To revise current standards for residential onsite wastewater treatment systems.
Substance of final rule:
These regulations would:
Add, as an alternative to a conventional septic tank, a new category of onsite wastewater treatment systems called Enhanced Treatment Units (ETUs) that provide enhanced wastewater treatment prior to discharge to soil absorption systems.
Allow National Sanitation Foundation Class I Standard 40 or equivalently tested ETUs to be designed with a 33% absorption trench length reduction and to allow a 33% smaller basal area design for raised systems receiving effluent from an ETU. Due to increased maintenance required for these systems they will be only be considered for design approval in jurisdictions served by a responsible management entity (RME) or where maintenance of the systems is monitored and required by a local sanitary code or watershed rule or regulation.
Recognize that certain gravelless absorption system products provide increased infiltration surface area for wastewater treatment in soil absorption areas and therefore allow a 25% absorption trench length reduction for certain gravelless trench products.
Allow properly manufactured waste tire chips to be used as a replacement for stone aggregate in absorption trenches.
Revise the minimum design flow rate to 110-gallons per day per bedroom as installed fixtures must conform with water conservation standards for plumbing fixtures established in 1994.
Delete Evaporation-Transpiration (ET), Evapo-Transpiration Absorption (ETA) and engineered systems as wastewater treatment technology options.
Rescind the New Product/System Design Interim Approval section as the proposed amendments incorporate new products, revise existing design standards, expand the use of third party product certifications and include a specific waiver provision.
Recognize the use of Section 75.6 in Part 75 of existing Department regulations to address deviations from Appendix 75-A through the issuance of a specific waiver.
Make minor technical revisions to codify long standing technical guidance concerning, and provide flexibility in dosing tank size requirements, allowing for alternative fill material stabilization methods and allowing gravity distribution for small intermittent sand filters.
Note: The absorption trench length reductions for ETUs and gravelless systems do not apply within the New York City Watershed.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
Nonsubstantive changes were made in Appendix 75-A, sections 75-A.1, 75-A.4, 75-A.6, 75-A.8 and 75-A.9.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Katherine Ceroalo, DOH, Bureau of House Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Unit, Room 2438, ESP, Tower Building, Albany, NY 12237, (518) 473-7488, email: regsqna@health.state.ny.us
Revised Regulatory Impact Statement
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Law Section 201(1)(l) authorizes the Department of Health (DOH) to regulate residential sewage disposal of less than 1,000 gallons per day. Environmental Conservation Law Section 17-0701 authorizes the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to regulate of sewage disposal of commercial facilities of greater than 1,000 gallons per day. Pursuant to these statutes and memoranda of understanding between DOH and the DEC, regulatory responsibilities for sewage disposal are divided between the two agencies. DOH retains responsibility for onsite sewage disposal from residential dwellings with a design flow of 1,000 gallons per day or less.
Legislative Objectives:
The shared legislative and agency objective is to protect public health and the environment. The purpose of promulgating a regulation incorporating design standards for onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) is to ensure that household wastewater is treated and dispersed in a manner protective of public health and the environment.
Needs and Benefits:
Existing regulations need to be updated to recognize new OWTS technologies that provide acceptable or enhanced treatment of household wastewater, additional options and economic benefits for homeowners, and environmental benefits for communities.
It is estimated that 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 New Yorkers rely upon 1,500,000 existing OWTSs for treating their household wastewater. OWTS are located predominantly in suburban and rural areas not served by municipal sewerage facilities. Due to diminishing funding for new municipal sewer systems, and continuing residential development in areas not served by public sewers, many state residents will continue to rely on OWTSs into the foreseeable future. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges this trend and has renewed an emphasis on the proper design, operation, and management of residential OWTS. The EPA has encouraged the development and testing of innovative OWTS technologies and products.
10 NYCRR Part 75, Appendix 75 A, "Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems" sets minimum standards for design and construction of new OWTS serving residential properties. The State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code references Appendix 75-A as the statewide design standard for OWTSs. Although not directly applicable to repair of existing OWTSs, many design professionals and local permitting officials also use these standards to guide the repair or replacement of existing systems.
