Part I.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Chapter 210.
Use of Reclaimed Water
Subchapter A. General Provisions
30 TAC §§210.1-210.9
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
adopts new §§210.1-210.9, 210.21-210.25, 210.31-210.36, and 210.41-210.46,
concerning the use of reclaimed water (i.e., treated wastewater); general
requirements for producers, providers, and users of reclaimed water; quality
criteria; specific uses and reporting requirements for reclaimed water; and
alternative and pre-existing reclaimed water systems. Sections 210.1-210.3,
210.6, 210.23, and 210.25 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as
published in the July 26, 1996, issue of the
Texas
Register
(21 TexReg 6961). Sections 210.4, 210.5, 210.7-210.9, 210.21,
210.22, 210.24, 210.31-210.36, and 210.41-210.46 are adopted without changes
and will not be republished.
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED RULE
The purpose of the sections is to clarify, strengthen, and update requirements
relating to water quality criteria and design and operational requirements.
The requirements will continue to encourage and facilitate the reuse of treated
domestic wastewater effluent from municipal wastewater treatment facilities
for beneficial purposes; assist in the conservation of surface and groundwater;
ensure the protection of public health; protect the quality of surface and
ground water; and help ensure an adequate supply of water for present and
future needs. These sections do not affect any current requirements necessitating
the need for a water right or amendment, if applicable to a particular reclaimed
water use or activity.
The sections establish criteria for the authorization of reclaimed water
activities. The sections will protect the health of persons who might normally
come into contact with reclaimed water; protect against adverse effects from
reclaimed water should crops be irrigated with reclaimed water; and ensure
that the conveyance, storage, and use of reclaimed water will not cause adverse
effects upon surface water, ground water, and soil resources. These sections
will not modify, in any way, the requirements for the producer, provider
and/or user to hold the appropriate water rights relating to the use of state
water.
TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The commission has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules
pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated, §2007.043. The following
is a summary of that assessment. The specific purpose of the proposed rule
is to ease the burden on the commission and those regulated by the rule in
authorizing the use of reclaimed water. Promulgation and enforcement of these
rules will not create a burden on private real property which is the subject
of the rules.
HEARING AND COMMENTERS
A public hearing was held August 13, 1996, in Austin. No public testimony
was offered at the public hearing. The public comment period closed on August
26, 1996. The commission received 11 written comments on the proposal from
the following: Cities of Amarillo, Fort Worth, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls;
Fisher & Newsom, P.C., Attorneys at Law; Kemp, Smith, Duncan & Hammond,
P.C., Attorneys at Law (Kemp, Smith); Lloyd, Gosselink, Fowler, Blevins &
Mathes, P.C., Attorneys at Law (Lloyd, Gosselink); Strasburger & Price,
L.L.P., Attorneys and Counselors; Vinson & Elkins Attorneys at Law (V
& E); Jones & Carter, Inc., Consulting Engineers; and Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., Engineers, Scientists & Planners.
COMMENTS ON GENERAL PROVISIONS
Fisher & Newsom commented that §210.1 was unclear as to the applicability
of these rules to entities that currently operate under wastewater discharge
permits that authorize the disposal of treated effluent by irrigation; particularly
the applicability of the rules to the user of effluent where the effluent
disposal occurs on land that is not owned by the permittee. They proposed
to add the following language to §210.1 (relating to Consolidated Permits):
The commission agrees that the rules are intended to apply to the user
as well as the producers of the effluent for reuse and the proposed language
clarifying this has been added to this section.
The City of Wichita Falls expressed concern about distinguishing the responsibility
between a producer, provider, and user. Section 210.2(a) states that the
requirements in this chapter must be met by producers, providers, or users
of reclaimed water. The city interpreted the word "or" to indicate that only
one of the three (producers, providers, users) will be held responsible for
a given requirement in the chapter, but feel that the responsibility for
some requirements are unclear. They pointed out several examples.
The commission agrees that delineation of responsibility could be made
more clear. The purpose of the section is to point out that the producer,
provider, and user have different responsibilities throughout this chapter.
There are parts within this chapter where the same responsibility may fall
on one, two, or all three parties. Therefore, in response to the comment,
the commission has substituted "and/or" for the "or" in the referenced sentence.
Jones and Carter and the City of Lubbock stated that the rules would discourage
the general public from using reclaimed water because of stringent restrictive
conditions.
The commission disagrees. The adopted rule removes many of the restrictions
that were in the previous rules. For example:
1. A wastewater permittee can now apply to the commission for the use of
their reclaimed water for its own needs. Also, a permittee can now irrigate
around its own plant without applying to the commission for an amendment
to a Chapter 305 permit;
2. The owner of a wastewater plant can now apply to the commission and
get approval to supply an area with reclaimed water by simply notifying
the commission when a new user is added. Under the old rule, each user had
to be approved by the commission before they could use the reclaimed water;
3. The pond liner requirements are amended to allow a permeability of 10
4. The previous rule required a user that stored reclaimed water for a
period of time of 24 hours or longer to re-disinfect the water to meet the
fecal coliform limits prior to use on food crops or landscaped areas. This
requirement has been removed as unnecessary since the initial disinfection
is adequate to protect human health.
Fisher & Newsom commented that the reuse or reclamation of water in
the state which has already been put to the beneficial use authorized by
a water right should not be subject to additional water rights permitting
requirements under Texas Water Code Chapter 11. Reuse is attractive where
state water is otherwise not generally available for the permitting of additional
water rights within the basin or watershed in question. In many instances,
if it is assumed that a new permit must be obtained in order to use reclaimed
water, such a permit could be denied due to lack of water available for further
appropriation due to downstream rights as the reclaimed water user would
be considered "junior" in status. Such a requirement would be tantamount
to a determination that treated effluent must be returned to the basin of
origin, yet such a requirement has never been specified by our court decisions
or statutes.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Pursuant to §11.122 of
the Texas Water Code, if a water rights holder has a water right for one
use and uses the water for another use, then the water rights holder would
have to amend the water right (i.e., a general domestic water supplier, who
sells the reclaimed water to a farmer, who wants to irrigate his fields outside
of the service area of the water supply). The water rights holder would then
need to amend the water rights to allow the irrigation of the fields. However,
a water right holder may use and reuse the water for the authorized purposes
and in accordance with the water prior to the return of the water to the
stream.
Kemp, Smith expressed concern about proposed requirements in §210.4(e)(1)
providing that a change in the boundary of the service area will require
prior commission approval. Kemp, Smith gave an example of a neighborhood
in which four of 20 lots convert to reclaimed water. Each separate site would
be a separate approved service area. Then, if three other lots connect later,
each of these single lots would have to go through the notification process.
The commentor feels consideration should be given to an "area-wide" service
area approval process that can receive one approval in advance of future
applications of reclaimed water. This procedure would create the need for
incremental service area boundary approvals in many cases.
The commission agrees in part with the commenter. The intent of the rules
is for the entire neighborhood to be approved under a reclaimed water service
area. If the provider asked to serve the whole neighborhood, and was approved,
then the provider would not be required to notify the executive director
of anyone added or subtracted from the system. This would not be considered
a major change. Under the rule, a major change would be: a change in the
boundary of the approved service area; the addition of a new producer; major
changes in the intended use, such as conversion from irrigation of a golf
course to residential irrigation; or, changes from Type I use to Type II
use, or Type II use to Type I use. The rule has been amended to clarify this
intent.
Fisher & Newsom commented that §210.6 combines the responsibilities
of a reclaimed water producer and provider into one section. The commenter
states it is not clear whether the commission intends the duties listed under
§210.6 to overlap, or to be partitioned among the parties in cases where
the provider of the reclaimed water is not the producer of the reclaimed
water. The commenter also points out similar problems in §210.24. Fisher
& Newsom state that §210.6 would be clearer if three separate subsections
were developed, with each subsection setting forth all the individual responsibilities
and duties of the respective producer, provider, and user. In situations
where the producer, provider, and user are not the same, the rules should
recognize a clear delineation of their respective responsibilities.
The commission agrees with the commenter that a subparagraph to §210.6
should be added to individually outline the responsibilities of the producer,
provider, and user when they are not the same. Accordingly, new paragraphs
and subparagraphs have been added to §210.6.
The City of Amarillo commented that two problems existed in §210.7:
the user may not use reclaimed water that cannot be beneficially used; and
that the definition of Beneficial Use indicates that reclaimed water must
be "economically necessary." The city maintains that such a strict definition
of beneficial use is a hindrance to the user who must make decisions to "demand"
reclaimed water based on a specific situation. A broader definition of Beneficial
Use was suggested which would provide a remedy for the problems in this section.
The commission agrees with the comment and has modified the definition.
DEFINITIONS
The City of Amarillo commented on §210.3 (relating to the definition
of Beneficial Use). The city states the definition is abstract and contains
no express link to reclaimed water. The city proposed the following definition:
"Beneficial use - An economic use of treated wastewater in accordance with
the purposes, applicable requirements, and quality criteria of this chapter,
and which takes the place of potable and/or raw water that could otherwise
be needed from another source. The use of reclaimed water in a quantity either
less than or more than the economically optimal amount may be considered
a beneficial use as long as it does not constitute a nuisance."
The commission agrees with the commenter that the definition may be too
"abstract" and has modified the definition.
Kemp, Smith commented that definition of "producer" limits a producer to
one "that produces reclaimed water by treating domestic wastewater." The
commenter believed that the definition of "producer" should be modified to
include all municipal wastewater.
The commission agrees with the commenter and municipal wastewater has been
added to the definition.
Lloyd, Gosselink and V & E requested that the definition of "Reclaimed
Water" also include industrial wastewater.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The term industrial wastewater
is too broad to be added without categorizing which type and quality of industrial
effluent may be appropriate for reuse. However, the commission has proposed
a new Chapter 210, Subchapter E, which was published in October 22, 1996,
issue of the
Texas Register
, which will set
forth the requirements for the use of industrial reclaimed water.
Kemp, Smith commented that the definition of "reclaimed water" includes
the treatment of both "domestic or municipal wastewater" and is inconsistent
with the definition of "producer."
The commission agrees with the comment and has changed the definition of
producer.
Kemp, Smith commented on the definition of "nuisance," stating that "the
definition is unorthodox and that the classical definition of a nuisance
is any use, activity, or condition of land which substantially interferes
with the normal use and enjoyment of one's property.
Bible Baptist Church v. City of Cleburne,
848 S.W.2d. 826, 829 (Tex.
App.-Waco) 1993, error denied). The concept of "[tending] to be injurious
to, or which adversely affects human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation,
or property" is too vague when considered under nuisance concepts. This definition
should be reconsidered and the proper tort concepts should be matched with
the injury to be prohibited."
The commission agrees in part with the commenter and has added language
to further clarify the definition.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRODUCTION, CONVEYANCE, AND USE OF RECLAIMED
WATER
Jones & Carter commented that there are inconsistent requirements in
§210.22(e) because a wastewater treatment plant with a required effluent
quality of 10-15-3 may discharge directly to a receiving stream; however,
if the plant discharges to an effluent holding pond (initial holding pond),
this pond may not overflow into the stream during dry weather.
The commission agrees with the commenter that effluent (reclaimed water)
in the initial holding pond may be of higher quality than what is required
for discharge to a local receiving stream. However, if the commission would
allow the reclaimed water to be discharged from the holding pond, then the
user would need to get a discharge permit for the new point source.
Jones & Carter commented on §210.23 which provides that holding
ponds are required to be sealed by means of some accepted type of liner in
an attempt to prevent groundwater contamination. Jones & Carter commented
that this is inconsistent with current discharge permit authorizations because
a 10-15-3 permitted effluent can be discharged with no further consideration
to prevent groundwater contamination.
The commission disagrees with this comment. It is inappropriate to compare
effluent discharge criteria to a holding pond with a constant static head
to a surface stream where mixing or flowing conditions almost always exist.
For these reasons, it is much more likely that a pond will contaminate the
groundwater than surface water in the state. Therefore, the pond liner requirements
are reasonable and necessary to protect groundwater quality.
Fisher & Newsom commented the definition of restricted or unrestricted
landscapes and Type I and II uses, as they relate to a golf course, are unclear
regarding whether the commission considers a golf course to be a "restricted"
or "unrestricted" landscaped area. The rules define restricted landscaped
area as an area with public access restricted by legal means or a physical
barrier. The definition for a restricted landscaped area includes a golf
course as an example. Fisher & Newsom further commented that, §210.32(l)(B)
uses the phrase "golf courses with unrestricted public access." Hence, the
rule appears to contemplate circumstances in which the legal or physical
barriers are either nonexistent or inadequate to qualify the golf course
as a restricted landscaped area. The commenter also states that because the
standards applicable to the two types of landscaped areas are so diverse,
greater definition of the nature and content of the "legal barriers" would
be of great assistance to those affected by the proposed rules. Section 210.32(2)
sets forth additional examples for when a golf course could apply Type II
reclaimed water and seems to indicate that simply applying irrigation effluent
during times when the public does not have access may be insufficient to
qualify an otherwise "unrestricted" area as acceptable for Type II reclaimed
water use. There is no mention of legal or physical barriers in this subsection.
The commission responds that in most cases a golf course using reclaimed
water will need to meet Type II standards only. The owners of most golf courses
restrict the use of the course to playing golf. They do not allow children
to play on the courses, or other activities to take place on the course.
However, there may be a few golf courses that are adjacent to a park, school,
or ball field where public access may not be limited, thereby increasing
the likelihood that activities other than golf may take place on the golf
course. In these cases, the Type I standard would apply to protect public
health and safety.
The City of Amarillo commented that the terms "degrading,""adversely,"
and "ground water contamination" are vague in §210.22(d) and §210.23(c)(1),
since the ultimate potential use of ground water may be as a drinking water
source. The city commented that this section should explicitly contain reference
to such a purpose, with "degrade" and "adversely affecting" meaning "untreatable
to drinking water standards without extraordinary expense."
The terms "degrading" or "degradation," "adversely" and "groundwater contamination"
are taken directly from §26.401 of the Texas Water Code. In the code,
there is discussion of legislative findings and a discussion of existing
and potential uses. While the "ultimate potential use of groundwater" may
indeed be as a drinking water source to the City of Amarillo, the rules are
intended to be applied statewide. Throughout other regions of the state,
ground water has other existing and potential uses including spring flow,
aquaculture, industrial processes and in some cases, even wildlife habitat.
By changing the meaning of these terms to include "untreatable to drinking
water standards without extraordinary expense," a single use, drinking water,
is adopted as a statewide standard, and the language implies that contamination
is permissible so long as it can be "economically" treated. This is clearly
not the intent of §26.401 of the Texas Water Code.
By using the terms originally proposed, substantial flexibility is given
to both the agency and the party seeking to benefit under the rule. The broad
language allows tailoring ground water protection to preserve the ground
water quality for a variety of uses under a variety of conditions. The language
found in Chapter 210, as with that found in §26.401, is purposely not
prescriptive for this reason.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the reference in §210.23(a) to
a five-year floodplain should be further defined by some standard, such as
"defined by FEMA or local flood control agencies." Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
further commented that the five-year floodplain is not a commonly defined
water surface elevation, potentially complicating demonstration of compliance
for applicants.
The assumption under the rules is that the five-year floodplain is the
floodway of the drainage area and the rule has been clarified accordingly.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. also commented that §210.23(c)(3) should be clarified
by providing that "in-situ clay soils meeting the soil's liner requirements
shall be excavated and re-compacted a minimum of six inches below planned
grade to assure a uniformly compacted finished surface." Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc. indicated that this practice reflects industry standards.
The commission agrees and the suggested sentence has been added to the
rules.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the proposed earthen pond lining requirements
in §210.23(c)(4)(B), include both gradation/Atterberg limits and 10
The commission agrees that the requirements in the subparagraph is different
from what was in the previous Chapter 310 rules. The provision is written
using the requirements that are being put in all water quality permits being
issued by the commission and what is being proposed in the revision to Chapter
317 (Design Criteria for Sewerage System).
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the proposed increase for the synthetic
liner from 20 mil to 40 mil in §210.23(c)(5) seems justifiable and defendable;
however, similar coordination with the TNRCC Groundwater Group should be
completed to assure conflicts in the rules are resolved.
The commission agrees. The executive director staff is currently reviewing
the lining requirements in all of the water programs so conflicts within
the rules can be resolved and be consistent program-wide.
The City of Amarillo commented that §210.23(d)(3) is confusing. The
city requests the paragraph be revised to read "All soil liners must be of
compacted material having a permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-
The commission agrees with the comment and has revised the paragraph.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the reference in §210.23(e) to
"leak-resistant" tank be changed to "leak-proof."
The commission agrees and the language has been modified.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. asked in §210.24(d) who is required to do the
water balance, re-chlorination of the effluent, to the nitrogen balance requirements,
and limits on total dissolved solids in this section.
The commission responds that the water balance should be done by the user
of the reclaimed water using a water balance method that is appropriate for
the particular crop and its uses. The balance should also account for the
nitrogen load and the TDS on the crop. The requirement for the regrowth of
infectious microorganisms within a piping system is addressed by periodic
testing for fecal coliform by the user and the provider.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the additional requirement in §210.25
for distribution system valving and/or reduced-positive-pressure backflow
preventers may be appropriate to assure that pressurized system line breaks
will not result in large releases of reclaimed water to the environment.
The commission agrees with the comment and has amended the rule to provide
for the use of a distribution system valving system to prevent unauthorized
releases and discharges.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that §210.25(b) should be restructured
for clarity.
The commission agrees with the comment. The alternatives provided in the
rule have been combined and renumbered.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. suggested deleting from §210.25(c) "...when trenched..."
since several installation methods are available. Also it was suggested that
reclaimed water lines should be installed less than two feet below potable
water lines.
The commission agrees and the language has been changed, accordingly.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that the third sentence reference to "lift
station" in §210.25(e), may be more appropriately stated as "pump station"
for the likely closed-circuit distribution systems infrastructure.
The commission disagrees with this comment because the design of these
lift stations are referenced to 30 TAC Chapter 317 (Design Criteria for Sewerage
System) as lift stations.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. asked whether in §210.25(h) the material that
must be submitted to the executive director is analogous to construction
shop drawing/sample submittal. The commentor also asked whether the executive
director will review and approve materials.
The reference to §317.1(a)(3)-(4) is currently correct. The commission
is currently revising this chapter and reference will be modified then. The
commission has currently published a proposed rule that modifies the review
requirements of the executive director.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. commented that strict compliance with American Water
Works Association potable water standards may be excessive in §210.25
and §210.25(i). For example, open top storage tanks may be acceptable
for reclaimed water and coatings systems should not necessarily have to meet
National Science Foundation potable water contact standards. As an alternative
it is recommended we include the following at the end of this section for
clarification: "...except for health-based standards strictly related to
potable water storage and contact practices, where appropriately less restrictive
standards may be applied." or similar language. Also, it is recommended that
the last sentence read: "and construction practices to be followed."
