivision for new land development which will not be served by sewage facilities requiring a new or modified permit from the Department under The Clean Streams Law, and which is reviewed and approved by a delegated agency.
(v) Exception to the requirement to revise--A process established in § 71.55 (relating to exceptions to the requirement to revise the official plan for new land development) which describes the criteria under which a revision for new land development is not required.
* * * * * Retaining tank--A watertight receptacle which receives and retains sewage and is designed and constructed to facilitate ultimate disposal of the sewage at another site. The term includes:
(i) Chemical toilet--A permanent or portable nonflushing toilet using chemical treatment in the retaining tank for odor control.
(ii) Holding tank--A tank, whether permanent or temporary, to which sewage is conveyed by a water carrying system.
(iii) Privy--A tank designed to receive sewage where water under pressure is not available.
(iv) Incinerating toilet--A device capable of reducing waste materials to ashes.
(v) Composting toilet--A device for holding and processing human and organic kitchen waste employing the process of biological degradation through the action of microorganisms to produce a stable, humus-like material.
(vi) Recycling toilet--A device in which the flushing medium is restored to a condition suitable for reuse in flushing.
Sewage--A substance that contains the waste products or excrement or other discharge from the bodies of human beings or animals and noxious or deleterious substances being harmful or inimical to the public health, or to animal or aquatic life, or to the use of water for domestic water supply or for recreation. The term includes any substance which constitutes pollution under The Clean Streams Law.
Sewage enforcement officer--An official of the local agency who reviews permit applications and sewage facilities planning modules, issues permits as authorized by the act and conducts investigations and inspections that are necessary to implement the act and the regulations thereunder.
Sewage facilities--A system of sewage collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal which will prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into waters of this Commonwealth or otherwise provide for the safe and sanitary treatment and disposal of sewage or other waste. The term includes:
(i) Individual sewage system--A system of piping, tanks or other facilities serving a single lot and collecting and disposing of sewage in whole or in part into the soil or into waters of this Commonwealth or by means of conveyance to another site for final disposal. The term includes:
(A) Individual onlot sewage system--An individual sewage system which uses a system of piping, tanks or other facilities for collecting, treating and disposing of sewage into a soil absorption area or spray field or by retention in a retaining tank.
(B) Individual sewerage system--An individual sewage system which uses a method of sewage collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal other than renovation in a soil absorption area, or retention in a retaining tank.
(ii) Community sewage system--A sewage facility, whether publicly or privately owned, for the collection of sewage from two or more lots, or two or more equivalent dwelling units and the treatment or disposal, or both, of the sewage on one or more of the lots or at another site.
(A) Community onlot sewage system--A system of piping, tanks or other facilities serving two or more lots and collecting, treating and disposing of sewage into a soil absorption area or retaining tank located on one or more of the lots or at another site.
(B) Community sewerage system--A publicly or privately-owned community sewage system which uses a method of sewage collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal other than renovation in a soil absorption area, or retention in a retaining tank.
* * * * * Small flow treatment facilities--An individual or community sewerage system designed to adequately treat sewage flows not greater than 2,000 gallons per day for final disposal using a stream discharge or other disposal methods approved by the Department.
* * * * * Subdivision--The division or redivision of a lot, tract or other parcel of land into two or more lots, tracts, parcels or other divisions of land, including changes in existing lot lines. The enumerating of lots shall include as a lot that portion of the original tract or tracts remaining after other lots have been subdivided therefrom.
* * * * * Working day--Calendar days as specified in 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (relating to computation of time) excluding Saturdays and Sundays, or a day made a legal holiday by the statutes of the Commonwealth or of the United States. The period shall be calculated to exclude the first and include the last day of the period.
[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.