The current, 1990 version of Appendix 75 A specifies design and installation standards for long proven OWTS technologies that work in soil and groundwater conditions found in New York. Since 1990, technological advances have expanded available OWTS products nationwide. Manufacturers of OWTS products, vendors, government agencies, and academics have been developing and testing new products that provide improved treatment and dispersal of household wastewater, often at significantly reduced costs. Manufacturers, vendors, homeowners, design professionals, public agencies, and environmental advocates all share an interest in a regulatory climate conducive to their use.
Summary of Proposed Revisions:
The proposed revisions primarily provide for the general use of two new categories of OWTS technology: gravelless absorption systems and enhanced treatment units (ETUs).
Gravelless Systems: Most OWTSs provide primary treatment of household wastewater in a septic tank followed by dispersal of wastewater to a soil absorption area for final, passive biological treatment. The most common absorption area is constructed of perforated pipe installed in gravel or stone filled trenches. The proposed revisions recognize that gravelless absorption technologies can provide increased infiltration surface area for biological treatment of septic tank effluent within an absorption field, and establish criteria for acceptable design and installation of gravelless technologies. Without the masking effects of stone, a significant increase in the soil infiltration surface area is available for biomat formation and therefore some gravelless systems will be allowed a corresponding reduction in trench lengths for absorption fields.
ETUs: The proposed revisions will incorporate ETUs as new alternative system options. Several new technologies fall under this category; all provide advanced wastewater treatment prior to dispersal to an absorption area. However, ETUs typically have additional electrical and mechanical components critical to their proper operation and therefore require more vigilant maintenance than conventional septic tanks. As proposed, effective performance of these units must be documented through independent third party testing and certification by a reputable organization such as the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).
The enhanced treatment provided by ETUs allows for a corresponding reduction in trench lengths for absorption fields. However, because of the increased need for inspection and maintenance of ETUs, trench length reductions will only be allowed in locations with a regulatory program that ensures proper maintenance. These programs can be implemented by agencies with jurisdiction and enforcement authority over OWTSs (e.g., watershed protection agencies, local health departments, and municipal sewer districts), denoted as responsible management entities (RMEs). EPA encourages the establishment of RMEs as an effective means of OWTS management.
The proposed revisions will allow use of properly manufactured tire derived aggregate (TDA) as a substitute for gravel and stone in absorption area trenches. Research has shown TDA to be a safe and reliable replacement for gravel and stone in OWTS applications. TDA is used in OWTS applications in several other states.
The proposed revisions will eliminate a provision that provides for interim review and approval of OWTS products. This seldom used provision will no longer be needed because proposed provisions provide acceptance for entire classes of new OWTS products and independent third party certifications of OWTS products as well as recognizing specific waivers.
Finally, there are minor technical revisions to codify long standing technical procedures regarding the design of OWTS. These provisions will provide flexibility in dosing tank size requirements, allowing for alternative fill material stabilization methods and allowing gravity distribution to small intermittent sand filters.
COSTS:
Costs to State Government:
There will be no additional costs to the State beyond distributing the revised regulation and providing training and outreach. The most significant effort will be training local health department staff and design professionals on new OWTS technologies addressed by the rule. Training will be provided through inter-agency coordination using existing resources.
Allowing use of tire derived aggregate will result in cost and environmental benefits to the State by encouraging a market for recycling discarded tires, an initiative promoted by the Empire State Development Corporation, and Department of Environmental Conservation. Empire State Development staff projected that using tire derived aggregate in OWTS has the potential to significantly reduce the statewide need for processing and disposing of waste tires.
Costs to Local Government:
The proposed revisions pose no new mandates on local governments. Initially local governments with OWTS regulatory programs will expend staff time training on the revision and the new technologies it addresses. However, the proposed revision shall provide clear standards on technologies and products already being used and may reduce staff time associated with inquiries and review and approval of OWTS applications.
Local governments may incur new costs if they elect to become a responsible maintenance entity (RME). Local governments will not be required to become RMEs, but may voluntarily do so as a means to improve OWTS oversight. Some county health departments already serve as RMEs by virtue of their own county code. Serving as a RME requires dedicated staff and resources. Such programs are typically funded by local fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. RME startup costs could range from less than $1,000 to more than $20,000. EPA estimated that annual fees or rates to cover these costs can vary from about $20 to $300 per household, depending upon RME activities funded and challenges faced.