The commission agrees and the language has been modified.
The City of Amarillo commented that the word "labeling" should be deleted
in §210.25(b).
The commission agrees with the commenter and the word has been deleted.
The City of Amarillo comments that §210.25(b)(1) and (3) be combined
into one paragraph. The city recommends the following language: (1) Signs
having a minimum size of eight inches by eight inches, as shown in Figure
1, shall be posted at all storage areas and on all hose bibs and faucets.
The signs shall read, in both English and Spanish, "Reclaimed Water, Do Not
Drink" or include some similar warning.
The commission agrees with the commenter and the two sentences have been
combined.
The City of Amarillo suggested that the word "should" be replaced with
"shall" in §210.25(b)(2).
The commission agrees and has modified the language.
The City of Amarillo commented that the second sentence in §210.25(g)
needs to be clarified to read "All buried piping installed after the effective
date of these rules shall be one of the following: manufactured in purple,
painted purple, taped with purple metallic tape, or bagged in purple."
The commission agrees and the language has been changed.
QUALITY CRITERIA AND SPECIFIC USES FOR RECLAIMED WATER
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. had the following comment regarding §210.32(a)(7):
The existing rule requirement for blue dyeing of reclaimed toilet flush water
has been omitted. While not commonly practiced, the use of toilet water closet
storage for drinking/cooking water during potable water service interruption
is still reasonably possible. Dyeing appears to be an inexpensive tool to
avoid this possibility. If this is a problem due to complexities such as
the distribution system size and multiple uses, alternate warning labels
on the inside lid of toilet water closets may provide alternately acceptable
protection."
The commission has dropped the requirement for dyeing water blue in water
closets because of the new requirement that all piping within a building
shall be color coded purple. The commission believes the possibility for
someone to get their water from a water closet is very slim.
Kemp, Smith commented that §210.33 is devoid of a no-odor requirement.
In general, the quality standards should set a standard for this aesthetics
parameter to ensure users that adjacent property owners will not have objections
to the use of reclaimed water based on odor.
The commission disagrees with the commenter. The water quality standards
set for Type I and Type II use should not cause an objectionable odor. The
reclaimed water may have a mild chlorine odor if the water comes directly
from the chlorine contact chamber.
The City of Wichita Falls and Jones & Carter commented that the cross
references made to Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 within §210.33(l)
and §210.33(2) were not included in the July 26, 1996, publication of
the
Texas Register.
The commission disagrees. The figures were published in the Tables and
Graphics section of the
Texas Register
(21
TexReg 7106).
Jones & Carter commented on §210.34 and §210.36, stating
that reclaimed water users are required to take one to two samples per week
and submit a monthly report to the TNRCC regarding water quality and volume
of reclaimed water used. The user directly pumping from the creek, downstream
from a wastewater treatment plant, is not required to submit tests and, therefore,
is not subjected to the related testing costs. The City of Lubbock also commented
that Type II effluent quality requirements are too restrictive for agriculture
farmland use.
The commission disagrees with the commenters. The user is not required
to sample the reclaimed water or submit monthly reports to the executive
director. These requirements are the responsibility of the producer. The
producer must test the reclaimed water at the wastewater treatment plant
site and report monthly to the executive director. The testing frequency
for the reclaimed water in most cases is less than what is required by the
discharge permit. Where sampling requirements are for the same effluent as
required in the permit, the producer may sample once and report the results
to satisfy both the permit and requirements of this chapter. The commission
does recommend that the user test the reclaimed water periodically for fecal
coliform. The commenter is correct that a user pumping water directly from
a stream is not required to test or submit results to the executive director,
but the user will need to have a water right permit from the commission to
use the water. However, the commission would, in this case, also recommend
periodic testing of the water. Type II effluent quality limitations are based
on the commission definition for secondary treated effluent.
Kemp, Smith commented that §210.35 is merely a recommendation, and
assumed that it does not constitute a regulatory requirement. The commenter
recommended that this requirement be deleted and placed in a regulatory guidance
document.
The commission disagrees with the commenter that the section be deleted
from rule. The rule does not require the user or the provider to do additional
testing, as the testing is the responsibility of the producer. The commission
does recommend that the user or provider do periodic testing of fecal coliform
and desires to provide this guidance to them in the rules.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. suggested that the following language be added to
§210.35: "if the commission concludes that no other specific disinfection
residual or distributed water quality standards are warranted, systems should
generally be designed, to assure that reclaimed water quality standards defined
in §210.33 are met at all application points in the distribution system.
Maintenance of a secondary disinfectant residual in Type I distribution system
is recommended where potential regrowth of infectious microorganisms may
occur."
The commission disagrees. Section 210.35 recommends that the user should
test on a periodic basis. If the fecal coliform number is showing potential
regrowth of infectious microorganisms, then it is up to the user and/or provider
to take action to resolve it.
ALTERNATIVE AND PRE-EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEMS
The City of Amarillo commented that the response periods in sections §210.43
and §210.44 should be shortened from 60 days to 30 days.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Due to the current staffing
level, it would be hard for the executive director to consistently process
all applications within 30 days.
The City of Fort Worth stated it is unclear what requirements must be met
under §210.44 by a pre-existing reclaimed water system.
The commission may review cases where the effluent from a wastewater treatment
plant is used to irrigate a nearby field and this activity has not been approved
by the commission or the executive director. If the irrigation is taking
at the treatment plant site, then this activity will be authorized by §210.5(c).
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §5.102, which
provides the commission with general powers to carry out duties under the
Texas Water Code and §5.103, which provides the commission with the
authority to adopt any rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties
under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of this state.
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §5.103, which
provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission with the authority
to adopt any rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the
provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of this state and to establish
and approve all general policy of the commission.
§210.1.Applicability.
This chapter applies to the reclaimed water producer, provider, and
user. If the entity which is the producer of the reclaimed water is the same
as the user, then the use of reclaimed water is permissible only if the use
occurs after the wastewater has been treated in accordance with the producer's
wastewater permit and the permit provides for an alternative means of disposal
during times when there is no demand for the use of the reclaimed water.
This chapter does not apply to treatment or disposal of wastewater permitted
by the commission in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 305 of this
title (relating to Consolidated Permits), or to the user of such treated
wastewater identified in the producer's wastewater discharge permit authorizing
disposal by irrigation. This chapter does not apply to those systems authorized
under Chapter 285 of this title (relating to On-Site Wastewater Treatment)
which utilizes surface irrigation as an approved disposal method.
§210.2.Purpose and Scope.
(a)
The purpose of this chapter is to establish general requirements,
quality criteria, design, and operational requirements for the beneficial
use of reclaimed water which may be substituted for potable water and/or
raw water. As defined and specified in this chapter, the requirements must
be met by producers, providers, and/or users of reclaimed water. Specific
use categories are defined with corresponding reclaimed water quality requirements.
These criteria are intended to allow the safe utilization of reclaimed water
for conservation of surface and ground water; to ensure the protection of
public health; to protect ground and surface waters; and to help ensure an
adequate supply of water resources for present and future needs.
(b)
The commission has defined other types of reclaimed water
activity in separate regulations, including §309.20 of this title (relating
to Land Disposal of Sewage Effluent) and §297.1 of this title (relating
to Definitions). These regulations do not modify those definitions. The term
reclaimed water is limited in scope for the purpose of this rule as defined
in §210.3 of this title (relating to Definitions).
(c)
Approval by the executive director of a reclaimed water
use project under this chapter does not affect any existing water rights.
If applicable, a reclaimed water use authorization in no way affects the
need of a producer, provider and/or user to obtain a separate water right
authorization from the commission.
(d)
Reclaimed water projects approved under this chapter do
not require a new or amended waste discharge permit from the commission except
as provided in §210.5 of this title (relating to Permits Required).
Persons who desire to develop projects not specifically authorized by this
chapter may seek authorization pursuant to provisions of Subchapter D or
apply for a new or amended waste discharge permit under Chapter 305 of this
title (relating to Consolidated Permits).
§210.3.Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall have
the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Beneficial use
-An economic use of wastewater in accordance
with the purposes, applicable requirements, and quality criteria of this
chapter, and which takes the place of potable and/or raw water that could
otherwise be needed from another source. The use of reclaimed water in a
quantity either less than or the economically optimal amount may be considered
a beneficial use as long as it does not constitute a nuisance.
BOD
5
-Five-day biochemical oxygen
demand.
CBOD
5
-Five-day carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand.
CFU
-Colony forming units.
Domestic wastewater
-Waste and wastewater from humans or household
operations that are discharged to a wastewater collection system or otherwise
enters a treatment works. Also, this includes waterborne human waste and
waste from domestic activities such as washing, bathing, and food preparation,
including greywater and blackwater, that is disposed in an on-site wastewater
system as defined in Chapter 285 of this title (relating to On-Site Wastewater
Treatment).
DRASTIC
-A classification system for comparing land units on
the basis of their vulnerability to ground-water pollution, a detailed description
of which is found in Appendix 1 of this chapter.
Figure 1: 30 TAC §210.3
Edwards Aquifer
-That portion of an arcuate belt of porous,
water bearing, predominantly carbonate rocks known as the Edwards and Associated
Limestones in the Balcones Fault Zone trending from west to east to northeast
in Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties;
and composed of the Salmon Peak Limestone, McKnight Formation, West Nueces
Formation, Devil's River Limestone, Person Formation, Kainer Formation, Edwards
Formation, and Georgetown Formation. The permeable aquifer units generally
overlie the less-permeable Glen Rose Formation to the south, overlie the
less-permeable Comanche Peak and Walnut formations north of the Colorado
River, and underlie the less-permeable Del Rio Clay regionally. (See Chapter
213 of this title (relating to Edwards Aquifer).) Edwards Aquifer Recharge
zone-Generally, that area where the stratigraphic units constituting the
Edwards Aquifer crop out, and including the outcrops of other geologic formations
in proximity to the Edwards Aquifer, where caves, sinkholes, faults, fractures,
or other permeable features would create a potential for recharge of surface
waters into the Edwards Aquifer. The recharge zone is identified as that
area designated as such on official maps located in the offices of the commission
and the Edwards Underground Water District. (See Chapter 213 of this title
(related to Edwards Aquifer).)
Food crop
-Any crops intended for direct human consumption.
Initial holding pond
-An impoundment which first receives reclaimed
water from a producer at the quality levels established by this chapter,
not including subsequent holding ponds.
Geometric mean
-The
n
type-name="sub">th
root of the product of all measurements made in
a particular period of time, for example in a month's time, where
n
equals the number of measurements made. In the alternative, the
geometric mean can also be computed as the antilogarithm of the sum of the
logarithm of each measurement made. Where any measurement using either computation
method equals zero, it must be substituted with the value of one.
l
-Liter.
Landscape impoundment
-Body of reclaimed water which is used
for aesthetic enjoyment or which otherwise serves a function not intended
to include contact recreation.
Leak detection system
-A system or device designed, constructed,
maintained, and operated with a pond that is capable of immediately detecting
a release of leachate or reclaimed water that migrates through a liner. The
system may typically include a leachate collection system along with either
leak detection sensors or view ports.
Municipal wastewater
-Waste or wastewater discharged into a
publicly owned or a privately owned sewerage treatment works primarily consisting
of domestic waste.
mg/l
-Milligram per liter.
NTU
-Nephelometric turbidity units.
Nuisance
-Any distribution, storage, or use of reclaimed water,
in such concentration and of such duration that is or may tend to be injurious
to or which adversely affects human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation,
or property, or which interferes with the normal use and enjoyment of animal
life, vegetation, or property.
On-channel pond
-An impoundment wholly or partially within
a definite channel of a stream in which water flows within a defined bed
and banks, originating from a definite source or sources. The water may flow
continuously or intermittently, and if intermittently, with some degree of
regularity, dependent on the characteristics of the source or sources.
Permit or permitted
-A written document issued by the commission
or executive director in accordance with Chapter 305 of this title (relating
to Consolidated Permits) which, by its conditions, may authorize the permittee
to construct, install, modify, or operate, in accordance with stated limitations,
a specified facility for waste discharge, including a wastewater discharge
permit.
Pond system
-Wastewater facility in which primary treatment
followed by stabilization ponds are used for secondary treatment and in which
the ponds have been designed and constructed in accordance with applicable
design criteria. (See Chapter 317 of this title (relating to the Design Criteria
for Sewerage Systems).)
Producer
-A person or entity that produces reclaimed water
by treating domestic wastewater or municipal wastewater, in accordance with
a permit or other authorization of the Agency, to meet the quality criteria
established in this chapter.
Provider
-A person or entity that distributes reclaimed water
to a user(s) of reclaimed water. For purposes of this chapter, the reclaimed
water provider may also be a reclaimed water producer.
Reclaimed water
-Domestic or municipal wastewater which has
been treated to a quality suitable for a beneficial use, pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter and other applicable rules and permits.
Restricted landscaped area
-Land which has vegetative cover
to which public access is controlled in some manner. Access may be controlled
by either legal means (e.g. state or city ordinance) or controlled by some
type of physical barrier (e.g., fence or wall). Example of such areas are:
golf courses; cemeteries; roadway rights-of-way; median dividers.
Restricted recreational impoundment
-Body of reclaimed water
in which recreation is limited to fishing, boating and other non-contract
recreational activities.
Single grab sample
-An individual sample collected in less
than 15 minutes.
Spray irrigation
-Application of finely divided water droplets
using artificial means.
Subsequent holding pond
-A pond or impoundment which receives
reclaimed water from an initial holding pond where the quality of the water
changes after management in the initial holding pond, due to factors which
may include:
(A)
the addition of water occurs such as contributions
from surface water or ground water sources, but not including contributions
of reclaimed water, domestic wastewater, or municipal wastewater;
(B)
some type of utilization of the reclaimed water for
a beneficial use occurs; or
(C)
commingling of reclaimed water with surface water
runoff where it occurs between storage in an initial holding pond and the
subsequent holding pond.
Surface irrigation
-Application of water by means other than
spraying so that contact between the edible portion of any food crop and
the irrigation water is prevented.
Type I reclaimed water use
-Use of reclaimed water where contact
between humans and the reclaimed water is likely.
Type II reclaimed water use
-Use of reclaimed water where contact
between humans and the reclaimed water is unlikely.
Unrestricted landscaped area
-Land which has had its plant
cover modified and access to which is uncontrolled. Examples of such areas
are: parks; school yards; greenbelts; residences.
User
-Person or entity utilizing reclaimed water for a beneficial
use, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. A reclaimed water
user may also be a producer or a provider.
§210.6.Responsibilities.
The producer of reclaimed water will not be liable for misapplication
of reclaimed water by users, except as provided in this section. Both the
reclaimed water provider and user have, but are not limited to, the following
responsibilities:
(1)
The reclaimed water producer shall:
(A)
transfer reclaimed water of at least the minimum quality
required by this chapter at the point of delivery to the user for the specified
use;
(B)
sample and analyze the reclaimed water and report such
analyses in accordance with §210.34 and §210.36(b) of this title
(relating to Sampling and Analysis and Record keeping and Reporting, respectively);
and
(C)
notify the executive director in writing within five days
of obtaining knowledge of reclaimed water use not authorized by the executive
director's reclaimed water use approval.
(2)
The reclaimed water provider shall:
(A)
assure construction of reclaimed water distribution lines
or systems in accordance with this chapter and in accordance with §210.25
of this title (relating to Special Design Criteria for Reclaimed Water Systems);
(B)
transfer reclaimed water of at least the minimum quality
required by this chapter at the point of delivery to the user for the specified
use;
(C)
notify the executive director in writing within five (5)
days of obtaining knowledge of reclaimed water use not authorized by the
executive director's reclaimed water use approval; and
(D)
not be found in violation of this chapter for the misuse
of the reclaimed water by the user if transfer of such water is shut off
promptly upon knowledge of misuse regardless of contract provisions.
(3)
The reclaimed water user shall:
(A)
use the reclaimed water in accordance with this chapter;
and
(B)
maintain and provide records as required by §210.36(a)
of this title (relating to Recordkeeping and Reporting).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption
has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the
agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 13, 1997.
TRD-9700961
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 12, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 26, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§210.21-210.25
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §5.103,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission with the
authority to adopt any rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties
under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of this state
and to establish and approve all general policy of the commission.
§210.23.Storage Requirements for Reclaimed Water.
(a)
Except for authorized on-channel ponds, storage facilities
for retaining reclaimed water prior to use shall not be located within the
floodway.
(b)
Except as provided by subsection (e) of this section, all
initial holding ponds must be lined in accordance with either subsection
(c) or (d) of this section, as appropriate.
(c)
All initial and subsequent holding ponds containing Type
I and Type II effluent, located within the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer,
as defined in Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards Aquifer), and
all initial holding ponds containing Type II effluent, located in a vulnerable
area as defined by a rating of 110 or greater on the statewide
"Ground-Water Pollution Potential - General, Municipal, and Industrial Sources"
(DRASTIC) map (as shown in Figure 1 of this chapter), shall conform
to the following requirements:
(Figure 1: 30 TAC §210.23(c)).
(1)
The ponds, whether constructed of earthen or other impervious
material, shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent groundwater
contamination;
(2)
Soils used for pond lining shall be free from foreign
material such as paper, brush, trees, and large rocks;
(3)
All soil liners must be of compacted material, at
least 24 inches thick, compacted in lifts no greater than six inches thick
and compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor Density. In-situ clay soils meeting
the soils liner requirements shall be excavated and re-compacted a minimum
of six inches below planned grade to assure a uniformly compacted finished
surface.
(4)
Soil liners must meet the following particle size
gradation and Atterberg limits:
(A)
30% or more passing a number 200 mesh sieve; and
(B)
a liquid limit of 30% or greater; and a plasticity index
of 15 or greater and have a permeability less than or equal to 1 X 10
(5)
Synthetic membrane linings shall have a minimum
thickness of 40 mils with a leak detection system. In situ liners at least
24 inches thick meeting a permeability less than or equal to 1 X 10
(6)
Certification shall be furnished by a Texas Registered
Professional Engineer that the pond lining meets the appropriate criteria
prior to utilization of the facilities; and
(7)
Soil embankment walls shall have a top width of at
least five feet. The interior and exterior slopes of soil embankment walls
shall be no steeper than one foot vertical to three feet horizontal unless
alternate methods of slope stabilization are utilized. All soil embankment
walls shall be protected by a vegetative cover or other stabilizing material
to prevent erosion. Erosion stops and water seals shall be installed on all
piping penetrating the embankments.