Allowing use of tire derived aggregate will result in cost benefits to all levels of government by encouraging a market for recycled tires.
Costs to Regulated Parties:
No additional costs to the manufacturers of gravelless products or ETUs have been identified. Appendix 75-A is a reference standard and the proposed revisions will allow for the routine use and recognition of their products.
Costs to Designers:
Beyond initial training, the rule will have minimal or no cost impacts to designers of OWTSs. Designers of OWTS may incur initial costs to become qualified to design and install the new technologies addressed by the proposed revisions. Some manufacturers and vendors of OWTS products provide this training free of charge. Professional and for-profit organizations are also available to provide this training at reasonable costs. Such costs are business investments that will be recouped. The proposed rule does not require such training or even use of the products; this will be driven by market-based incentive.
Costs to End-Users (Homeowners):
The rule will not impose additional costs on end-users (homeowners). Instead, the rule will potentially provide cost savings by allowing greater selection of OWTS technologies and products for site-specific application.
The rule could create cost impacts to residents in jurisdictions that form a responsible maintenance entity (RME). Such programs are typically implemented where non-ordinary wastewater treatment and disposal issues exist (e.g. waterfront lots or sensitive watersheds) and would be funded by user fees. These annual fees can vary from about $20 to $300 per household. The rule provides for smaller absorption fields in RMEs, where this occurs, there will be offsetting cost benefits.
Additionally, tire derived aggregate could create savings in areas of the state where gravel prices are at a premium.
Local Government Mandates:
Local agencies with OWTS regulatory oversight will have to become familiar with the new standards, but the proposed revision does not impose new program responsibilities on any county, city, town, village, school district, fire district or special district.
Paperwork:
No new reporting requirements are created by the proposal. Additional recordkeeping by RMEs is implicit in the proposed rule, however, the establishment of RMEs is a local option and not mandatory.
Duplication:
This regulation does not duplicate any existing federal, state or local regulation.
Alternatives:
One alternative to the proposed revisions is to take no action and continue using current standards of Appendix 75 A. This approach ignores; (1) significant advances in OWTS technology, (2) nationwide trends in state-level OWTS management, (3) guidance by EPA, and (4) the developing market for improved OWTS products. Additionally, relying on the current standards limits options for environmentally responsible community development.
Another alternative is to maintain the current regulations and encourage county health departments to evaluate and accept new products under existing provisions of Appendix 75-A. This passes the responsibility for product acceptance and design standards to county health departments. This is not practical; few counties have resources for such a program. This would lead to disparity from county to county in specific product use and requirements, and confusion within the regulated community.
The State could opt to perform product assessments and verifications in lieu of requiring independent third-party evaluation, but these are resource intensive and not practical at this time.
Federal Standards:
No federal standards exist.
Compliance Schedule:
These regulations will be effective upon publication of a Notice of Adoption in the New York State Register.
Revised Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Effects on Small Business and Local Government:
The proposed revision to 10 NYCRR Appendix 75-A will involve changes in design and construction specifications for onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) technologies and products included in the current version of the rule. The revision will also allow for the use of existing technologies and products not readily accommodated under the current rule. The result of the changes will generally mean increased options available for OWTS designers. Most OWTS designers and installers would be classified as small businesses (for example, engineering, architectural, and general contracting or soil excavating companies having fewer than 100 employees). OWTS designers and installers will need to be updated on the changes; the New York State Department of Health (DOH) will provide notices and information about the changes to individuals and organizations involved with OWTS design, approval, and construction.
No adverse impacts will be created for local government under the proposed rule. The proposed rule recognizes a category of legal entities known as responsible management entities (RMEs) that have the ability and authority to oversee OWTS operations. Under the proposal, certain types of potentially beneficial OWTSs will be allowed for use within RMEs. Local governments may voluntarily become RMEs, thereby increasing OWTS options and corresponding oversight responsibilities within their jurisdiction. Such programs are typically funded by local fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. The proposed revision does not require RMEs, but recognizes their benefit to OWTS management.