(d)
All initial holding ponds designed to contain Type I effluent,
located outside of the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer, and Type II
effluent, located in areas in the state not identified in subsection (c)
of this section shall conform to the following requirements:
(1)
The ponds, whether constructed of earthen or other impervious
materials, shall be designed and constructed so as to prevent groundwater
contamination;
(2)
Soils used for pond lining shall be free from foreign
material such as paper, brush, trees, and large rocks;
(3)
All soil liners must be of compacted material having
a permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10
-4
cm/sec,
at least 24 inches thick, compacted in lifts no greater than 6 inches each;
(4)
Synthetic membrane linings shall have a minimum thickness
of 40 mils. In situ liners at least 24 inches thick meeting a permeability
less than or equal to 1 X 10
-4
cm/sec are acceptable
alternatives;
(5)
Certification shall be furnished by a Texas Registered
Professional Engineer that the pond lining meets the appropriate criteria
prior to utilization of the facilities; and
(6)
Soil embankment walls shall have a top width of at
least five feet. The interior and exterior slopes of soil embankment walls
shall be no steeper than one foot vertical to three feet horizontal unless
alternate methods of slope stabilization are utilized. All soil embankment
walls shall be protected by a vegetative cover or other stabilizing material
to prevent erosion. Erosion stops and water seals shall be installed on all
piping penetrating the embankments.
(7)
An alternative method of pond lining which provides
equivalent or better water quality protection than provided under this section
may be utilized with the prior approval of the executive director.
(8)
A specific exemption may be obtained from the executive
director if, after the review of data submitted by the reclaimed water provider
or user, as appropriate, the executive director determines containment of
the reclaimed water is not necessary, considering:
(A)
soil and geologic data, and ground water data, including
its quality, uses, quantity and yield; and
(B)
adequate demonstration that impairment of ground water
for its actual or potential use will be prevented.
(e)
Reclaimed water may be stored in leak-proof, fabricated
tanks.
(f)
Subsequent holding ponds utilized for the receipt and storage
of reclaimed water of a quality that could cause or causes a violation of
a surface water quality standard or impairment of ground water for its actual
or intended use will also be subject to the storage requirements of this
section.
§210.25.Special Design Criteria for Reclaimed Water Systems.
(a)
All hose bibs and faucets shall be painted purple and designed
to prevent connection to a standard water hose. Hose bibs shall be located
in locked, below grade vaults which shall be clearly labeled as being of
non-potable quality. As an alternative to the use of locked, below grade
vaults with standard hose bibs services, hose bibs may be placed in a non-lockable
service box which can only be operated by a special tool so long as the hose
bib is clearly labeled as non-potable water, in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section.
(b)
One of the following requirements must be met by the user
or provider, for any area where reclaimed water is stored or where there
exist hose bibs or faucets:
(1)
Signs having a minimum size of eight inches by eight inches,
as shown in Figure 1, shall be posted at all storage areas and on all hose
bibs and faucets reading, in both English and Spanish, "Reclaimed Water,
Do Not Drink" or similar warning.
(Figure 1: 30 TAC§210.25(b)(1));
(2)
The area shall be secured to prevent access by the
public.
(c)
Reclaimed water piping shall be separated from potable
water piping by a horizontal distance of at least nine feet. Where the nine
foot separation distance cannot be achieved, the reclaimed water piping must
meet the line separation requirements of Chapter 290 of this title (relating
to Water Hygiene).
(d)
Where a reclaimed water line parallels a sewer line, the
reclaimed water line shall be constructed in accordance with subsection (e)
or (f) of this section. The horizontal separation distance shall be three
feet (outside to outside) with the reclaimed water line at the level of or
above the sewer line. Reclaimed water lines which parallel sewer lines may
be placed in the same benched trench. Where a reclaimed water line crosses
a sewer line, the requirements of §290.44(e)(5)(B) of this title (relating
to Location of Water Lines) shall be followed, with "reclaimed water line"
substituted in §290.44(e) of this title (relating to Location of Water
Lines) for "water line."
(e)
Reclaimed water lines which transport reclaimed water under
pressure shall be sized according to acceptable engineering practices for
the needs of the reclaimed water users. The designer shall consider methods
to prevent or maintain lines to mitigate the effect of the deposition of
solids in such lines. Pipe specified for reclaimed water force mains shall
be of a type having an expected life at least as long as that of the lift
station and shall be suitable for the reclaimed water being pumped and operating
pressure to which it will be subjected. All pipe shall be identified in the
technical specifications with appropriate American Society for Testing and
Materials, American National Standard Institute, or American Water Works
Association (AWWA) standard numbers for both quality control (dimensions,
tolerance, and installation such as bedding or backfill). All pipes and fittings
shall have a minimum working pressure rating of 150 pounds per square inch.
Final plans and specifications shall describe required pressure testing for
all installed reclaimed water force mains. Minimum test pressure shall be
1.5 times the maximum design pressure. Allowable leakage rates shall be determined
as described in §317.2(d)(4) of this title (relating to Pressure Sewer
Systems).
(f)
Gravity flow reclaimed water lines shall meet the requirements
of §317.2 (a) of this title (relating to General Requirements) and §317.2(c)
of this title (relating to High Velocity Protection). The designer shall
consider methods to prevent high velocity scour or maintain line fluid velocity
to mitigate the effects of the deposition of solids in the gravity conveyance.
(g)
All exposed piping and piping within a building shall be
either purple pipe or painted purple. All buried piping installed after the
effective date of these rules shall be one of the following: manufactured
in purple, painted purple, taped with purple metallic tape, or bagged in
purple. All exposed piping should be stenciled in white with a warning reading
"NON-POTABLE WATER." All exposed or buried reclaimed water piping constructed
at a wastewater treatment facility is exempt from the color coding requirements
of this section.
(h)
When applicable, in accordance with §317.1(a)(3)-(4)
of this title, (relating to General Provisions), the design of distribution
systems which will convey reclaimed water to a user shall be submitted to
the executive director and must receive an approval. The design of the distribution
systems must meet the requirements of Chapter 317 of this title (relating
to Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems). Where a municipality is the plan
review authority for certain sewer systems which transport primarily domestic
waste, in accordance with §317.1(a)(5) of this title, in lieu of the
commission, design submittal will not be subject to submittal to the commission
and instead must be approved by the municipality. Materials shall be submitted
for approval by the executive director in accordance with the Texas Engineering
Practice Act (Article 3271a, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes).
(i)
All ground level and elevated storage tanks shall be designed,
installed, and constructed in accordance with current AWWA standards with
reference to materials to be used and construction practices to be followed,
except for health-based standards strictly related to potable water storage
and contact practices, where appropriately less restrictive standards may
be applied.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700962
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 12, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 26, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§210.31-210.36
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §5.103,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission with the
authority to adopt any rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties
under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of this state
and to establish and approve all general policy of the commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 13, 1997.
TRD-9700963
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 12, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 26, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§210.41-210.46
The new sections are adopted under the Texas Water Code, (Vernon
1995), §5.103, which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission with the authority to adopt any rules necessary to carry out its
powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other
laws of this state and to establish and approve all general policy of the
commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 13, 1997.
TRD-9700964
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 12, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 26, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
Subchapter A. Applications Processing
30 TAC §281.22
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
adopts an amendment to §281.22, concerning Referral to Commission, without
changes to the proposed text as published in the October 11, 1996, issue
of the
Texas Register
(21 TexReg 9756).
The purpose of the adopted amendments is to maintain consistency with federal
regulations applicable to the state Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
and to maintain state primacy for the UIC Program.
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED RULE. Adopted §281.22 is an amendment, per
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §144.31(d), to prohibit the issuance
of an injection well permit until the agency has received a complete application.
HEARINGS AND COMMENTERS. There were no hearings, and no comments were submitted
on the proposed rule.
TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT. The commission has prepared a Takings Impact
Assessment for these rules pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated, §2007.043.
The following is a summary of that assessment. The specific purpose of the
rules is to incorporate federal language into current state regulations so
that the UIC program can maintain compliance with the federal program. The
rules will substantially advance this specific purpose by allowing the commission
to maintain primacy, and thus state control, for the UIC program. Promulgation
and enforcement of these rule amendments will not create a burden on private
real property.
This rule amendment is administrative in nature and does not impose any
additional or substantial burden on private real property. UIC facilities
are already subject to this federal requirement, this amendment merely incorporates
the federal requirement into the state UIC program. Also, because this rulemaking
is reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by Federal Law, this
rule amendment is excepted from the Private Real Property Preservation Act
pursuant to §2007.3(b)(4) of Texas Government Code (the "Act").
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendment is adopted under the Texas
Water Code, §§5.103, 5.105, and 27.019, which authorizes the commission
to promulgate rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties under the
provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of the state, and under
Texas Health and Safety Code, §361.017 and §361.024 (Vernon 1992),
which further authorizes the commission to promulgate rules necessary to
manage industrial solid waste and municipal solid and hazardous wastes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 21, 1997.
TRD-9700928
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 11, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 11, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
adopts the repeal of §§285.11-285.18, 258.51-285.63 and 285.101-285.109,
relating to on-site wastewater treatment, and adopts new Subchapters A-I,
§§285.1-285.7, 285.10-285.11, 285.20-285.21, 285.30-285.36, 285.39,
285.40, 285.50-285.63, 285.70, 285.80, 285.90, and 285.91, relating to on-site
sewage facilities. New §§285.2-285.7, 285.10, 285.11, 285.20, 285.21,
285.30-285.36, 285.39, 285.40, 285.50-285.57, 285.59-285.61, 285.80, 285.90,
and 285.91 are adopted with changes to the text as published in the July
16, 1996, issue of the
Texas Register
(21
TexReg 6578). The repeal of §§285.11-285.18, 285.51-285.63 and
285.101-285.109 and new §§285.1, 285.58, 285.62, 285.63 and 285.70
are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED RULES
The purpose of this repeal and new rules is to eliminate duplicate provisions
with other chapters in this title and to revise and update technical standards
in response to the evolution of on-site wastewater technology since 1990.
In addition, these new rules provide minimum levels of acceptable criteria
to assure that the proper on-site sewage facility (OSSFs) will be installed
in the state in order to eliminate and prevent health hazards for the public
and the waters in the state. These new rules establish overall requirements
for the use of such technology as cluster systems, drip systems, intermittent
sand filters and leaching chambers which were not covered in the current
rules under this chapter.
In addition, the new rules concerning general program administration will
clarify program operating procedures, better define the commission's relationship
with authorized agents, establish an additional class of installer and continuing
education requirements for installers, and require the training and certification
for individuals performing site evaluations and inspections for OSSF systems
in the state. These new rules will implement Senate Bill 1042 mandated by
the 73rd Legislature (1993) which authorized the commission to establish
a certification procedure for designated representatives of authorized agents
and to pursue civil and administrative penalties for violations of Chapter
366, Texas Health and Safety Code, or its rules.
TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The commission has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules
pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated §2007.043. The following
is a summary of that Assessment. The purpose of the on-site sewage facility
(OSSF) rules is to revise the state's minimum OSSF standards such that they
reflect past legislative changes, address newer technologies and methodologies,
and reduce inconsistency between state and locally administered programs.
Data from this commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
consistently indicate that one of the largest components of non-point source
water pollution is the lack of adequate OSSF systems in the state of Texas.
Promulgation and enforcement of these rules could affect private real property
which is the subject of these rules.
The "Texas Government Action Affecting Private Property Act", as found
in Chapter 2007 of the Texas Government Code, applies to governmental actions
which affect private property. This statute provides that the regulation
of on-site sewage disposal systems is specifically exempted from the application
of that chapter. The specific exemption is found at Chapter 2007.003(b)(11)(B).
Furthermore, the following exceptions to the application of Chapter 2007
of the Texas Government Code, §2007.003(b), apply to these rules:
(1) The Action is taken to prevent a public or private nuisance. The purpose
of the promulgation of these rules are authorized by Chapter 366 of the Texas
Health and Safety Code. That Chapter provides that it is the public policy
of this state to eliminate and prevent health by properly regulating on-site
systems. These rules set forth minimum statewide standards to further the
stated policy. Chapter 341 of the Texas Health and Safety Code provides that
overflowing septic tanks are statutorily defined as a nuisance condition.
The promulgation of this Chapter is for the purpose of preventing both public
and private nuisance conditions by setting minimum standards.
(2) The action is taken in response to a real and substantial threat to
public health and safety. Improperly located, constructed, or maintained
on-site systems can present a real and substantial threat to public health
and safety as sewage is a communicative medium for diseases. The proliferation
of on-site system use in Texas and the close proximity of a systems' location
to occupied dwellings presents a potential threat to public health and safety.
(3) The action significantly advances the health and safety purpose. The
rule significantly advances the health and safety purpose by establishing
new site evaluation criteria which will reduce the use of improperly located,
designed and constructed systems.
(4) The action imposes no greater burden than is necessary to achieve the
health and safety. These rules are similar to the predecessor rules for OSSF
and do not establish a greater burden for most type of systems. In areas
where there is a greater burden, the rules have attempted to provide more
detailed criteria in order to insure that the proper system is installed
for the site. This is necessary in order to insure that systems don't fail
and create health and safety hazards.
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENTERS
A public hearing was held on August 8, 1996, in Austin. Twenty-one individuals
presented oral testimony at the public hearing. The public comment period
to receive written comments was extended to September 3, 1996. A total of
83 written comments to the proposed rules were submitted. Expressing general
opposition to the rules were two registered professional engineers and the
County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas. Supporting the proposal
with recommended changes were Texas Representative Homer Dear (District 89),
Lower Colorado River Authority, Bell County Public Health District, Harris
County Engineering Department, Austin Health and Human Services Department/Travis
County Health Department (Austin-Travis County), Advanced Wastewater Systems,
A-1 Wastewater Service, Inc., North Texas Marketing, McGrew Construction
Company and Ecological Tanks, Inc. Those offering recommended changes were
Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, Upper Guadalupe
River Authority, Brazos County Health Department, San Angelo-Tom Green County
Health Department, Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments, Galveston
County Health District, Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District,
Fort Worth Water Department, City of Denton, Smith County Designated Representative,
Hays County Environmental Health, Dallas County Health Department, City of
Arlington, Angelina County and Cities Health District, San Antonio Water
System, Williamson County and Cities Health District, Gregg County Health
Department, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, Texas Capitol Area Builders
Association, Texas Manufactured Housing Association, Texas Society of Professional
Engineers, Texas Environmental Health Association, NSF International, Community
Environmental Services, Inc., Wastewater Technologies, Inc., Dooly Plumbing
Company, Hydro-Action, Sherrill Engineering, Scott Kitchner Septic Systems,
Drip-Tech Wastewater Systems, Hill Country Concrete Products, Inc., Robert
Morriss, Inc., Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc., Tejas Engineering and
Septic Systems, Brandon Ellison, Inc., Coldwell Banker/Richard Smith Realtors,
Hill Plumbing, Inc., Highland Lakes Engineering, Wallis Concrete, Inc., Rural
Wastewater Systems, Cox Concrete Pipe Company, Zachary Brothers, Norwalk
Wastewater Equipment Company, Hopco Clearwater Systems, Cole Septic Service,
Guadalupe Companies, Frank Aquirre and Associates, Robins Engineering, Harrison
Environmental Systems, Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc., The Hill Company, Holmes
Concrete Pipe, Amstar Engineering, Inc., Gulf Shores Enterprises, Cecil's
Backhoe Service, Inc., S and D Environmental Services, one registered professional
engineer, seven registered sanitarians, six installers, four individuals.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Fort Worth Water Department suggested that a table of contents be added
to the rules for ease of use.
The commission agrees with the comment and a table of contents will be
developed after the final rules are adopted.
Representative Homer Dear and an individual stated that the proposed rules
are an improvement over the existing rules and they will promote better local
implementation of the OSSF program. Lower Colorado River Authority generally
supports the proposed rules. Many people are waiting for these new rules
to be adopted and recommend the rules be adopted with some fine tuning. Bell
County Public Health District believes that these rules are vastly improved
regulations over the ones the commission and authorized agents are currently
using to protect the health of citizens that the commission and authorized
agents are charged with serving. Harris County Engineering Department supports
the adoption of these rules with minor changes. The adoption of these rules
will reduce the cost of systems installed in areas that are now fully complying
with the current construction standards by allowing reduced setbacks. Harris
County Engineering Department supports the rules to better protect the environmental
quality in the state and reduce the cost of systems to the citizens. Austin-Travis
County is in support of the proposed regulations and also suggest the TNRCC
revisit the rules in a year or two to see if there is any room for adjustment.
Advanced Wastewater Systems stated that as a whole the new rules will greatly
improve the performance of OSSFs. A-1 Wastewater Service, Inc. stated that
everyone has done an excellent job on these rules. North Texas Marketing
totally supports the TNRCC and these provisions, the concerns expressed are
that a consumer have a voice in the process and while standards are upgraded,
systems are kept affordable and in-line with mainstream products offered
in the marketplace. McGrew Construction Company, Inc., Clearstream Wastewater
System, Inc., and Ecological Tanks, Inc. expressed support for the adoption
of the rules.
The commission appreciates the general support for these rules. In the
future, the commission will convene an ad hoc committee to review these rules
and see what, if any, modifications need to be made. This ad hoc committee
will be made up of various representatives of the OSSF field (local permitting
authorities, engineers, sanitarians, installers, homebuilders, manufactured
homes and legal counsel) and will be from different parts or regions of the
state.
An individual suggested that the Chapter 290 rules referenced in these
rules should be added to the appendices.
The commission feels it is necessary in its rulemaking to clearly reference
other rules of the commission that may apply to a specific set of circumstances
so that the regulated community will not be caught unaware. However, the
commission believes it would be redundant and is not appropriate to attach
already existing rules to other rule packages, but rather to just reference
them in the body of the rule.
A registered professional engineer asked that more time be given to respond
and shape the rule. An individual requested that the comment period be extended
an additional 90 days.
The commission feels that it has provided the necessary public review and
input into the revisions of this chapter. The staff of the commission have
been working on revising this chapter for over three years. In addition to
the current rulemaking process, the staff have provided draft proposals to
the public, conducted 11 public meetings across the state to solicit comments
and suggestions on the proposals and met with a 14 member ad hoc advisory
committee made up of local government officials, installers, registered sanitarians,
registered professional engineers, trade associations, manufacturers and
attorneys. Also, the commission granted an additional two weeks of comment
period to allow for further input.
An individual requested that the ad hoc committee should be present when
the comments are reviewed by the TNRCC staff.