Reporting and Recordkeeping:
No new reporting or record-keeping requirements are created by the proposed rule. The importance of recordkeeping within RMEs is implicit in the proposed rule; however, the establishment of RMEs is a local decision.
Professional Services:
No additional requirement for professional licensing, certification, or registration is required under the proposed revision. Manufacturers and vendors of some OWTS products do require proper training and/or certification for those using and/or installing their products. Many of these also provide the training to interested designers and installers. The proposed rule does not require the use of these products, however; this will be driven by market-based incentive.
Other Compliance Requirements:
The proposed revision will allow for, but not require, modified sizing specifications for components of some OWTS technologies accommodated in the present rule. The proposed revision will allow the use of OWTS products and technologies not accommodated in the present rule, subject to specified design and construction requirements.
Costs:
Potential Costs to Manufacturers of OWTS Products:
No additional costs to the manufacturers of gravelless products or ETUs have been identified. Appendix 75-A is a reference standard and the proposed revisions will allow for the routine use and recognition of their products.
Potential Costs to Designers:
The rule will have minimal or no cost impacts to designers of OWTSs. Some may incur initial training costs in becoming qualified to install different types of systems/products, however some manufacturers and vendors of OWTS products provide free training to interested designers The proposed rule does not require such training or even use of the products; this will be driven by market-based incentive.
Potential Costs to End-Users (Homeowners):
For end users (homeowners), the rule will not impose additional costs. Instead, the rule will potentially provide cost savings to end-users by allowing a greater selection of OWTS technologies and products for site-specific considerations. Additionally, the use of tire derived aggregate (TDA) could become cost competitive in some areas of the state, resulting in savings to the end-user.
The rule could have cost impacts to individuals who reside in municipalities or jurisdictions that decide to become RMEs. Such programs are typically funded by fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. Based upon information and case studies recently provided to states by the US EPA (US EPA, 2003), these annual fees or rates can vary from about $20 to about $300 per household, depending upon the level of RME activities funded and/or the administrative and technical challenges faced within a given RME.
Potential Costs to Local Government:
There will be no additional costs to local governments. The proposed revision will potentially result in cost savings by providing clear standards to design professionals and permit issuing officials relative to OWTS technologies and products. Allowing use of TDA may also result in an environmental benefit by encouraging a market for the recycling of discarded tires, an initiative promoted by the Governor's Office and the NYS DEC.
Local governments may voluntarily become RMEs, thereby increasing OWTS options and oversight within their jurisdiction. Such programs are typically funded by fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. As noted above, these annual fees or rates can vary from about $20 to about $300 per household, depending upon the level of RME activities funded and/or the technological challenges faced within a given RME. These annual costs may be additional to RME start-up costs that could range from less than $10,000 to more than $20,000 (US EPA, 2003). The proposed revision does not require that the local governments establish RMEs, but simply recognizes their benefit to OWTS management where municipalities do establish such.
Economic and Technological Feasibility:
The proposed rule is economically and technologically feasible. It will provide for the general use of technical advances already being used within the OWTS industry.
Minimizing Adverse Economic Impact:
The proposed rule modifies existing standards for household OWTSs in a manner that increases potential options for responsible, environmentally friendly, design. As with the current regulation, the option of specific waivers will be available pursuant to 10 NYCRR Part 75 in rare circumstances that cannot be reasonably accommodated within the provisions of the rule. Site specific OWTS performance with respect to the key objective of treating wastewater in a manner protective of public health and the environment is the primary consideration in these situations.
Small Business and Local Government Participation:
In April of 2003 DOH established the OWTS Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee was established by DOH to provide technical advice and broader perspective to its OWTS regulatory program, including a potential revision of the Appendix 75-A regulations. The Committee includes representatives from DOH, New York State Conference of Environmental Health Directors, several county health departments (Madison, Suffolk, and Westchester), the Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the New York Onsite Wastewater Association (an OWTS industry group), the New York Land Improvement and Contractors Association, NYS and Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation Committees, the New York State Society of Professional Engineers, and the Catskill Watershed Corporation. Other participants at the two Advisory Committee meetings included representatives of the Onsite Training Network (OTN), the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, Empire State Development, local health departments, the PreCasters Association of New York (septic tank manufacturers), the Lake George Waterkeeper, four OWTS product vendors and one environmental consulting firm.
Committee meeting participants received and discussed three drafts of potential revisions to the text of Appendix 75-A based upon the Committee's input. In this manner, proposed changes that would impact certain entities were developed with input from the potentially affected parties.
Revised Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
Types and Estimated Number of Rural Areas:
In general, household onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are used in rural areas and suburban areas that do not have municipal sewage collection systems. Based upon information from the 1990 U.S. Census, populations in the upstate central New York/Finger Lakes counties, north-country/Adirondack counties, Catskill region counties, east-of-Hudson counties, and eastern Long Island are more likely to rely on OWTS than other means for wastewater needs. Statewide, 48 of New York's 62 counties have a sizable percentage of population (> 25%) that rely on OWTSs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping:
No new reporting or recordkeeping requirements are created by the proposed rule. The importance of recordkeeping within responsible management entities (RMEs) is implicit in the proposed rule, however, the establishment of RMEs is not mandated by the proposed rule but is rather a local voluntary decision.
Professional Services:
No additional requirement for professional licensing, certification, or registration is required under the proposed revision. Manufacturers and vendors of some OWTS products do require proper training and/or certification for those using and/or installing their products. Many manufactures of these products also provide the training to interested designers and installers. The proposed rule does not require the use of these products; however, this will be driven by market-based incentive.
Other Compliance Requirements:
The proposed revision will allow for, but not require, modified sizing specifications for components of some OWTS technologies accommodated in the present rule. The proposed revision will allow the use of existing OWTS products and technologies not accommodated in the present rule, subject to specified design and construction requirements.
COSTS:
Projected Costs of Compliance:
Potential Costs to Manufacturers of OWTS Products:
No additional costs to the manufacturers of gravelless products or ETUs have been identified. Appendix 75-A is a reference standard and the proposed revisions will allow for the routine use and recognition of their products already being used.
Potential Costs to Designers:
The rule will have minimal or no cost impacts to designers of OWTS other than for initial training. Designers of OWTS may incur initial training costs in becoming qualified to design and install the new technologies addressed in the proposed rule. Some manufacturers and vendors of OWTS products provide free training to interested designers. A number of training organizations are also available to provide this training at reasonable costs. The proposed rule does not require such training or even use of the products; this will be driven by market-based incentive.
Potential Costs to End-Users (Homeowners):
For end users (homeowners), the rule will not impose additional costs. Instead, the rule will potentially provide cost savings to end-users by allowing a greater selection of OWTS technologies and products for site-specific considerations. The rule could have cost impacts to individuals who reside in municipalities or jurisdictions that form a responsible maintenance entity (RME). Such programs are typically implemented where wastewater treatment and disposal is an environmental or health based concerns such as waterfronts, watersheds or drinking water sources. They would be funded by fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. These annual fees or rates can vary from about $20 to about $300 per household.
Additionally, the use of tire derived aggregate (TDA) could become cost competitive in areas of the state where gravel is at a premium, resulting in savings to the end user.
Potential Costs to Local Government:
There will be no additional mandates on local governments. However, local governments may incur new costs if they voluntarily elect to take on the role of a responsible maintenance entity (RME). Local governments will not be required to become RMEs, but they may opt to do so as a means to increase OWTS options and oversight within their jurisdiction. Some county health departments already act in this capacity by virtue of their own county sanitary code. Serving as a RME requires dedicated staff and resources. Such programs are typically funded by fees and/or rates and become self-sustaining. Based upon information and case studies recently provided to states by the EPA, these annual fees or rates can vary from about $20 to about $300 per household, depending upon the level of RME activities funded and/or the administrative and technical challenges faced within a given RME. These annual costs may be additional to RME start-up costs that could range from less than $1,000 to more than $20,000. The proposed revision does not require that the local governments establish RMEs, but simply recognizes their benefit to OWTS management where municipalities do establish such.
Initially local government agencies that implement OWTS regulatory programs will need to spend staff time to become trained on the proposed rule and the new technologies it addresses. However, the proposed revision will provide clear standards to design professionals and permit issuing officials and over the longer term, should reduce staff time associated with inquiries and review and approval of OWTS applications.