The commission feels it has allowed for a very open and participative process
in the development and proposal of these rules. The commission believes these
rules need to be evaluated as quickly as possible so that they can become
effective at the earliest possible date. Although the commission appreciates
the efforts of the ad hoc committee and feels indebted to its members for
spending a lot of their personal time in advising the staff on their experience,
thoughts and ideas, the commission believes that it is the staff's responsibility
to fully evaluate all the comments and submit recommendations to the commission
in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Administrative Code.
Texas Capital Area Builders Association and an individual would like for
the commission to consider whether these rules would be a takings of private
property.
The commission feels that these rules would not prohibit the use of an
individual's tract of land. Many provisions of these rules allow landowners
of smaller lots and lots which can not meet the minimum criteria to pursue
other remedies to allow them normal use and enjoyment of the land without
creating a public health concern or a threat to the surface and ground water
in the state. In addition, the "Texas Government Action Affecting Private
Property Act", as found in Chapter 2007 of the Texas Government Code, applies
to governmental actions which affect private property. This statute provides
that the regulation of on-site sewage disposal systems is specifically exempted
from the application of that chapter. The specific exemption is found at
§2007.003(b)(11)(B).
Coldwell Banker/Richard Smith Realtors expressed concern that many of the
proposed changes require engineering on every system in Williamson County.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The commission believes that
one of the most important revisions to the OSSF rules is the new site evaluation
criteria. Any OSSF, whether a standard system or a non-standard system, has
a high likelihood of failing when the system design is not suited for the
site on which it is installed. In many cases, improper system specification
begins with an improper site evaluation. Improper site evaluations are most
often the result of a faulty percolation test. All too often the percolation
test is performed improperly or provides misleading results. Site evaluation
criteria based upon USDA soil classification methodology lower the possibility
of improper site evaluation. Soil evaluation from any site can be compared
with USDA soil classification survey data that is readily available. The
end result will be site evaluations that supply the data to OSSF designers
and regulators to determine whether a standard, proprietary, or non-standard
system is appropriate for any given site.
Texas Capital Area Builders Association expressed the following concerns:
what is the justification for the increased regulations; there is no broad
based reason to conclude that the septic tanks systems being installed in
Central Texas are having an impact on public health; if current standards
are working, why add a large expense to the cost of building a home.
The commission disagrees with the comments. The intent of this rulemaking
process is to revise the state's minimum OSSF standards such that they reflect
past legislative changes, address newer technologies and methodologies, and
reduce inconsistency between state and locally administered programs. Data
from this commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consistently
indicate that one of the largest components of non-point source water pollution
is the lack of adequate OSSF systems in the State of Texas. The revised site
evaluation procedures contained within this rule will create a greater match
between OSSF system design and individual site limitations.
Brazos County Health Department suggested that the rules convert the present
square footage requirements with a new formula, instead of recalculating
all the tables.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The revised rules for standard
absorptive disposal systems address drainfield excavations in terms of varying
excavation lengths and widths (widths may not be less than 1.5 feet) where
wastewater application rates are derived from soil textural analysis. The
previous rules derived square footage requirements based upon percolation
test results. Since the revised rules do not address percolation testing,
the standard absorptive drainfield system dimensions cannot be cross-referenced
to the square footage tables in the previous rules.
A registered professional engineer requested the following: 1) the rules
be withdrawn from further consideration; 2) in the alternative, suspend any
further consideration until such time as complete compliance with Chapter
366 of the Health and Safety Code, Administrative Procedures Act (APA),
Engineering Practices Act and Sanitarian Registration Act is accomplished;
and 3) 15 categories of documents related to this rulemaking under the Open
Records Act. Also, the registered engineer expressed the following: 1) have
not heard any authorized agent express any wish for new rules; 2) does not
see the need for the new rules; 3) no facts presented to show existing rules
are causing health hazards or impacts on waters in the state; 4) have seen
no publication of criticism on the difficulty of existing rules; 5) benefit
of these rules should be quantified, rules do not mention costs to prospective
homeowners; 6) takes issues with statement that there will be more qualified
professionals operating in the OSSF program; 7) rules should be rewritten
in a performance language establishing the minimum acceptable level of environmental
protection; and 8) finds the rules harder, not easier, to work with.
The commission disagrees with the comment that the rules should be withdrawn
or that action on this rules package should be suspended. The commission
follows all the required statutory and regulatory requirements in the proposal
and adoption of rules. This rules package has been developed involving public
participation and has been in accordance with all the requirements of the
aforementioned statutes. The commission believes this rules package to have
benefited from a lot of public input and to adequately address the various
issues involving OSSFs. In response to the request for information regarding
this process, the commenter was provided all responsive documentation for
review.
SUBCHAPTER A-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 285.2. Definitions.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department recommended that the
term "abandoned tanks" be modified from plural to singular.
The commission agrees and has modified the definition accordingly.
In addition, the commission has found a small number of misspelled, misplaced
or missing words or similar type of typographical errors in the published
proposed rules for which no comments were received. These inadvertent mistakes
have been corrected in the body of the rules.
Williamson County and Cities Health District recommended that definitions
for terms "alteration" and "repair" be added to this section.
The commission believes these terms are commonly used terms and do not
need to be further defined in this chapter.
A registered sanitarian suggested that the definition of "cluster system"
be modified to recognize that these are systems which would be used to serve
separate legal tracts of land.
The commission has added the recommended language to clarify the definition.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department requested that a definition
for the term "direct supervision" be added since the use of the term in Subchapter
F of the proposed rules was not clear.
The commission has defined the term and included it in this section.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department recommended that a definition
for the term "executive director" be added.
The commission has developed a definition for the term "executive director"
in Chapter 3 of this title (relating to Definitions). This definition applies
to all the commission's rules unless specified otherwise. The definition
in Chapter 3 applies to these rules.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommends
that the definition of "ground water" be modified by adding a phrase recognizing
that the ground water formation will be fully saturated either year round
or on a seasonal or intermittent basis; and Tejas Engineering and Septic
Systems recommended that the definition of "ground water" is technically
inaccurate and should recognize the duration of saturation.
The commission agrees with the comments and has modified the language of
the definition to clarify it.
Austin-Travis County recommended the term "individual" be deleted and in
its place use that definition to define the term "person". Texas On-Site
Wastewater Association recommends that the definition of individual should
be changed to person. Texas Manufactured Housing Association recommended
that a definition for the term "person" be added to this section.
The commission has developed a definition for the term "person" in Chapter
3 of this title (relating to Definitions). This definition applies to all
the commission's rules unless specified otherwise. The definition in Chapter
3 for "person" applies to these rules. In addition, the commission feels
it is necessary to distinguish between an individual and a person within
the context of these rules. No changes will be made.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the definition of "maintenance company"
be expanded to include "partnerships and corporations which provide services
to maintain the functional operations of OSSFs". Smith County designated
representative suggests that the definition of "maintenance company" is unclear.
The commission's definition under Chapter 3 of this title (relating to
Definitions) for the term "person" is expansive enough to address the concerns
of the first commenter. As to the second comment, the commission feels the
definition of a maintenance company under this section is clear. Although,
as of the effective date of these new rules an Installer II certification
will not be available for issuance, it is the intent of these rules to allow
Installers, who presently operate a maintenance company, to continue to do
so until such time as they obtain an Installer II certificate or the deadline
(540 days after the effective date of these rules) to obtain such a certificate
has passed. In addition, §285.21(f) of the rules as proposed has been
deleted to eliminate any duplicity or inconsistency with the definition in
this section.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department recommends that the
definition of "maintenance company" be limited to the maintenance of "aerobic
treatment units" specifically and not "OSSFs" in general.
The commission believes the definition as modified from previous comments
is sufficient. The commission believes it is not in the best interest of
the public to limit the use of maintenance companies to aerobic treatment
systems only.
A registered sanitarian recommended that experienced people, other than
Installer II's should be allowed to operate maintenance companies.
The commission believes the provisions of these rules allow individuals
who hold a Class D or higher wastewater operators certificate, in addition
to Installer II's, to be associated with maintenance companies. In addition,
§285.21(f) of the rules as proposed has been deleted to eliminate any
duplicity or inconsistency with the definition in this section.
Tejas Engineering and Septic Systems and a registered sanitarian recommended
that the definition for "mound system" should be modified.
The commission agrees and has modified the definition to clarify its intent.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the term "multi-use residential"
be defined. A registered sanitarian recommended that the term "multi-use
residential" be changed to "multi-unit residential".
The commission has defined the term "multi-unit residential" and included
it in this section.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the definition of "on-site sewage
disposal system" be modified in subparagraph (B) to reflect that a disposal
system may be located not only on but near the site where the sewage is produced
(e.g. cluster systems).
The commission agrees and has modified the definition to recognize the
use of cluster systems in conjunction with the use of this term.
A registered sanitarian recommended that a definition for the term "primary
treatment" be added to this section.
The commission feels a definition is not necessary since these rules do
not establish any specific criteria for primary treatment.
Austin-Travis County recommends that the first sentence of the definition
of "proprietary disposal" be deleted. Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc.
recommended that the definitions for "proprietary disposal, proprietary system
and proprietary treatment" be modified to reflect that not all proprietary
systems have registered trademark or patent.
The commission agrees in part and has modified the language of "proprietary
systems" to recognize that not all proprietary products will be sold under
a registered trademark or patent. In addition, the commission believes the
use of the terms "proprietary disposal and proprietary treatment" are redundant
terms in relation to the definition of "proprietary systems" and has deleted
those two definitions from the section.
City of Denton recommends that a definition for the term "professional
design" be added to this section.
The commission feels a definition of this term is not necessary. This term
is a commonly used term and any reference or use of this term in the text
of these rules is properly referenced.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County, Texas On-Site Wastewater
Association and a registered sanitarian recommended that a definition for
the term "secondary treatment" be added to this section. An individual commented
that secondary treatment should be defined.
The commission has defined the term "secondary treatment" and included
it in this section.
Community Environmental Services, Inc. recommended that the term "septage"
be defined in this section and that the management of septage be specifically
mentioned in these rules.
The commission believes there is no reason to define this term in this
chapter, since the use of the term is not within the scope of these rules
and is defined and regulated as "domestic septage" in Chapter 312 of this
title (relating to Sludge Use, Disposal and Transportation). It would not
be appropriate to mix regulations or requirements in the two chapters. No
changes to the rules will be made.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended that the term "sewerage
generating units" be added to this section.
The commission feels this term does not need to be defined. Due to modifications
of rules based on comments received, this term is no longer used in the text
of the rule.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended that the term "sewage
disposal plan" be modified to recognize "treatment units" in the definition.
The commission agrees with the comments and has modified the language of
the definition.
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District and Dooly Plumbing
Company recommended that the definition of the term "sewage disposal plan"
be modified by deleting the reference to the "10 acre exemption". The company
feels that everyone should have to permit their system.
The commission feels this comment would modify the statutory limitations
in Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code and cannot be changed by the
commission.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the definition of "sewage disposal
plan" be modified by deleting its second sentence.
The commission agrees and has deleted the second sentence.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the definitions for the terms "standard
disposal" and "standard treatment" should be deleted.
The commission agrees and has deleted the referenced definitions.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site
Wastewater Association recommended that a definition for "subdivision" be
added to this section.
The commission has defined the term "subdivision" and included it in this
section.
Austin-Travis County and Williamson County and Cities Health District recommended
that the term "substantial modification" be defined and added to this section
and other specific sections of the rules.
The commission believes that any modification of an OSSF in accordance
with §366.051 of the Texas Health and Safety Code would require the
permittee to obtain the necessary authorization from the permitting authority.
The suggested definition would not afford the necessary oversight to assure
that the surface and ground waters in the state would be protected. No change
or addition will be made.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers, a registered engineer and Community
Environmental Services, Inc. recommended that the definitions in this section
should, wherever possible, be consistent with those accepted as standard
for the industry. Suggested that the definitions in the
Glossary of Water and Wastewater Treatment
publication be used.
The commission feels that the terms in these rules are generally consistent
with the definitions in the referenced document. The commission has chosen
to use different definitions because of certain statutory definitions and
to specifically describe the limits of jurisdiction and regulation under
these rules. No changes were made.
Section 285.3. General Requirements.
Lower Colorado River Authority recommended that this section clarify the
circumstances under which a system could be permitted under this chapter
versus being permitted by the commission under other provisions of the Texas
Administrative Code. In addition, Austin-Travis County recommended that this
section should reflect that it was only applicable to systems serving 5,000
gallons per day or less.
The commission agrees with the comments and has added a subsection (d)
to specify those exclusions to the provisions of this chapter. Those OSSFs
meeting the criteria of this subsection must obtain a permit under Chapter
26 of the Texas Water Code and Chapter 305 of this title (relating to Consolidated
Permits).
Lower Colorado River Authority recommended that the term "extension" be
defined or clarified in §285.3(a)(1) and (2).
The commission believes this term is a commonly used term and does not
need to be further defined in this chapter.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department recommended that a new
subsection (d) be added to specify that authorized agents may adopt standards
and other OSSF rules that are more stringent than the sections proposed under
these rules.
The commission believes existing statutes clearly give an authorized agent
the authority to adopt more stringent standards in accordance with §366.032
of the Texas Health and Safety Code and there is no need to recite the statutory
language in this rule.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended that only a registered
professional engineer or registered sanitarian shall be required to submit
planning materials if a variance is requested.
The commission agrees and has added language to clarify who can submit
planning materials with a request for a variance.
Section 285.4. Facility Planning.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments suggested changing
reference in subsection(a)(1)(B) from "served by a public water supply" to
"off-site water supply".
The commission believes the existing language is sufficient to assure that
only a tract of land that is served by a public water system, whether it
is located on or off-site, will be allowed the smaller lot size. Chapter
290 of this title (relating to Water Hygiene) provides sufficient setbacks
to assure proper protection of the drinking water supply.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County, Williamson County
and Cities Health District, Galveston County Health District, Texas On-Site
Wastewater Association and three registered sanitarians recommended that
the requirement proposed under §285.4(a)(1)(C) requiring "In no instance
shall the area available for such systems be less than two times the design
area." be added to §285.4(a)(1)(B) and §285.4(a)(2).
The commission agrees and has modified the appropriate parts of this section
to provide consistent regulatory standards for submission of planning materials.
Texas Manufactured Housing Association recommended that the term "mobile
home park" be replaced with "manufactured housing community" in this section
and throughout the rules.
The commission agrees and has made the appropriate changes throughout the
rules.
Texas Manufactured Housing Association asked that the following be clarified:
the distinction between space rental/lease and space purchase; do the requirements
for smaller lots served by a public water systems apply to manufactured housing
communities, and if so why; does the TNRCC plan to exempt manufactured housing
communities from the 20 unit limitation and planning requirement; it is not
clear what a "central water system" means; and the planning required for
more than and less than 20 units served by a public water system.
The commission has reviewed and modified the language in §285.4(a)(2)
such that it does not address central water systems for manufactured housing
communities. The commission has further revised the paragraph to delete the
maximum number of units connecting to a sewage collection system and instead
limit the overall domestic wastewater production to 5,000 gallons per day.
Therefore, when a manufactured housing community is composed of individual
dwellings each situated on legally separate properties, then each property
is limited to 5,000 gallons per day of domestic wastewater in order to utilize
an on-site sewage facility. When the manufactured housing community is composed
of individual dwellings all located on a single property, the property is
limited to 5,000 gallons of domestic wastewater per day in order to utilize
an on-site sewage facility.
A registered sanitarian suggested mobile home parks do not have to meet
replacement area requirements.
The commission agrees in part and has modified subpart (2) to require the
sewage disposal plan to address replacement area.
Austin-Travis County and Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended
that reference to OSSFs "with a subsurface disposal system" be deleted from
§285.4(a)(1)(C).
The commission agrees with the suggested changes and has modified the language
accordingly.
A registered sanitarian asked for clarification on §285.4(a)(1)(A)
indicating that this paragraph appears to address surface water and not ground
water.
The commission agrees and has modified the language to take out any specific
references to surface water situations.
A registered professional engineer recommended that the terms "site specific
planning materials" in §285.4(a)(1)(B) should be replaced with "a sewage
disposal plan" and a minimum lot area of 13,500 square feet be required in
the best of circumstances if an OSSF is to be used.
The commission agrees in part and has replaced the language of the referenced
subsection with the suggested "a sewage disposal plan". As to the second
suggestion, the commission believes that this type of minimum requirement
would not allow a registered professional engineer or registered sanitarian
the appropriate flexibility to develop an OSSF system to solve unusual situations
regarding small lots.
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked for clarification on
the following in §285.4: whether counties have the independent power
to require submittals for platting requirements; if platting is not required
by another entity, do these proposed rules give local representatives independent
authority to require planning materials to be submitted; can a permit application
be denied for non-compliance of planning material submittal; and do easements
need to be excluded from the required square footage.
The commission feels a determination as to whether counties have independent
authority to require submittal for platting requirements is beyond the scope
of Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code and this chapter. These rules
provide for the evaluation and approval of overall site suitability for on-site
installation for subdivisions. Planning materials for individual on-site
systems are a necessary part of the application and as such failure to submit
their proposals for an on-site system can be grounds for denial. In addition,
land developments and land subdivided for building constructions which will
utilize OSSF's for sewage disposal shall be evaluated and approved by the
permitting authority. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that on-site
systems are located so as to insure properly functioning systems. The requirements
of this chapter set technical standards to provide minimum statewide standards.
A permit request which can comply with the technical requirements of this
chapter should not be denied solely on the basis that site plans were not
approved prior to submittal. However, violation of this requirement would
be actionable as a violation of this chapter and covered by the penalty provisions
of Chapter 366. Legal easements in real property convey different legal meaning
and responsibility depending on the intent of grantor. Each easement which
would be included in any required calculation should be reviewed individually
to determine the purpose of the easement and whether it could be included
in calculation for required footage.
Smith County designated representative asked for clarification about lots
in unplatted subdivisions and whether these proposed rules have different
sizes for unplatted subdivisions.
The commission believes these rules do not propose any different lot sizing
for unplatted subdivisions.
A registered sanitarian asked for clarification of §285.4(a)(1)(C)
indicating that it was not clear if the exemption to one acre lot size (two
times the area required for the OSSF) allows the area to include the structure
site or if this area is dedicated for inclusion with the OSSF and to be used
if there is a failure. Also, the registered sanitarian indicated that the
way the exemption was written it can be obtained for every lot or tract failing
to meet the one acre requirement.
The commission feels a variance can be requested from the requirement
to have two times the area required for an OSSF, but a variance to the minimum
lot size requirements can only be granted upon a proper demonstration that
equivalent protection of public health and the environment is provided. The
calculation of two times the area required for OSSF must be free of any structures
or impervious covering.