Allowing use of TDA may also result in cost benefits to all levels of government by encouraging a market for the recycling of discarded tires.
Minimizing Adverse Economic Impact on Rural Areas:
The proposed rule modifies existing standards for household OWTS in a manner that increases potential options for responsible, environmentally friendly, design. As with the current regulation, the option of specific waivers will be available pursuant to 10 NYCRR Part 75 in rare circumstances that cannot be reasonably accommodated within the provisions of the rule. Site specific OWTS performance with respect to the key objective of treating wastewater in a manner protective of public health and the environment is the primary consideration in these situations.
Rural Area Participation:
In April of 2003 the New York State Department of Health (DOH) established the OWTS Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee was established by DOH to provide technical advice and a broader perspective to its OWTS regulatory program, including a potential revision of the Appendix 75-A regulations. The Committee includes representatives from DOH, New York State Conference of Environmental Health Directors, several county health departments (Madison, Suffolk, and Westchester), the Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the New York Onsite Wastewater Association (an OWTS industry group), the New York Land Improvement and Contractors Association, NYS and Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation Committees, the New York State Society of Professional Engineers, and the Catskill Watershed Corporation. Other participants at the two Advisory Committee meetings included representatives of the Onsite Training Network (OTN), the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, Empire State Development, local health departments, the PreCasters Association of New York (septic tank manufacturers), the Lake George Waterkeeper, four OWTS product vendors and one environmental consulting firm. Several of these organizations represent constituencies that include rural populations, and representatives from four local health departments represent several rural constituencies. The Advisory Committee has met three times to discuss the proposed rule changes. Additionally, DOH has solicited comments and input from its district offices on potential changes to the regulation. In this manner, proposed changes that would impact rural populations were developed with input from the potentially affected parties. Assessment of the collective input from these parties indicates general conceptual support for provisions in the proposed rule.
Revised Job Impact Statement
The Department of Health has determined that the rule will not have substantial adverse impact on jobs or employment opportunities. The proposed rule allows modification of some design specifications for existing onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) technologies and includes provisions for the use of OWTS technologies and products not addressed in the present version of Appendix 75-A. The proposed revisions have the potential to increase use of certain OWTS technologies, products and create a market for tire derived aggregate (TDA). Thus, expanded work and marketing opportunities for those involved in the manufacture, distribution, design, and installation of these technologies, products or TDA processing has the potential to bring new employment opportunities to the state.
Assessment of Public Comment
The Department received written and electronic comments from 32 parties including, but not limited to, the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), Adirondack Council, three watershed protection agencies, practicing engineers, soil scientists, wastewater treatment product manufacturers and some county health departments. The Department considered all input and suggestions on the proposed rule as deemed appropriate.
The following assessment summarizes the comments and briefly describes the revision(s), all nonsubstantial, to the proposed rule or reason for not changing the proposed rule. Several of the comments were not specifically focused on the proposed changes to the regulation but rather were procedural in nature, related to other regulations or were deemed beyond the scope of this regulatory revision. These types of comments are not specifically addressed in this response, however, most of them will be addressed in the planned update of the NYSDOH "Individual Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook" (1996) and through implementation and training efforts.
Comment:
An enhanced treatment unit (ETU) manufacturer and two county health departments suggested modifications to the definition of "Enhanced Treatment" that: included requiring a septic tank before discharge to an ETU, include "chemical" as part of the treatment process, use "biochemical" rather than "biological", and include acceptable BOD, TSS and Fecal Coliform levels.
Response:
Agree to one change. "Biochemical" will replace "biological" because biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is the generally understood terminology in the regulated community and in no way alters the regulation or its implementation. Other suggested changes were not adopted because; although chemical treatment occurs during the wastewater treatment process it is not necessary to specifying it for the purposes of the definition; and some ETUs do not require a septic tank or have a small primary settling tank as part of the unit and Appendix 75-A references National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) listed units. NSF has established effluent testing limits so it is not necessary to specify those limits in Appendix 75-A.