Austin-Travis County recommends that there be a minimum lot size for spray
irrigation established at two acres.
The commission disagrees. No technical information was offered to justify
the establishment of a two acre minimum lot size. Such a restriction for
this type of system would severely limit the flexibility of developing an
OSSF system to meet the overall requirements of this chapter.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended that the term "sewerage"
should be changed to "water" in the first sentence of §285.4(a)(2).
The commission feels that water supply is not the issue of concern in
the referenced subsection. The subsection has been rewritten to clarify that
the intent was to set standards for the identified developments which are
served by a "sewage collection system for on-site disposal".
Lower Colorado River Authority recommended that §285.4(a)(2) be clarified
to require that systems under this paragraph be under common ownership or
else a cluster system and a definition for a responsible person is needed
to determine what entities can be permittees and licensees of multi-unit
residential tracts (i.e. does a homeowners association qualify).
The commission feels manufactured housing communities which rent or lease
lot space must obtain a permit for the system. The person who owns the land
on which the OSSF is located is the responsible party.
Smith County designated representative asked for clarification on: 1)
whether these proposed rules allow an OSSF to be installed on property that
is subdivided, but not platted; 2) whether the TNRCC intends to require two
times the design area for smaller pre-1988 lots; and 3) whether this section
is intended to prohibit the installation of all OSSFs when the site is classified
as unsuitable.
The commission intended: 1) for this section to cover all lots or tracts,
whether platted or not; 2) that the "two times design area" would not apply
to the smaller pre-1988 lots, the installation of OSSFs on this category
of lots will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis; and 3) that this
section would not prohibit the use of all OSSFs for sites that were determined
unsuitable, but instead limit the use of a standard disposal system for such
situations.
Lower Colorado River Authority recommended that under §285.4(b) the
permitting authority be allowed to issue a variance if the proposed site
does not meet setback or suitability requirements for standard systems provided
a professional design is found acceptable.
The commission believes that the variance provisions of §285.3 of
this title (relating to General Requirements) gives the duly designated authorized
agent the authority to grant a variance such as requested by the comment.
Austin-Travis County recommends that §285.4(b) be amended to require
that all existing illegally subdivided lots must meet the proposed lot sizes.
The commission believes that the rules as written clearly require that
all lots or tracts, whether platted or not must meet the requirements established
in this chapter. However, the issue of "illegally" subdivided lots is an
issue best left to the authority of the local governments and is not within
the authority of this agency.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended
that references to "engineering" be deleted from §285.4(c) and replaced
with "professional planning".
The commission agrees in part and has modified the language in the section
to delete the use of the term "engineering".
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked for clarification on:
1) if platting is not proposed will the planning material be required; 2)
what contour interval is required for topographic maps submitted for site
plans and subdivision planning materials; and 3) should a notation that a
lot over the Edwards be required.
The commission intended that: 1) planning materials would be required
whether or not platting of a subdivision is proposed; 2) detail such as contour
intervals of topographic mapping necessary for site plans or subdivision
submittal is best left to each individual permitting authority to determine
based on the situations that exist in their local jurisdictions; and 3) that
this section in conjunction with Subchapter E of this title (relating to
Special Requirements for OSSFs Located in the Edwards Recharge Zone) and
Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards Aquifer) provide sufficient
notification of the location of subdivisions over the Edwards. No changes
will be made.
Section 285.5. Submittal Requirements for Planning Materials.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers and Amstar Engineering, Inc. recommended
that the submission of planning materials under the rules as proposed be
limited to registered professional engineers only. In addition, Texas Society
of Professional Engineers recommended that a registered engineer's seal is
required for: septic tank and evapotranspiration (ET) drainfield; pumped
drainfield; septic tank and leaching chamber; septic tank and graveless pipe;
holding tank; and septic tank and intermittent sand filter. Several registered
professional engineers stated a belief that the design of on-site systems
is regulated by the Texas Engineering Practices Act. On this same issue,
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, S and D Environmental Services, Angelina
County and Cities Health District, Tejas Engineering and Septic Systems,
Rural Wastewater Systems, Texas Environmental Health Association, Hays County
Environmental Health, San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department and three
registered sanitarians recommended that registered sanitarians be allowed
to submit planning materials for any OSSF in the state.
The commission believes that Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code
provides the public policy and purpose to prevent and eliminate health hazards
by regulating and properly planning the location, design, construction, installation,
operation and maintenance of on-site systems (see §366.01 (1)). The
commission is given authority over the location, design, construction, installation,
operation and maintenance of on-site systems (see §366.011(1)). The
commission is authorized to promulgate rules regarding the review and approval
of all such systems, including design (see §366.012(a)(1)). The commission
interprets Chapter 366 to exempt the design of on-site systems as being regulated
under the Texas Engineering Practices Act. In seeking to construe both acts
in harmony, several factors are considered. The Engineering Act does not
expressly speak to the regulation of on-site system designs. Furthermore,
that Act offers exemptions, in §3271(a) and §20(f), which would
arguably exempt such activities from being regulated by that Act. Chapter
366 is a more recent legislative action which specifically vests the regulation
of on-site system design with the commission and allows the commission to
promulgate standards for on-site design which allow both registered professional
engineers and registered sanitarians to utilize skills associated with their
professional status. The existing rules of the commission and previous rules
of the Texas Department of Health have accepted the materials submitted by
both registered professional engineers and registered sanitarians. The commission
has not been provided any information which indicates the necessity to limit
the submission of planning materials for OSSFs to registered professional
engineers.
The commission has modified the language of this section to clarify its
intent that planning materials prepared by either a registered sanitarian
or registered professional engineer include their seal, the date the materials
were prepared and their signature. In addition, language in this section
has been modified to provide consistency in terminology with other sections
and to clarify references to the Texas Engineering Practices Act.
Section 285.6. Cluster Systems.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc., Harrison
Environmental Systems and a registered sanitarian recommended that the proposed
rules be modified to allow a registered sanitarian to submit a professional
design for cluster systems.
The commission disagrees that a registered sanitarian should be allowed
to submit professional designs for cluster systems. The commission feels
that the cluster system design is sufficiently complex and has the potential
to meet or exceed the statutory limit of 5,000 gallons per day of wastewater
produced by the system. A system which exceeds 5,000 gallons per day must
be permitted under Chapter 26 of the Water Code and design of a system for
over 5,000 gallons shall be in accordance with Chapter 317 of this title
(relating to Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems). The commission currently
requires under Chapter 317 that all systems which utilize a collection system,
similar to the designs which would be applied to cluster systems, to be designed
by a registered professional engineer. The commission feels it is being consistent
with current rules and requirements by limiting the design of cluster systems
to registered professional engineers. No changes are being made.
Williamson County and Cities Health District and Lower Colorado River
Authority recommended that the language of this section be modified to make
it clear that this section only applies to systems that serve residences
on separately owned lots.
The commission agrees in part and has modified the definition of "cluster
system" to clarify that this type of system relates to a system designed
to serve two or more sewage generating units on separate legal tracts.
Lower Colorado River Authority recommended that the language of this section
be modified to not only require that the site of the cluster system be jointly
owned by all parties, but also allow the use of a permanent easement.
The commission agrees and has modified the language of this section to
allow the use of perpetual easements in addition to fee simple ownership.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas Society of Professional Engineers
and a registered professional engineer recommended that the language of this
section be modified to allow the use of cluster systems for circumstances
other than when the site is determined to be unsuitable for a standard system.
The commission feels that it is required by statute to establish minimum
standards for the state in relation to when these and other types of systems
may generally be used. However, at any time that an applicant for a permit
wishes to use a technology other than what these rules or requirements of
a permitting authority may require, the applicant can request a variance
to such requirements. The commission feels the existing language is sufficient
to allow the flexibility to pursue other OSSF alternatives.
Wastewater Technologies, Inc. and an individual recommended that the specific
standards established by Chapter 317 of this title be incorporated into these
rules.
The commission believes it has provided the necessary references to Chapter
317 of this title. Chapter 317 provides that the TNRCC duties include the
review and approval of plans and specifications for sewage disposal systems.
These rules relating to cluster systems provide that these systems be in
accordance with the requirements of this chapter or Chapter 317. The requirements
are intended to allow flexibility in designs provided they are in accordance
with the standards found in this chapter or Chapter 317. The importance for
complying with the requirements of Chapter 317 is for those systems whose
capabilities would allow for expansion of capacity which exceeds 5,000 gallons
per day. A system which exceeds 5,000 gallons per day must be permitted under
Chapter 26 of the Water Code and design of a system for over 5,000 gallons
shall be in accordance with Chapter 317. This importance will be seen in
subdivision developments which utilize cluster systems. Land developments
and land subdivided for building construction which will utilize OSSFs for
sewage disposal will be calculated by total flow for the development to determine
whether permitting is under Chapter 26 or Chapter 366 of the Texas Health
and Safety Code. No changes will be made.
A registered professional engineer asked for clarification on who is authorized
to inspect cluster systems constructed under Chapter 317 criteria. In addition,
the registered professional engineer and an individual also suggested that
the rules be modified to require that the TNRCC be the permitting authority
for all cluster systems in the state with flows less than 5,000 gallons per
day.
The commission feels that the staff of any appropriately delegated permitting
authority are authorized to inspect cluster systems constructed in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter relating to OSSF cluster systems. In
regard to the request to modify the rules to require only the TNRCC to be
the permitting authority for OSSF cluster systems, the commission believes
it has delegated the authority to selected authorized agents to administer
the program at a local level. It is the responsibility of that authorized
agent to have sufficient expertise to manage and administer the program.
The commission under these rules will audit the performance of the authorized
agents and require that permitting and enforcement standards be met. In addition,
an authorized agent may seek assistance from the staff of the TNRCC on complex
permitting and enforcement cases. No changes will be made.
An individual suggested that the proposed rules: 1) do not have adequate
technical requirements for the design of collection systems; 2) be modified
to require the permitting authority to retain a professional engineer to
review and approve plans; 3) be modified to allow the permitting authority
the right to refuse to review and permit cluster systems; 4) be modified
to require more detailed planning, including deeper soil evaluation and meet
the requirements of Chapter 309 of this title; cluster systems which serve
contiguous land can not be broken into smaller sections which flow under
5,000 gallons per day to avoid a Chapter 309 permit; and 5) be modified to
require continuous flow measurement and reporting to the permitting authority.
The commission disagrees with the first comment. 1) The rules address
minimum OSSF design, installation, and operation requirements and provide
specific requirements for standard systems and where maximum protection of
public health and environmental protection is necessary. By statute, collection
systems are addressed by other rules promulgated by this commission. 2) The
commission disagrees with this comment. Based on commentary received from
local governmental entities, the commission does not believe that small and
rural communities would be able to successfully recruit and maintain registered
professional engineers employed solely for the purposes of review OSSF plans.
Furthermore, the commission does not believe that local governmental entities
must employ registered professional engineers to conduct plan reviews for
system designs largely exempted from the Engineering Practices Act. 3) The
commission believes that the statute and these rules adequately address the
prerogative of local governmental entities to adopt more stringent provisions
in their commission approved orders. However, local governmental entities
operating a commission approved OSSF program must be as stringent as the
statute and these rules. 4) The commission disagrees with this comment in
part. The commission believes that it cannot provide more specific language
addressing planning materials and soils evaluation without exceeding the
scope of this rulemaking effort. However, the commission has included the
appropriate references to Chapter 309 of this title (relating to Effluent
Limitations) where necessary, such as for secondary treatment of effluent.
The commission believes that it has modified and added appropriate language
in these rules to satisfactorily address the OSSF limitation of 5,000 gallons
per day per property. 5) The commission disagrees with this comment. Continuous
flow measurements are primarily utilized as a control during the testing
of proprietary systems. To require that all OSSF systems maintain continuous
flow measurements and report such data to the permitting authority does not
address public health and environmental protection equitably nor cost effectively.
Historically, the commission does not believe that owners of OSSF systems
that exceed their designed and permitted wastewater flows will comply with
reporting requirements when their OSSF systems are operating in a state of
failure.
A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc. and Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. recommended
that the rules be modified to allow the fee for the cluster system to be
the same as the fee for a single OSSF at the time of installation.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The commission or the local
governmental entity must recover the administrative cost for design review,
inspection, and permit issuance for cluster systems that may not consolidate
treatment systems even where the disposal systems have been consolidated.
However, local governmental entities may amend their commission approved
orders to assess and collect a single permit fee for cluster systems since
local governmental entities have the authority to establish their own permitting
fees.
A registered sanitarian suggested that the proposed rules do not address
the requirements for enforcing the provisions once the permit is issued and
the permitting authority should require a perpetual maintenance contract
be in force.
The commission believes the performance requirements for a cluster system
are the same as any other OSSF described under this chapter and therefore
subject to the same enforcement provisions as any other OSSF. The commission
feels the provisions of this section are correct in requiring on-going maintenance
of the facilities and not to require a perpetual contract. Circumstances
are such that a perpetual contract would be unrealistic.
Section 285.7. Cost Recovery Fee.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County, City of Arlington,
Dallas County Health Department and County Judges and Commissioners Association
of Texas either requested clarification of who would be required to pay the
cost recovery fee or recommended that this section be deleted.
The commission feels the implementation of the provisions of §366.059(b)
of the Texas Health and Safety Code needs further review and discussion prior
to being implemented. The language under §285.7, Cost Recovery Fee,
(as proposed) is deleted from the proposal to allow such consideration and
discussion.
SUBCHAPTER B-LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF OSSF PROGRAM
Section 285.10. Delegation to Authorized Agents.
Williamson County and Cities Health District recommended that a time limit
be placed on responding to the potential authorized agent.
The commission believes that timely response to the potential authorized
agent is necessary. The commission feels the existing provisions under §285.10(a)(2)(C)
direct the executive director to respond to the potential authorized agent
within 30 days of the receipt of the proposed order/ordinance. No changes
are necessary.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended the addition of language
to §285.10(a)(2)(C) requiring the authorized agent to submit every item
more stringent than the standards of the commission's rules to the commission
in the form of an order for approval.
The commission feels that this request to modify language of the proposed
rules is already clearly embodied in §366.032(b) of the Health and Safety
Code and does not need to be repeated in this set of rules.
A registered sanitarian suggested grammatical changes to §285.10(f).
The commission agrees with the suggestion and has modified the language
of this subsection.
Amstar Engineering, Inc. suggested that septic tank designers be allowed
to utilize the new rules immediately upon adoption and new rules supersede
local rules until such time as local rules can be evaluated by the TNRCC;
designers should independently choose between choosing the new rules or using
the old rules during a six month phase-out period; the rules should provide
a phase-out period for the use of the percolation test; and a local authorized
agent has developed a manual for non-engineered LPD trench disposal systems,
the manual should be revised in accordance with the commission's new rules
and cleared through the TNRCC.
The commission believes that upon the effective date of the rules (20
days after the commission files its adopted rules with the
Texas Register
) these rules will supersede local rules unless local
rules are more stringent than the adopted rules in accordance with §366.032
of the Health and Safety Code. The commission feels these new rules should
be implemented immediately in order to provide increased protection for the
public health and the environment and not be phased-in over a six month period
as suggested by the commenter. The proposed rules have also been modified
to delete the percolation test criteria from the rules. The commission feels
it is more protective to move as quickly as possible from the current percolation
test to the site evaluation process specified under these rules. On the last
point, the commission encourages all authorized agents to provide technical
assistance to the designers and installers in their area of jurisdiction
and such publications need to be consistent with the minimum standards established
by the commission. However, the commission feels it is not necessary for
the TNRCC to review and approve such publications under these rules. No changes
will be made.
SUBCHAPTER C-COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION OF THE OSSF PROGRAM IN AREAS WHERE
NO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION EXISTS
Section 285.20. Application Requirements.
Austin-Travis County recommended that additional language be added to
§285.20(1) to clarify that "permit approval and submission of planning
material is not required for a single residence on tracts of land larger
than ten acres".
The commission agrees in part with the suggested language and has modified
paragraph (1) to include language showing the statutory exemption to permitting.
Smith County designated representative and a registered sanitarian asked
for clarification on whether the provision of §285.20(3) applies to
authorized agents and suggested changes to the timeframes specified in the
subpart.
The provisions of §285.20(3) apply only to permit applications received
by the commission in those areas of the state where an authorized agent does
not exist. A local authorized agent can establish different administrative
requirements and timeframes, if it chooses to and such requirements do not
conflict with statutory requirements. The commission feels the requirements
specified in this section are sufficient given the workload and resources
available to the agency. No changes will be made.
A registered sanitarian recommended that the rule specify how many inspections
are required and at what stage they are to be performed. In addition, the
registered sanitarian suggested that the rule require a registered professional
engineer or registered sanitarian to submit a final certification of the
system to the permitting authority and owner upon completion of construction.
The commission believes it will be difficult to specify the number and/or
stages of inspections because of the variety of the different types and sizes
of OSSFs the agency will encounter. In addition, the commission does not
feel it is necessary at this time to require a final certification by a registered
professional engineer or registered sanitarian, since the agency is directly
involved in the approval of the installed system. Authorized agents may require
such documentation if it so chooses.
A registered sanitarian suggested: 1) it will be difficult to monitor transfers
of property, placing requirements on deeds will not be successful and result
in unnecessary costs for property owners; and 2) future audits of authorized
agents will not be thorough without specific guidelines for inspections.
The commission feels it is necessary to document certain types of systems
and situations in the deed or transfer related documents. It is normally
through this process that a buyer will be made aware of the type of OSSF
system they may be purchasing and what extra maintenance requirements, if
any, may need to be performed. As to the last suggestion, the commission
believes that it has developed a program under this subchapter for the way
this agency will handle the permitting, administration and enforcement of
OSSFs. The legislature, with the passage of Chapter 366 of the Health and
Safety Code, mandated this agency and its predecessors to encourage this
program to be managed at the local level. How a local authorized agent accomplishes
the same charge should be left to the local jurisdiction to decide, so long
as they perform in such a manner as to protect the public health and the
surface and ground waters in the state.
Section 285.21. Additional Application Requirements for Surface Irrigation
Systems.
Hays County Environmental Health, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis
County, and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested that this section
be moved out of Subchapter C to either Subchapter A or D.
The commission agrees and has moved this section in its entirety to Subchapter
A and will be renumbered in §285.7 in place of the section on Cost Recovery
Fees which was deleted based on previous comments. The commission will respond
to comments under the original section number so as not to confuse anyone
who submitted comments under the rules as proposed.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested that §285.21(a) be modified
to not require a flow diagram for proprietary aerobic treatment units, but
instead only provide the site specific flow rates.
The commission feels that a flow diagram is necessary to assure that all
necessary components are identified as a part of a proposed system in order
for the agency to properly evaluate its overall effectiveness. No changes
will be made.
A registered sanitarian suggested that site drawings should have minimum
requirements specified for submission.
The commission agrees in part and has modified the language to reflect
that the listing of items in §285.21(b) is at a minimum and will require
any additional information the permitting authority determines to be necessary.
A registered sanitarian suggested that these rules appear to only require
a maintenance contract for two years and that the contract should be for
the life of the contract. In addition, the registered sanitarian suggested
that appropriate fees should be charged to recoup costs of monitoring by
the permitting authority.
The commission believes the requirements of this section clearly lay out
that the initial contract must be for a minimum of two years (see subsection
(d)) and that the surface irrigation system shall remain under a maintenance
contract at all times over the life of the system (see §285.21(g)(1)).
As to the last suggestion related to fees, the commission feels that one
of the primary reasons for requiring that a surface irrigation system be
under the supervision of a maintenance company is to assure that the system
functions properly and that monitoring and testing would be the responsibility
of the maintenance company. To then charge a fee for the permitting authority
to monitor would appear to be duplicative and defeat the purpose of having
a maintenance company continually monitoring the system.
A registered sanitarian suggests that provisions of §285.21 allow
a maintenance provider to avoid state licensing, that registered professional
engineers and registered sanitarians should be allowed to provide the maintenance
services under these rules, and manufacturers can exclude a qualified individual
from taking their training and therefore create a monopoly through the use
of these rules. In addition, Austin-Travis County suggested that these rules
have not identified a process by which a maintenance company is approved,
and how a homeowner can determine if one is approved.
The commission feels that these rules establish the necessary minimum criteria
for maintenance companies. It is not the intent of this commission to establish
licensing programs for every facet of its regulatory programs, but instead
to let private enterprise work in conjunction with regulatory programs. If
upon reevaluation of these rules in the next several years, the commission
determines that there is a need to change the requirements for a maintenance
company based on some of the concerns of the commenters, it will do so as
swiftly as possible to appropriately address the situation.
Smith County designated representative suggested that an affidavit can
not be added to a real property deed and that subsection (h) of this section
needs to be clarified on how the permit is transferred automatically and
what the permitting authority and owner must do to accomplish the transfer.
The commission feels that the use of an affidavit provides the necessary
communication with future owners of the property to assure that they are
informed of the fact that they are responsible for an on-site sewage disposal
system on their property. Texas Property Code 12.001 provides that an instrument
concerning real property, may be recorded if it has been acknowledged, sworn
to with a proper jurisdiction, or proved according to law. The recording
of the affidavit puts all potential buyers on notice as to the requirements
and responsibilities regarding the on-site system located on that site. An
on-site permit is issued in the name of the person who owns the on-site system.
Ownership of real property includes ownership of the on-site system. The
purpose of this part of the rules is to clearly indicate that the responsibility
for the on-site system automatically transfers with title of the property,
whether or not there is any requirement to formally transfer ownership.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers pointed out a misspelled word
in §285.21(j) and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested specifying
the effluent grab samples as representative samples.
The commission agrees with the suggestions and has made the appropriate
changes.
An individual suggested that the disinfection design criteria is vague
and recommended the following changes: 1) specific performance standards
for chlorination or fecal coliform; 2) require continuous chlorination; 3)
the use of chlorine solution feeders be specifically mentioned in the rule;
and 4) include referrals to standard references and EPA literature on disinfection.
The commission feels the requirements under this section provide sufficient
information and criteria to allow the professional designing the surface
irrigation system to properly integrate the necessary components to assure
that the effluent being applied is disinfected to the appropriate levels.
In regard to the specific recommendations, the commission believes: 1) that
this section and Table IV of §285.91(4) of this title (relating to Tables)
provides the necessary performance standards for chlorination and fecal coliform;
2) these rules establish the minimum requirement which specifies that the
effluent would need to be appropriately disinfected prior to application,
continuous chlorination may not be appropriate in all circumstances; 3) it
is not necessary to mention specific types of chlorination devices in the
rule; and 4) the commission feels it is not necessary to limit design criteria
associated with disinfection related to OSSFs since this technology is continually
changing.
Section 285.22. Fees.
Due to the movement of the previous section (§285.21. Additional
Application Requirements for Surface Irrigation Systems) to Subchapter A
of this title (relating to General Provisions) this section on Fees will
be renumbered to §285.21. However, all response to comments will be
under the original section number so as not to confuse anyone who submitted
comments under the rules as proposed.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested increasing fees over a five year
period; a registered professional engineer suggested the fees schedule should
be scrapped based on analysis of Mr. Minick; and a registered sanitarian
suggested that the fees for this program not be listed in these rules, but
in a separate document so that the rules do not have to be changed every
time you need to change the fees.
The commission believes it has the clear authority under §366.058
of the Health and Safety Code to establish a reasonable fee to cover the
costs of operating an OSSF program in the state. The permit fees established
under this section are in line with fees being charged across the state by
authorized agents operating an OSSF program at a local level to recover their
costs. The commission further feels that the establishment of these fees
through the rulemaking process is the appropriate method to allow persons
affected by this program to offer comments and suggestions on any proposal
the commission may have regarding OSSF fees. No changes will be made.
SUBCHAPTER D-PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION STANDARDS FOR OSSFs
Section 285.30. Site Evaluation.
Austin-Travis County, Texas Society of Professional Engineers and several
registered professional engineers stated that the commission must present
the public with all technical data justifying any changes to these rules.
The commission feels that it has provided the necessary public review
and input into the revisions of this chapter. The staff of the commission
have been working on revising this chapter for over three years. In addition
to the current rulemaking process, the staff have provided draft proposals
to the public, conducted 11 public meetings across the state to solicit comments
and suggestions on the proposals and met with a 14 member ad hoc advisory
committee made up of local government officials, installers, registered sanitarians,
registered professional engineers, trade associations manufacturers, homebuilder
and attorneys. Changes in the technical standards in these rules have been
open to the public for review and comment and fully discussed with the ad
hoc committee.
Hays County Environmental Health and a registered sanitarian suggested
that many parts of the state have caliche soils and these rules do not address
the suitability of this soil type.
The commission believes that caliche soils are not a specific class of
soils unto itself. Accordingly, the commission has deleted the use of the
term in these rules and replaced it with the term "soils". Depending upon
its structural makeup, it can be highly variable in its qualities to properly
treat the effluent from a septic tank or other type treatment unit. The commission
feels that upon a proper site evaluation a determination can be made as to
the type or soil class any soil, including a caliche type soil, may be, and
therefore determine whether it is suitable for a standard type disposal system.
Wastewater Technologies, Inc. suggests that a clear standard be established
which requires a minimum separation of two feet between restrictive horizon
and the lowest elevation of effluent application within each disposal area.
The two foot requirement should replace the requirement found currently proposed
in §285.33(b)(3)(E). In order to assume equal treatment of all subsurface
irrigation practices, the same restriction should be imposed on low pressure
dosed drainfields, thus the language in §285.33(c)(1)(iv) should also
reflect a requirement of two feet of separation to the restrictive horizon.
The commission disagrees with the comment. Pressure dosed systems distribute
effluent evenly and therefore do not require the vertical separation required
for standard drainfields.
Wastewater Technologies, Inc. recommended borings should be required to
penetrate "restrictive horizon" encountered within the two foot separation
zone unless the auger is rejected. Clayey subsoils can be suitable for disposal
if application rates and resting periods are properly monitored and controlled.
The commission feels that proprietary and non-standard systems can be
used in clayey soils, it is standard systems that cannot (except situations
using ET beds, etc.).
Wastewater Technologies, Inc. suggested more specific criteria be established
for the number of borings to be taken. A disposal system that carries 4,000
to 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) is likely to be very large and could include
several areas.
The commission agrees in part and has modified §285.30(a) to insert
a new sentence after the first sentence that reads "In areas of the high
soil variability, the permitting authority may require additional soil borings
or backhoe pits be taken".
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested that the §285.30(a)
be modified to allow a limited soil evaluation where surface irrigation will
be used.
The commission feels that a thorough site evaluation needs to be performed
on all potential OSSF sites to determine the total range of options that
exist for the proper treatment and disposal of domestic effluent.
Austin-Travis County suggested that the soil analysis should be done with
back-hoe pits only and they should be done to a depth of four feet not two
feet. An individual suggested that two feet was a reduction in environmental
protection and that the rules needed to increase the number of required test
pits or boreholes. Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District suggested
that soil borings to two feet below the excavation is not necessary in many
areas of the state. A registered professional engineer suggested that the
language of subsection (a) be reworded to look for the most restrictive soil
class within two feet of the bottom of the excavation.
The commission believes that evaluation of soils two feet below the proposed
bottom of the drainfield is protective of the public health and the environment.
The commission has chosen to require the site evaluation as the method to
properly evaluate all the factors at a site and determine whether a standard
disposal system can be used. This method provides for the flexibility of
soil conditions that we have in this state. Two feet of appropriate soil
is sufficient to provide the necessary final treatment for a standard system.
An OSSF system should be planned based on a thorough evaluation of the site,
with one of the most critical features being the appropriate evaluation of
the soils in the vicinity of the disposal area. The commission feels that
the boreholes and back-hoe pits are both acceptable methods for performing
a soil analysis. However, we do agree that the permitting authority needs
to be given flexibility in determining whether additional borings or pits
are necessary to properly evaluate the soils in areas where highly variable
soils exist, and we also agree that the language in subsection (a) is unclear
about the area of evaluation for the restrictive horizon. Changes are being
made to provide more flexibility to permitting authorities and to clarify
the intent of the extent of the evaluation below the excavation.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department suggested that subsection
did not address soil with exactly 30% gravel.
The commission agrees and has made the appropriate changes.
Austin-Travis County suggested that §285.30(c) be modified to not
require a soil analysis for Class IV soils.
The commission agrees and has modified the language to reflect that a soil
analysis need not be performed for Class IV soils.
Brazos County Health suggested that the language of §285.30(e) be
modified to replace "shall" with "may" in the last sentence to allow the
possibility of standard systems going where a restrictive horizon is within
two feet of the bottom of the excavation.
The commission disagrees with the suggested change. This section is meant
to be determinative of the type of soil in the area of treatment for a standard
disposal system. If a restrictive horizon exists within two feet of the bottom
of the excavation, there will be a strong possibility that sufficient treatment
of the effluent will not occur and the OSSF will fail.
An individual suggested that §285.30(f) be modified to specify all
the requirements that a site evaluator must evaluate as a part of the site
evaluation process related to ground water.
The commission feels that such specific requirements should be left to
the training that is required under Subchapter F of this chapter (relating
to Registration, Certification and/or Training Requirements for Installers,
Apprentices, Site Evaluators or Designated Representatives) rather than specified
in this section.
Hays County Environmental Health suggested that §285.30(g) be modified
to restrict conventional systems to slopes less than 15-20%.
The commission believes that the suggestion would be overly restrictive
as a minimum standard. If properly planned, a conventional system can properly
function at slopes up to 30%. Authorized agents may restrict OSSFs to a higher
standard in accordance with §366.032 of the Health and Safety Code.
A registered sanitarian suggested that the special planning requirements
mentioned in §285.30(h) should be spelled out or defined. An individual
suggested that the language in subsection (h) of this section be modified
to be specific on how tanks float and specifically mention that fiberglass
and plastic tanks are more prone to float. Another individual suggested further
changes to subsection (h) as follows: 1) referrals to the appropriate Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) documents; 2) sites located in the 100-year
floodplain should have the OSSF designed to be waterproof, resist floatation
and equipped with one-way valves to restrict movement of wastewater back
to dwelling; 3) sites within 10-year floodplain will not be allowed a soil
absorption system; and 4) all portions of the OSSF are excluded from the
floodway.
The commission believes the special planning requirements should be identified
by the installer, registered sanitarian or registered professional engineer
based on a site evaluation. There are a lot of different alternatives that
could be utilized in this situation. It is not necessary to identify all
alternatives in these rules.
In regard to the comment on tank flotation, the commission feels that the
existing language is sufficient to identify this as an issue that needs to
be addressed during the site evaluation and the subsequent application process
for a permit to operate an OSSF. All tanks under selected circumstances have
the potential to float, it is not necessary to single out any type or types
of tanks in these rules.
As to specific requirements regarding the location of OSSFs in floodplains,
the commission agrees in part with the first two comments and has modified
the subsection to clarify its intent and offer further definition of what
additional information is needed and what impacts need to be properly addressed.
In regard to the last two comments, the commission feels these suggested
modifications are overly restrictive and do not allow the permitting authority
the flexibility to assess the site-specific situations and make a case-by-case
determination of whether an OSSF can be installed in the described situations.
Smith County designated representative, Hays County Environmental Health,
Williamson County and Cities Health District and Amstar Engineering, Inc.
recommended that §285.30(i) is no longer needed since the percolation
test is no longer the sole criteria for determining site suitability. San
Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department and Hays County Environmental Health
asked for clarification on how to apply the results of the test and whether
the test was mandatory. City of Denton, Texas Society of Professional Engineers,
Community Environmental Services, Inc. and an individual expressed that this
subsection should be modified to require the percolation test rather than
it being optional, especially if a representative soil type can not be identified.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County, Texas On-Site Wastewater
Association and a registered professional engineer suggested that language
of the subsection be modified to clarify that the percolation test was an
optional test. Austin-Travis County recommended that the 24-hour requirement
in paragraph (5) be deleted. Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Department
suggested that the presoaking and timing procedures need to be further defined.
A registered sanitarian recommended that paragraph (5) be modified to allow
filling the hole all the way to the surface to avoid excessive wicking.
The commission believes that the site evaluation should replace the existing
percolation test as the mechanism by which to determine whether a standard
disposal system may be used in the state. The commission agrees with commenters
that this subsection should be eliminated and has deleted §285.30(i)
under the proposed rules and renumbered the remaining subsections.
In addition, the commission feels it is necessary to clarify that during
the period of time between the effective date of these rules and the date
when site evaluations can no longer be performed except by an individual
holding a valid site evaluator certificate (540 days after the effective
date), only installers holding valid certificates, registered professional
engineers, registered sanitarians and designated representatives will be
recognized as individuals who can submit site evaluation recommendations
to a permitting authority for consideration.
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked for clarification on
whether a standard disposal system could be used in unsuitable soil if non-standard
treatment was used. Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended language
changes to §285.30(j) eliminating standard treatment in unsuitable soil
and allowing a standard disposal system with a non-standard treatment.
The commission feels the main purpose of performing a site assessment is
to determine whether the soils and other factors at the proposed site will
allow the use of a standard disposal system. If these factors are determined
to be unsuitable, a standard disposal system should not be used. However,
this determination does not, of itself, limit the use of a standard treatment
system in a non-standard design. No changes will be made.
Austin-Travis County and a registered sanitarian suggested changes to §285.30(j)(3)
recognizing the use of evapotranspiration as a standard disposal method.
The commission agrees and has modified the language to distinguish subsurface
and surface standard disposal systems for overall site suitability.
Section 285.31. Setback and Separation Requirements.
Austin-Travis County recommended that the term "fences" be deleted from
the section and expressed overall concern about future impacts from the reductions
in setbacks allowed by the proposed rules. An individual indicated that there
was a conflict between this chapter as proposed and proposed new Chapter
238 of this title (relating to Water Well Drillers) regarding the placement
of a well near a property line.
The commission agrees with the first comment and has modified the language
of the section to delete the term "fences". On the issue of concern about
reductions in setbacks, the commission believes that the use of the site
evaluation method to determine the usage of a standard disposal system will
help in eliminating the concerns for the use of the higher setback requirements
under the existing rules. In regard to the potential conflict between these
rules and the proposed Water Well Drillers rules, the commission has found
that the two sets of rules are consistent in regard to location of well in
the proximity of an OSSF and property lines.
Section 285.32. Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems.
Austin-Travis County, Holmes Concrete Pipe, Smith County designated representative,
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, and Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. raised
objections to the proposed size (at least 15-inches) of septic tank cleanout
ports indicating that a 15-inch opening in small septic tanks would create
structural problems and that changes to fabrication forms would increase
product cost.
The commission agrees with the concern that 15-inch cleanout ports on all
septic tank sizes may reduce structural integrity. The commission will revise
the proposal to indicate a 12-inch cleanout port requirement as recommended
by Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association. The commission
does not believe that septic tank prices will substantially increase based
on the revised cleanout port requirement.
An installer commented that inspection and cleanout ports should not be
centered over the "T" in tanks and that risers should be extended to ground
level.
The commission feels the proposed rule sufficiently addresses inspection
and cleanout port positioning as not centered over the "T" in tanks. The
commission disagrees that risers must be extended to ground level as this
increases system cost unnecessarily. Extending risers to ground level is
an option, not a requirement in the proposed rules.
North Texas Marketing commented that prohibiting steel lids will drive
up the cost.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Metal tanks are prohibited
in the current rules and metal tanks and lids were not considered in the
proposed rules because their structural integrity is compromised by long
term contact with the ground and sewage.
A registered sanitarian commented that the proposed rules should address
depths to tank lids for load bearing traffic and whether tank cleanout ports
must be sealed watertight.
The commission believes that the establishment of load bearing depths for
lids of any tank should follow the specifications of the tank manufacturer.
Likewise, tank manufacturers are responsible for producing a tank that will
remain water-tight.
Wallis Concrete, Inc. suggested that the frequency of site visits and performance
of required testing should be at least on a monthly basis, with the exception
of aerobic units utilizing monitors.
The commission disagrees with this comment. This suggestion would substantially
increase the cost of on-site sewage facilities unnecessarily. Monitoring
requirements are already addressed for proprietary and non-standard systems.
Smith County designated representative requested clarification whether
the 3-inch drop from inlet to outlet is located in the first tank or the
second tank or any combination.
The commission feel this condition may be satisfied as a combination as
long as there is an overall 3-inch drop. Figures 6 and 7 of these rules (§285.90)
indicate the 3-inch drop in the first tank for illustrative purposes only.
San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department questioned the reason for
restricting designs of poured-in-place concrete tanks to registered professional
engineers.
The commission disagrees with the comment because registered professional
engineers are qualified by education and licensing to address the mechanical
design issues for poured-in-place concrete.
An individual commented that the reference to American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) designation C 1227-93 (Standard Specification for Precast
Concrete Septic Tanks) should be specific and included as an appendix.
The commission disagrees with this comment that the reference is not specific
and should be included as an appendix. The reference in these rules specifically
addresses two sections within this ASTM standard. The appendices do not contain
nationally accepted and widely available standards referenced in this proposed
rule as a matter of brevity and reducing unnecessary printing and distribution
costs.