Comment:
Two county health departments and one water shed protection agency submitted comments expressing concern with the minimum daily design flow of 110gpd/bedroom, because more than 110gpd/bedroom may be used if homeowners replace water saving fixtures, install personal spa tubs and/or multi-head shower systems.
Response:
The daily design flow was adopted from the 1996 version of the DOH Design Handbook and reflects mandatory installation of water saving fixtures manufactured and sold in accordance with the New York State Environmental Conservation Law enacted in 1994. USEPA's water use data confirm 110gpd/bedroom is appropriate for a typical residence and other states also use a similar range of daily design flow rates of 90-120gpd/bedroom. This minimum daily design flow standard has proven to be sufficient for the vast majority of newly constructed residences. Ultimately it is the design professionals' responsibility to determine expected wastewater discharge volumes from specific residences. The many factors and products can influence daily water usage, including multi-head shower systems and spa tubs. This will be discussed further in the Design Handbook update.
Comment:
A few soil scientists asked that the reference to soil scientists in subparagraph 75-A.4(4) not be deleted.
Response:
No change. The Department continues to acknowledge the value of soil characterization by soil scientists or other qualified persons to assist the design professional in preparing design plans. However, this is a recommendation not a design standard or mandate. The recommendation to utilize soil scientists or other qualified person(s) to assist with soil evaluations when necessary will be included in the NYSDOH Design Handbook update.
Comment:
Two county health departments requested that the reference to reduced separation distances being approved upon request, as stated in subparagraph 75-A.4(4), be deleted because health departments have the specific waiver process available to them if necessary and as written does not stipulate the need for a specific waiver from the health department.
Response:
Agree. The last sentence of the paragraph has been deleted. This deletion does not constitute a substantial change since it is redundant because Appendix 75-A.11, Specific Waivers, already authorizes a specific waiver for the purpose of reduced separation distances and other deviations from the standards.
Comment:
Two county health departments requested an increase in the minimum separation distance to water bodies from Non-Waterborne Systems with onsite discharge from the proposed 50-feet to 100-feet.
Response:
No change. The separation distance listed was adopted from the 1996 version of the DOH Design Handbook. Note that Table 2 lists minimum separation distances, site conditions must be acceptable (i.e., enough useable soil depth) and local codes can be more stringent. If information becomes available to justify the change it will be incorporated into the Design Handbook update and a future rulemaking.
Comment:
An engineer asked to modify Note (d) of Table 2 to define "reserve area".
Response:
Agreed. Note (d) has been modified to change "reserve area" to "additional useable area" as currently referenced in section 75-A.4(a)(5). "Reserve area" and "additional useable area" have the same intended meaning, therefore, this change does not alter the meaning or implementation of the regulations.
Comment:
Multiple comments were received asking why systems located in the New York City Watershed are excluded from the absorption area reduction allowances. Some comments received asked if the exclusion could apply to other watersheds or surface water drinking supplies with filtration avoidance. While some other comments objected to the exclusion because some residents could not get the benefits of using such systems and products that is extended to the rest of the State.
Response:
No change. In Section 75-A.2, "Regulation by Other Agencies," recognizes that Water Protection Agencies can establish more stringent standards and this exclusion reflects NYCDEP's policy. In regards to the New York City watershed, it is a surface water resource of special concern and oversight. The watershed includes a vast area which provides drinking water to 8 million New York City residents and 1 million people in counties north of the City. This watershed is unique not only from the perspective that it provides almost half on New York States population with drinking water but it is also an unfiltered drinking water supply. New York City's Catskill/Delaware water supply is the largest drinking water supply in the country receiving a Filtration Avoidance Determination. The unique nature of this watershed was recognized by the signing of the historic 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement. This Agreement, signed by the Governor of New York, the Department of Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, United State Environmental Protection Agency, local communities and environmental groups to protect the watershed. Note however, that many of the technologies and products referenced in Appendix 75-A are used for system replacements and repairs within the watershed.
Comment:
A county health department asked to include NSF standard 245 for ETUs because some areas with sensitive watersheds and waterfront properties may need to remove nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus. NSF standard 40 does not address nutrient removal.