Robert Morriss, Inc., Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, Kirk's Tractor
Service, Inc., and Austin-Travis County commented that pretreatment tanks
should meet the same structural standards as detailed for septic tanks.
The commission agrees with these comments and has revised the proposed
rules accordingly.
Wallis Concrete, Inc. questioned whether or not local-level enforcement
of these standards (ASTM C 1227-93) will occur.
Local governmental authorities shall enforce the requirements of this chapter
where the commission has delegated the administration of an on-site sewage
program to a local governmental entity.
Fort Worth Water Department and Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. commented
that backfill and cushion requirements for all tanks should be addressed.
The commission believes these rules sufficiently address backfill and cushion
requirements for all tanks in §285.32(a)(1)(J).
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District agreed with the commission's
proposal to include pretreatment tanks for aerobic treatment plants.
The commission thanks this commenter.
Austin-Travis County commented that tanks must be tested for leakage after
installation.
The commission disagrees with this comment since a leakage test increases
system installation cost and may not be conclusive. Local governments wishing
to impose this requirement may do so as long as it is contained within their
approved delegation order from the commission.
Robert Morriss, Inc. commented that filter beds should not be limited to
the use of an impervious lined pit.
The commission agrees with this comment and has revised the proposed rule
to include the use of tanks.
Hays County Environmental Health, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association,
a registered sanitarian and a registered engineer commented on intermittent
sand filter loading rate, maintenance contracts, and other details may not
be sufficient for promoting their use or listing them as a standard design.
Amstar Engineering, Inc. suggested sand media, waste loadings, hydraulic
and other engineering matters should be performed by a registered professional
engineer and such a design should not be considered as a standard treatment
process. A registered engineer suggested the commission consult the states
of Oregon and California on this subject.
The commission disagrees with these comments. The loading rate and standard
design specifications represent nationally accepted data. The commission
believes that requiring maintenance contracts for standard systems will increase
system cost unnecessarily. During the construction of this proposal, the
commission consulted with the states of Oregon and Washington. The specifications
for intermittent sand filters contained within this proposal reflect specifications
from the State of Washington.
Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc. commented that product approval of
proprietary aerobic treatment systems before adoption appears to be a product
that is approved forever.
The commission agrees and has revised the proposed rule to clarify that
retesting shall occur under the requirements of National Sanitation Foundation,
International (NSF) Certification Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices
(1991).
Hydro-Action, NSF, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, commented that
the proposed rules should reflect the current date of NSF Standard 40 and
Certification Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices (Policies).
The commission disagrees with these comments because these proposed rules
would have to be republished and commented upon again in order to incorporate
the new NSF Standard 40 and Policies revision dates. At the time the proposed
rules were published, the commission was unaware the final revision of the
NSF Standard 40 and Policies had taken place.
Hydro-Action, NSF, and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association commented that
the retesting provisions for aerobic treatment systems is contained within
Certification Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices, not NSF Standard
40.
The commission agrees and has revised the proposed rule accordingly.
Norwalk Wastewater Equipment Company and NSF commented that the proposed
rule should not consider aerobic treatment systems for approval when these
systems were not tested by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
accredited institution.
The commission disagrees with these comments because there are already
manufacturers producing aerobic treatment systems which have been tested
and listed by the executive director in accordance with the existing rules.
All units will eventually need to be retested in accordance with NSF Certification
Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices by NSF or an ANSI accredited institution.
McGrew Construction Company, Inc. and Ecological Tanks, Inc. endorsed the
adoption of Chapter 285, as proposed, regarding the testing and approval
of aerobic treatment systems.
The commission thanks the commenters.
NSF supports the reference to NSF Standard 40 and NSF listed Class I systems.
The commission thanks NSF for its comments.
San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department requested clarification on
how long must a manufacturer guarantee its system.
The commission does not require that any manufacturer state a specific
guarantee period for a proprietary product. However, the manufacturer is
responsible for their product during the completion of the two year test
period and five year conditional acceptance period in order for any manufacturer
to receive agency approval of its product.
An individual commented that proprietary system approvals need to include
the requirement that a report be provided at the end of the testing period
for TNRCC evaluation.
The commission disagrees with this comment because the executive director
of the TNRCC will consider the availability or absence of such information
when making a final decision whether or not to approve any proprietary system
for use in Texas.
An individual commented that recirculating sand filters need to be specifically
mentioned as one of the non-standard treatment options. Additionally, use
of media such as synthetic trickling filter media need to be considered as
well.
The commission agrees and has modified the rule to more clearly indicate
the additional non-standard technologies. The listing in the text is provided
as examples only and designers are not restricted to that list.
Upper Guadalupe River Authority and Hays County Environmental Health commented
that the proposed rules for design of non-standard treatment systems should
not be restricted to registered professional engineers only.
The commission agrees with these comments and has amended the text to include
registered sanitarians for design of non-standard treatment systems (except
where non-standard treatment is combined with surface irrigation for disposal).
Section 285.33. Criteria for Sewage Disposal Systems.
Community Environmental Services, Inc. commented that these rules should
acknowledge the potential to reduce disposal areas and lot sizes if various
levels of pretreatment are provided prior to disposal through use of demonstration/research
projects for a period of ten years.
The commission feels the rules allow a person to pursue a demonstration/research
project to provide data for new or improved OSSF treatment or disposal systems.
A registered sanitarian commented that slopes in excess of 30% should be
addressed by the proposed rules.
The commission believes it has addressed slope requirements in §285.30.
Standard disposal systems are not appropriate for drainfields with greater
than 30% slope, but may be addressed using proprietary or non-standard disposal
systems.
Lower Colorado River Authority commented that there should be a flow diversion
valve requirement between dual absorption beds. Austin-Travis County commented
that at least two beds be required for standard disposal systems and San
Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department requested clarification if beds
were addressed in the rules.
The commission disagrees with this comment since these rules do not make
any distinction between trenches or beds since both are considered excavations.
The dual absorptive bed requirement under current rules has been removed,
therefore flow diversion valves are no longer a requirement.
Hays County Environmental Health commented that the bottom of the excavation
should be level to within two inches, not four inches.
The commission partially agrees and has revised the proposed rules to indicate
that the bottom of an excavation be level within 1 inch in each 25 feet of
excavation.
Williamson County and Cities Health District questioned why standard disposal
systems cannot be used in clay and suggested a five foot separation between
excavations.
The commission feels standard disposal absorption systems should not be
used in clay (Class IV) soils as they do not provide adequate absorption
and treatment. However, evapotranspiration disposal systems (a standard disposal
system, not a standard absorptive disposal system) may be utilized in clay
(Class IV) soils.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments, Texas On-Site Wastewater
Association, and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) suggested that
no sidewall credit be given to trenches less than two feet wide or in Class
III soils. The LCRA further commented that the proposed rules should retain
an institutional/commercial sizing factor of 1.25. A registered sanitarian
commented that sidewall absorptive area only becomes a factor once a biomat
has formed on the bottom of the excavation. Bell County Public Health District
and an installer commented that the commission should delete 1.0 foot as
the minimum size of an excavation.
The commission agrees in part and has modified the rules to reflect 1.5
feet as the minimum width of any excavation and thus the minimum width for
sidewall credit. These rules delineate the manner in which sidewall absorptive
area is addressed. By contrast, the current rules which also consider sidewall
absorptive area do not delineate the impact since it was automatically built
into the loading rates specified in the current rules. The commission disagrees
with the comment to include a institutional/commercial sizing factor as this
tends to be an arbitrary assignment when such designs should be based upon
expected wastewater flow rates and effluent strength.
Scott Kitchner Septic Systems and City of Denton commented that the maximum
length of a soil absorption trench be 75 feet as required in the existing
rules.
The commission has set a maximum length of 150 feet for single drainline
drainfields. In these rules, flexibility has been given to system designers
with respect to the maximum length for any other configuration other than
a single line. Section 285.90(5) "Figure 5 has been revised to clarify this
distinction.
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District agreed with the provision
for five foot excavation depths for certain areas of the state.
The commission thanks the commenter.
Upper Guadalupe River Authority suggested the criteria in §285.33(a)(3)(A)-(H)
is in conflict with the criteria of §285.33(c)(1) and should be deleted
in favor of §285.33(c)(1), and consider §285.33(c)(1)(A)-(C) as
a standard disposal system. A registered sanitarian suggested changes to
the requirements for pumped effluent.
The commission disagrees with these comments. While pumped effluent drainfields
and low-pressure dosed drainfields share many similar properties, they are
intended for two different purposes. Pumped effluent drainfields are a variant
of low-pressure dosed drainfields intended for general use and based on general
configuration utilized in many areas of the state. By contrast, the configuration
of low-pressure dosed systems provides OSSF designers the maximum latitude
to develop the drainfield for a specific site.
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District and Hays County Environmental
Health commented that the sizing of tire chips as a substitute for porous
media be left up to authorized agents.
The commission believes these rules reflect existing state laws and other
commission regulations dictating the tire chip size that is required of waste
tire processors.
Robert Morriss, Inc, Scott Kitchner Septic Systems, Galveston County Health
District, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and an individual suggested corrections
to the minimum horizontal separation distances between excavations and drainlines.
Amstar Engineering, Inc., suggested a possible conflict between Figures 4
and 5 related to the spacing requirement as to whether it is a maximum or
minimum.
The commission agrees and has modified §285.33 and §285.91 accordingly.
Scott Kitchner Septic Systems and Galveston County Health District requested
clarification and consistency in the way the proposed rules address soil/media
barrier material. Hill Country Concrete Products, Inc. commented that the
commission's specification (ASTM D737) for air permeability restricts the
use of high quality filter fabrics like Dupont Typar.
The commission agrees and has modified rules by specifying that geotextile
fabric is the only type barrier material to be used. The commission believes
that the current air permeability specification preserves the necessary environment
for secondary treatment of effluent using standard disposal systems.
San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department commented that the drainline
provisions do not address leaching chambers.
The commission believes the drainline provision related to leaching chambers
are appropriately addressed in §285.33(b).
Tejas Engineering and Septic Systems commented that side wall credit should
not be considered since it is applicable to ponding systems. Robert Morriss,
Inc. commented that the sidewall formula is a mistake because it will encourage
narrow trenches by utilizing less porous media for any given installation.
The commission disagrees with these comments. All absorptive systems must
consider sidewall absorption to properly account for effluent behavior as
it travels down and across the soil layers during normal and peak loading.
The existing rules have traditionally addressed sidewall absorption by factoring
it into the loading rates.
Smith County designated representative commented in opposition to changing
from ASTM 2729 to Standard Dimension Ration (SDR) 35 pipe, and an individual
approved of the change. Smith County designated representative stated their
agreement with the use of SDR 35 from the tank to the absorption trenches.
The commission believes the change is necessary to increase the integrity
of headers and drainlines being installed with standard disposal systems
around the state.
Brazos County Health Department, Coldwell Banker/Richard Smith Realtors,
Williamson County and Cities Health District, Hays County Environmental Health,
an installer, and City of Denton commented that the increase in ET drainfield
sizing is excessive, that the increase in drainfield sizing will increase
costs, and the current drainfield sizing formula performs adequately.
The commission disagrees with these comments and bases its decision to
modify the ET drainfield sizing formula on an EPA published study
(Sewage Disposal by Evaporation-Transpiration. EPA-600/2-78-763 (1978))
regarding sizing. The commission recognizes that the new formula will increase
ET drainfield sizes. The commission believes this is necessary in order to
protect public health and environment.
Lower Colorado River Authority commented that clarification is needed to
understand whether ET drainfields are allowed in unlined disposal areas and
Class IV soils when the seasonal water table do not penetrate the excavation.
The commission believes the provisions of §285.33(a)(2)(A) provides
that ET drainfields are allowed in Class IV soils, meeting permeability requirements,
without a liner as long as ground water does not penetrate the excavation.
A registered sanitarian commented that it will be difficult to monitor
transfers and sales of properties on an on-going basis. Placing requirements
on deeds or titles will not be successful and will result in unnecessary
costs and wasted time.
The commission feels this requirement does not put any burden on the permitting
authority as it is the responsibility of the permittee to properly record
and file this in relation to the property deed. The act of recording and
filing this with the county clerk puts perspective buyers on notice as to
limitations with the on-site system.
Highland Lakes Engineering, Galveston County Health District, Hays County
Environmental Health, a registered sanitarian, and Williamson County and
Cities Health District commented on the use of pumped effluent systems in
commercial/institutional facilities and the system sizing criteria.
The commission believes the use of pumped effluent systems should be limited
to domestic wastewater applications only because of the likelihood of greater
and more random wastewater flows and effluent strength from commercial/institutional
facilities.
Robins Engineering commented that conventional systems should be changed
to allow smaller sized rock, given the commission's approval of graveless
systems.
The commission feels one of the principal purposes of the porous media
is to produce adequate effluent storage area in the void spaces. Smaller
sized porous media effectively reduces this storage capacity. Graveless systems
provide the same or greater storage capacity while still providing the same
soil interface as other absorptive disposal systems.
Austin-Travis County and a registered sanitarian commented that the distance
to either ground water or to a restrictive horizon should be a minimum of
two feet for any type of subsurface disposal system including drip (even
with disinfection). A registered sanitarian commented that tertiary treatment
should be provided for sites that cannot meet the two foot requirement.
The commission disagrees with the first comment. Drip irrigation produces
better hydraulic control and reduces the chance an area on the site will
be overloaded and thereby contaminate ground water. Furthermore, the commission
disagrees that tertiary treatment should be provided for sites that do not
have two feet of soil for treatment. When there is less than two feet of
soil, approved alternative disposal methods provide the necessary soil treatment.
Austin-Travis County, Williamson County and Cities Health District, Hays
County Environmental Health, Smith County designated representative, and
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District commented that the 40%
drainfield reduction afforded to leaching chambers is not supported by scientific
analysis.
The commission feels approved manufacturers of leaching chambers have provided
sufficient data that their systems have been tested and found to meet or
exceed requirements for conventional disposal systems. These rules restrict
the use of leaching chamber technology for subsurface absorption drainfields
to Class Ib, II, and III soils only.
Wastewater Technologies Inc. and a Smith County designated representative
commented that the emitters should be spaced to achieve even distribution.
The commission agrees and has revised these rules to indicate that the
drip emitter layout shall ensure equal distribution throughout the drainfield.
Robert Morriss, Inc, Hays County Environmental Health, Fort Worth-Tarrant
County Public Health Departments, and Austin-Travis County commented on several
dictional choices regarding the words "emitter" and "nominal" and whether
or not the system "will" or "should" be equipped with backflush capabilities.
Wastewater Technologies Inc. suggested the word "fieldflush" in substitution
of the word "backflush" and these rules should require flushing velocities
be set at a minimum of two feet per second. Austin-Travis County suggested
that the title of the section be changed to "drip irrigation". Lower Colorado
River Authority suggested removing the provision to backflush to the septic
tank, while Austin-Travis County suggested any other treatment unit.
The commission agrees and has revised the diction in the rule to be more
clear and the title of the section has been changed to "drip irrigation".
Furthermore, the term backflush has been revised to require flushing from
the lines back to the treatment unit. Requirements for flushing velocities
cannot be incorporated in this rulemaking effort as they represent a new
requirement which should receive public review and comment.
Lower Colorado River Authority commented that the title of this section
should be drip emitters (one type of pressure emitter) and that this section
should be moved to the non-standard disposal section.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Drip emitter technology has
been widely utilized in the on-site sewage facility field and much of the
products manufactured fit the definition for proprietary systems.
Brazos County Health Department commented that pressure emitter systems
have a one foot vertical separation distance from restrictive horizons which
appears to be a conflict if the pressure emitter system is utilized in clay
soils which are themselves a restrictive layer.
The commission agrees and has modified the section to reflect necessary
depth of soil between drip emitter and groundwater or solid/fractured rock.
Hydro-Action commented that on-going contracts are necessary, but not twice
per year or three times for spray irrigation.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Maintenance contracts are not
the same as testing and monitoring schedules. Maintenance contracts do not
have a scheduled occurrence under the rules as proposed.
A registered sanitarian commented that drip irrigation systems should be
designated as non-standard disposal systems.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Drip irrigation systems comply
with the definition of proprietary disposal systems. Manufacturers submit
their products for testing and approval to prove their product and the technology
employed. Those units approved for use in the state have a general application
where only the drainfield size is the remaining variable.
Harrison Environmental Systems commented that if we are improving water
quality through secondary and tertiary treatment methods, then there should
be a way to reduce the size of the beds or fields.
The commission agrees in part with this comment. These rules do not limit
anyone from pursuing a non-standard system in accordance with these rules.
In addition, authorized agents are empowered to issue variances, upon request,
for system designs not addressed by the rules that substantiate equivalent
or better public health and environmental protection.
A registered engineer commented that there does not appear to be adequate
checks and balances on the process for approval of proprietary systems.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The proprietary testing criteria
requires product manufacturers of aerobic treatment plants to submit to NSF
Standard 40 testing and certification by NSF, an NSF accredited institution,
or an ANSI accredited institution. Product manufacturers unable to test and
certify under NSF Standard 40 must obtain independent third party testing
for two years. Upon successful completion of the two-year testing schedule,
the product is placed on a five year conditional acceptance. The commission
has no reason to doubt the integrity of NSF, an NSF accredited institution,
or an ANSI accredited institution. While independent third party testing
institutions provides initial testing, field data obtained from systems installed
during the conditional acceptance period is a better indicator to the commission
of whether or not the product should be given full acceptance.
Rick Goldberg testified that drip systems are disadvantaged by operating
maintenance contracts when compared with low-pressure dosing systems.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Historical data indicates that
drip emitter systems are much more susceptible to emitter plugging than the
larger holes found on low-pressure dosing systems. Therefore, drip emitter
systems warrant an on-going maintenance agreement.
A registered sanitarian commented that the proposed rules should contain
a separate chapter for all maintenance requirements for all systems as well
as under the specific system types.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Maintenance requirements are
more easily referenced and understood within the section for each specific
system. When maintenance requirements are the same or nearly the same for
two different system types, as is the case with spray irrigation and drip
irrigation, a reference to the first mention of the requirements is provided.
The requirements themselves are not repeated.
Wastewater Technologies, (WTI) Inc. commented that the proposed rule states
that emitter systems are to be equipped with a filtering device capable of
filtering to 100 microns. WTI suggests that the rules should require filtration
to meet the tubing manufacturer's specification instead of the 100 micron
filtering requirement.
The commission agrees in part. The 100 micron filtering requirement has
been expanded to include manufacturer requirements for filtering.
WTI commented that drip lines should be installed on natural ground contour
(plus or minus two inches) in any drip line to avoid the phenomenon of "drainback".