Response:
No change. NSF Standard 245 units must also pass the NSF Standard 40 testing criteria before it can be listed by NSF, therefore, the NSF Standard 254 units are already acceptable in areas where NSF Standards 40 units can be installed in accordance with the applicable Appendix 75-A standards. Note that the standard is based upon nitrogen removal and does not include phosphorus reduction testing.
Comment:
A comment was received from the University of Buffalo, Center for Integrated Waste Management, requesting to use the term "tire derived aggregate" (TDA) instead of "tire chip aggregate" (TCA) because TDA is the recognized terminology in the industry.
Response:
Agreed. The clarification was made and does not represent any substantial modification in the regulation.
Comment:
A comment was received from a county health department expressing concern over gravelless chamber systems with effluent discharge at the beginning of each trench (point discharge) instead of stone and perforated pipe where there is better distribution along the trench.
Response:
No change. Dispersal at the beginning of a trench (point discharge) occurs in most gravity distribution scenarios. Gravel filled trenches utilizing gravity distribution to a 4-inch perforated pipe distributes effluent only out of the first few perforations. Soil infiltration rate and biomat formation moves wastewater down the length of the trench. Stone acts to keep the trench open and provide void space for aeration, storage and soil infiltration.
Comment:
A comment was received from a county health department raising the concern that chamber systems do not have enough vertical side wall area and the sidewalls get clogged by soils or biomat formation.
Response:
No change. Chambers have a significantly larger open bottom area available for biomat formation and infiltration. The sidewalls primarily allow for sufficient oxygen exchange and are designed to prohibit soil intrusion. Over time it is expected mainly the bottom and maybe some of sidewall will develop a biomat, however, infiltration and oxygen transfer will continue. Many factors can contribute to any system clogging and is rarely caused solely by the product being used. Installation in accordance to the manufacturer's recommendation is important to prevent problems and ensure long-term functioning.
Comment:
A comment was received from another agency suggesting that when gravelless products are used with a trench length reduction that an area should be available where a conventional sized system would also fit.
Response:
No change. Certain gravelless products have proven to provide an environment for wastewater treatment in a slightly smaller footprint than a conventionally sized system. In most cases, the requirement to "set aside" an additional useable area of 50% is a design feature that allows for expanding the system when necessary.
Comment:
A comment was received from another agency expressing concern about the long-term availability of these manufactured gravelless products.
Response:
No change. Roughly 25% of all systems installed nationally are gravelless products and that percentage is expected to grow. Additionally, most of these products are made of recycled materials so there is no reason to expect that they will not be available long-term.
Comment:
Multiple county health departments expressed concern that they would no longer have the authority to review and approve alternative system designs.
Response:
No change. Appendix 75-A is a design standard not procedural requirement. However, based upon concerns expressed by multiple county health departments, the Department is proposing to require the submission of alternative system designs to the jurisdictional health department as part of a future proposed revision to Part 75 "Standards for Individual Water Supply and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems".
Comment:
A county health department requested clarification on how absorption trenches will be designed to distribute wastewater over the smaller basal areas for raised systems receiving ETU effluent.
Response:
Agree: The design criteria for raised systems was reorganized to clarify that basal area calculations and absorption trench length designs for raised systems receiving septic tank effluent will remain being based upon the fill material percolation rate. For raised systems receiving ETU effluent, language was added to clarify the intent is to distribute enhanced treated effluent evenly over the calculated basal using conventional absorption trenches.
Comment:
A comment was received from another agency requesting that six (6) inch lifts be specified for placing fill material.
Response:
No change. It is believed to be generally understood that the meaning of "shallow lifts" is about 6-inches. However, depending on fill material and equipment used, soil could be placed in more or less than 6-inch lifts at a time. The proper selection and placement of fill material will be discussed in more detail in the Design Handbook update.
Comment:
One LHD and one engineer requested to remove the language allowing gravity distribution to intermittent sand filters.
Response:
No change. This Department issued a statewide General Waiver in 1991 and published it in the Design Handbook. There has been little to no reported issues with this design aspect. Also note that the regulation says "may," meaning it is not a requirement but can be considered by the design professional. Construction and design issues for intermittent sand filters will be discussed further in the Design Handbook update.