The commission agrees in part. The rule has been revised such that the
existing language "...arranged in almost any configuration" now reads "...arranged
in a configuration such that equal distribution throughout the field is insured".
WTI commented that anaerobically treated wastewater can be distributed
through drip irrigation systems very effectively with no risk to the environment.
WTI suggested that the last sentence beginning "Direct septic tank discharge
into emitters...." be deleted.
The commission agrees and has modified the language.
Tejas Engineering, Septic Systems, and Hays County Environmental Health
commented that four square feet of absorptive area per emitter was arbitrary.
Tejas indicated a two foot credit appears to be more appropriate where the
benefit is an extremely small saturated area and Hays County felt that five
feet was more appropriate.
The commission agrees in part with this comment. The proposed rule has
been modified to allow placement of drip lines at various spacings that will
yield the closest proximity, without overlap, of absorptive area. However,
the commission contends that four square feet of absorptive area per emitter
is appropriate. The commission disagrees with this comment that two square
feet of absorptive area is more appropriate than four square feet as proposed.
Four square feet of absorptive area per emitter has been an industry practice
for a long period of time originating with the landscape irrigation industry.
Most drip irrigation tubing is manufactured with emitters located on two
foot centers.
Drip-Tech Wastewater Systems commented that all pressure dosed systems
should require operating maintenance. Robert Morriss, Inc commented that
the use of pressure distribution is not a reason to impose restrictive maintenance
requirements-only in the case of pressure distribution with secondary treatment.
The commission disagrees with these comments. Aerobic treatment units carry
mandatory maintenance contracts as part of their NSF Standard 40 certification.
Drip irrigation systems are more likely to plug than are low-pressure dosed
systems and therefore need on-going maintenance contracts. To require maintenance
contracts on all pressure dosed systems would increase the system cost significantly.
Coldwell Banker/Richard Smith Realtors commented that the proposed rules
appear to favor the use of spray irrigation systems.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Texas has many varied climates,
soils, and topographies which require the commission's rules to address the
conditions under which each treatment or disposal technology may be utilized.
Not all areas of the state will utilize spray irrigation under these rules,
just as not all areas of the state utilize spray irrigation under the existing
rules.
Austin-Travis County, Hays County Environmental Health, Robert Morriss
Inc., Robins Engineering, two registered sanitarians, and Sherrill Engineering
opposed the change from five to three square feet of wetted area per linear
foot in a low-pressure dosing disposal system and requested the commission's
justification.
The commission opted to consolidate all construction standards into a single
set of rules. Previously the low-pressure dosing disposal standards were
addressed by the North Carolina State University publication,
Design and Installation of Low-Pressure Pipe Waste Treatment Systems.
This document required five square feet of wetted area per linear foot in
order to fit into their sizing formula and wastewater flow rates. The commission
modified this to three square feet of wetted area per linear foot in order
to coincide with our wastewater flow rates, without increasing the drainfield
size.
Brazos County Health Department commented that low-pressure dosed systems
have a one foot vertical separation distance from restrictive horizons which
appears to be a conflict if the low-pressure dosed system is utilized in
clay soils which are themselves a restrictive layer.
The commission agrees with this comment. The proposed rule has been revised
to reflect depth of soil between bottom of excavation and groundwater or
solid/factured rock.
Austin-Travis County and Lower Colorado River Authority commented that
the proposed rules should clarify that low-pressure dosing (LPD) systems
can be used for commercial/institutional facilities using a factor of 1.25
and whether or not the North Carolina State University requirements are to
be utilized at all. Amstar Engineering, Inc. suggested that LPD systems should
be allowed for institutional and commerical systems at the discretion of
a registered professional engineer. Robert Morriss, Inc. requested clarification
of the use of low-pressure dosing systems for commercial/institutional applications.
The commission disagrees in part with these comments. The proposed rules
do not prohibit commercial/institutional facilities from utilizing low-pressure
dosed systems. The commission will not include a sizing factor (1.25 or any
other factor) in order that all low-pressure dose drainfield designs for
commercial/institutional facilities account for the greater wastewater flows
and effluent strength in comparison to residential systems. The new rule
supplants the need to consult the North Carolina State University criteria
for all LPD drainfields in Texas.
A registered sanitarian stated that the TNRCC has an obligation to share
with the public the data and/or reasoning which led to the enlarging of LPD
systems by two-thirds.
The commission believes that the sizing of LPD system have not increased
by two-thirds. These rules were designed to correlate with existing sizes
found in the "North Carolina State" manual. However, small increases in flow
rates recommended by the 14 member ad hoc committee have resulted in small
increases in LPD sizing for homes not equipped with low-flow fixtures.
Austin-Travis County and Hays County Environmental Health commented that
there should be a slope requirement for surface irrigation disposal systems.
Austin-Travis County suggested less than 30% slope and include runoff prevention
structures such as berms, swales, detention ponds, etc. A registered sanitarian
commented that uniform application of effluent from surface irrigation should
guard against ponding.
The commission agrees with this comment and has revised the proposed rule
to indicate a surface irrigation slope maximum of 15%. Furthermore, sloped
land must be landscaped and terraced to minimize runoff.
Hays County Environmental Health commented that trees pose an obstacle
for surface irrigation. Furthermore, the ground at the bottom of trees is
generally bare and is more likely to create ponding of effluent. Hays County
Environmental Health recommend that trees not be located within the first
2/3 of the application radius.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Trees constitute acceptable
vegetation for surface irrigation.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association and Austin-Travis County commented
that unacceptable surface application areas would be unseeded bare ground.
A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc. commented that spray irrigation to seeded ground
should be acceptable, otherwise spray fields would have to be sod first.
The commission agrees with these comments and has revised the proposed
rule to include "unseeded" bare ground as an unacceptable application area
for surface irrigation.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc commented that a sampling port is not needed
if an effluent sample can be drawn from a storage tank inspection/access
port.
The commission agrees with this comment and has modified the language in
the proposed rule to state "in" the pump tank as opposed to "near" the pump
tank.
Hydro-Action, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, Robert Morriss, Inc,
Hill Plumbing, Inc., Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc., and A-1 Wastewater Services,
Inc. commented that the requirement for commercial irrigation timers should
be deleted and the issue of timers should left up to the system designer.
The commission agrees in part with these comments. The commission has revised
the proposed rule to require the use of commercial irrigation timers when
property lines setbacks are less than 20 feet. The commission has reduced
the occasions where commercial irrigation timers are necessary. However,
this reduction was based upon an increased separation distance to property
lines in order to reduce any threat to public health or the environment.
When commercial timers are required, they provide the necessary protection
at a fraction of the overall system cost.
Dallas County Health Department commented that they are strongly opposed
to surface irrigation of effluent. City of Denton commented that an authorized
agent can choose to use or not use drip and surface irrigation disposal systems.
A registered sanitarian commented that spray irrigation disposal systems
pose a potential threat to public health and the environment since homeowners
do not maintain their systems.
The commission will continue to provide standards for drip and surface
irrigation of effluent in these rules. Local governmental entities that are
authorized agents may prohibit the use of drip or surface irrigation of effluent
in their jurisdictions through a commission approved amendment to their OSSF
order.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association (TOWA) and Guadalupe Companies commented
on the loading rates for soil substitution drainfields. TOWA recommended
that the loading rates be based on the class of soil used in the substitute
soil. Guadalupe Companies suggested that the loading rate should be the same
as Class Ib soil.
The commission agrees in part with these comments. The proposed rule has
been revised to include the clarification that a disposal area shall be sized
upon the textural class of soil of the substitute soil, whether Class Ib,
II, or III.
TOWA commented that the reference to Class III soils in drainfields following
secondary treatment and disinfection should be amended to Class Ib and that
the reference to mound systems be deleted. The Lower Colorado River Authority
and the Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments also commented
that the reference to mound systems be deleted.
The commission agrees in part with these comments. The reference to mound
systems has been deleted from §285.33(c)(5)(B) of the proposed rules.
However, the commission disagrees with the comment to change Class III to
Class Ib soil for drainfield sizing. This would substantially lessen the
drainfield disposal area.
Lower Colorado River Authority commented that references to restrictive
horizons in drainfields following secondary treatment and disinfection should
be removed since secondary treatment will be required when the drainfield
is in proximity to a restrictive horizon. The restrictive horizon will then
act as a liner and protect groundwater negating the need for secondary treatment
and disinfection.
The commission disagrees with this comment. Not all restrictive horizons
will behave as a liner and thus will not prevent groundwater contamination.
Austin-Travis County commented that the reference to disinfection should
be deleted from the section on drainfields following secondary treatment
and disinfection since it should not be used with subsurface soil absorption.
The commission disagrees with this comment since not all systems installed
in this section will be subsurface soil absorption systems. Finally, the
chlorine residual in the effluent would not kill the soil bacteria important
for secondary treatment in subsurface absorption systems.
The Upper Guadalupe River Authority commented that the proposed rules need
to address effluent water quality standards for secondary treatment as incorporated
in the section on drainfields following secondary treatment and disinfection.
The commission agrees and will reference the appropriate standards from
Chapter 309 of this title (relating to Domestic Wastewater Effluent Limitation)
in a definition for "secondary treatment".
A registered sanitarian commented that filtration should be required and
minimum standards set to avoid unnecessary clogging and failure by effluent
applied in surface irrigation systems. Furthermore, there are no standards
for disinfection nor any approved standards for disinfection devices.
The commission disagrees with the comment. Filtration is not as critical
in surface irrigation systems as it would be, for example, in drip irrigation
systems. The commission has included requirements for chlorine residual in
pump tanks for surface irrigation disposal systems.
A registered sanitarian commented that minimum nitrate removal requirements
should be specified. This requirement adds additional cost to a system without
justifying its benefit.
The commission agrees with this comment. However, rather than provide nitrate
removal requirements which would introduce a new requirement to this rule
and require republication and comment, the commission has removed the reference
to nitrate removal in drainfields following secondary treatment and disinfection.
Williamson County-Cities Health District requested clarification if disinfection
was required with constructed wetlands over fractured rock as well as whether
or not chlorine would kill the soil bacteria necessary for further breakdown
of harmful pathogens.
The commission has not included standards for constructed wetlands in this
rulemaking package. However, disinfection would be required for constructed
wetlands over fractured rock. Finally, the chlorine residual in the effluent
would not kill the soil bacteria important for secondary treatment in subsurface
absorption systems.
Section 285.34. Other Requirements.
Smith County designated representative asked for a definition of a "two-way
cleanout".
The commission feels this is a commonly used term in the OSSF industry
and does not need to be defined in these rules.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. recommended a two-way cleanout tee should
be located within three-four feet of the dwelling and should not have any
other fittings except straight coupling between it and the house stub out
and a clean out should be required every 90 degrees of bend that the sewer
pipe makes.
The commission agrees in part with this comment. The rules have been revised
to require a 2-way clean out on the house sewer. However, the commission
disagrees that the 2-way clean out should be located 3-4 feet from the dwelling
as this imposes an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement that may not be
appropriate for many OSSF systems with long house sewers. On the second issue,
the commission agrees and has modified the language of subsection (a) to
reflect that clean outs should be located near 90 degree bends in the sewer
pipe.
North Texas Marketing suggested that some of the requirements of §285.32(a)(1)(D)
referenced in this section are too restrictive for pump tanks.
The commission feels the referenced provisions are sufficient to assure
that pump tanks are properly constructed. Based on other comments, the commission
has agreed in part with this comment and modified the language of §285.32(a)(1)(D)
to reduce the cleanout port minimum size.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended replacing SDR 26 with
SDR 35.
The commission believes the SDR 26 pipe is more protective of the environment
and less prone to cause problems due to its increased strength. No change
will be made to the rule.
Cox Concrete Pipe Company and Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested either
deletion or modification of the predetermined reserve capacity above the
alarm level.
The commission generally agrees with the comments and has deleted the reference
to the predetermined alarm activation level of a minimum of one-third reserve
capacity remaining in the pump tank in §285.34(b)(1).
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District recommended dual warning
lights since audio alarms get intentionally disconnected.
The commission disagrees with the comment since warning lights as well
can be intentionally disconnected. The purpose of this requirement is to
assure that when a facility is not operating properly, the owner will be
alerted in the quickest possible time of the problem. This is not always
possible with just a warning light arrangement.
Highland Lakes Engineering suggested manual alarms could be used instead
of audio and visual.
The commission believes that a manual visual alarm could be constructed
and be effective. However, the commission believes that a manual audio alarm
would be much less effective and reliable. Furthermore, the commission believes
that all pump tank alarms have a visual and audio component for maximum effect.
North Texas Marketing recommended that §285.32(b)(1) reflect that
battery operated products should not be used and that the alarm lock-on feature
in §285.32(b)(3) is not an industry standard and if the provisions stands
as written, it should be amended to require all AC or DC alarms shall carry
a lock-on feature. Hill Plumbing, Inc. suggested audio/visual alarms have
a manual silence.
The commission recognizes that this requirement may not be an industry
standard. However, the commission requires that OSSF system designers wishing
to employ dual pumps shall configure the high-water alarm system such that
an alarm "lock-on" occurs when the first pump has failed. The commission
believes the "lock-on" requirement is imperative in duplex pump configurations
since the size of the pump tank has been reduced because of the presence
of a back-up. With the exception of duplex pump systems, the commission believes
that the rules do not preclude the use of a manual silence for audio/visual
alarms.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested dual pumps should be required on
cluster systems with three or more families or commercial systems with wastewater
flows greater than 750 gallons per day.
The commission disagrees with the comment. The dual pump provision simply
allows smaller pump tanks to be utilized. When dual pumps are not utilized,
pump tanks must be sized in accordance with the requirements for capacity
above the alarm-on level based upon expected daily wastewater flows.
A registered sanitarian recommended an anti-siphon hole be required on
any pumped system, otherwise an airlock can occur and cause the pump to fail.
The commission agrees with this comment and has revised the proposed rule
to require that pump tanks be equipped with a means to break/prevent siphoning.
Smith County designated representative, Harris County Engineering Department,
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, Advanced Wastewater Systems, GulfShores
Enterprises, Dooly Plumbing Company, Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc.,
Hill Plumbing, Inc., Cox Concrete Pipe Company, Hopco Clearwater Systems,
Hydro-Action, Rural Water Systems, Cole Septic Service, The Hill Company,
Aero Valley Construction Company, A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc., North Texas
Marketing, one registered engineer, two installers, and two individuals suggested
the pump tank sizing requirements were too restrictive and require a tank
to be larger than it needs to be.
The commission generally agrees with the comments and has modified the
language of §285.34(b)(2) to reduce the sizing requirement to one-third
day of flow.
Smith County designated representative asked for clarification on whether
the TNRCC wanted all external wiring or only power wires carrying 110-220
volts to be in conduit. Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested an exception
be allowed for use of Type NM wire to be used indoors on single family dwelling
if it is installed in the attic and walls during initial construction of
the dwelling. Also, Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. recommended the use of plug-in
cord and receptacle connections be expressly prohibited.
The commission feels that all installation of electrical wiring should
be in accordance with the most recent edition of the National Electric Code
as specified in §285.34(b)(4) of this title (relating to Electrical
wiring).
A registered sanitarian asked that the term "maintenance lockout provisions"
be clarified.
The commission believes this term is commonly used in the OSSF and electrical
industry and does not need to be defined in these rules.
A registered sanitarian suggested §285.32(c) be amended to specify
specific sizes of grease interceptors based on daily flows.
The commission agrees in part and has amended the language to indicate
that grease interceptors shall be properly sized.
San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department asked for clarification on
the length of time that wastewater could be held in a holding tank.
The commission believes that the amount of time wastewater can be held
in a holding tank is dependent upon the sizing of a holding tank. Section
285.34(d)(1) only specifies the minimum capacity of a holding tank. A larger
tank could be installed which could extend the time for scheduled pumping
as required under paragraph (3) of the subsection.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended that pump tanks, holding
tanks and grease interceptors be required to meet the structural requirements
of septic tanks.
The commission agrees in part and has added language to §285.34(b),
(c), and (d) to clarify that pump tanks, grease interceptors and holding
tanks shall be structurally equivalent to the requirements specified for
septic tanks under these rules.
Lower Colorado River Authority suggested that a provision be added to §285.34(d)
which allows the use of a holding tank as a temporary facility. A registered
sanitarian recommended specific conditions should be specified to determine
when a holding tank is allowable. Robert Morriss, Inc. suggested that holding
tanks should not be permitted for long term continuous use. Wichita Falls-Wichita
County Public Health District expressed agreement with this subsection.
The commission feels that the existing provisions of this subsection allow
the use of a holding tank as a temporary facility. The commission believes
that the conditions expressed in this subsection should be flexible enough
to allow for a variety of situations, whether it is a temporary use of a
holding tank or up to including a situation which may require a holding tank
to be used on a permanent basis. The commission would only allow the use
of a holding tank on a permanent basis if there were no other viable alternatives.
The commission appreciates the support expressed for the provisions of this
subsection.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers recommended that the phrase "complies
with" in §285.34(e) be changed to "has been tested and certified under"
and that an additional sentence be added to require that the property will
be notified in writing to the proper means of disposal of the residuals from
these units.
The commission agrees with the suggested change in the phrase mentioned
above and has modified the text of the subsection accordingly. The commission
feels that the additional sentence is not necessary since the disposal or
transport of the septage from such a unit is appropriately covered under
Chapter 312 of this title (relating to Sludge Use, Disposal and Transportation).
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested that §285.34(f) be modified
to exclude air conditioning drains on single family dwellings.
The commission believes that if condensate lines are plumbed into the OSSF,
then the volume of condensate shall be added into the usage rate to assure
that the OSSF is properly sized to accommodate the increased flow. The commission
feels that in most situations air conditioning condensate will not cause
any great change in OSSF sizing, except, possibly in those cases related
to very large homes and businesses.
Austin-Travis County suggested adding §285.34(g) to discuss french
drains and provide specifications. An individual suggested adding a new subsection
related to reverse osmosis units.
The commission feels that it is not appropriate to add these items to these
rules. The commission will study these issues for possible future revisions
to these rules.
Section 285.36. Abandoned Treatment, Holding and Pump Tanks.
Lower Colorado River Authority suggested changing the title of the section
by deleting the term "septic" and replacing it with "treatment". Wichita
Falls-Wichita County Public Health District supports the provisions of this
section.
The commission agrees with the suggestion to change the title of this section
and has modified it accordingly. The commission appreciates the support for
this provision.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. suggested a better definition for the term
"other suitable material".
The commission agrees in part with the comment and has clarified the language
to better define the type of material to be used for filling an abandoned
tank.
Fort Worth Water Department suggested that a new §285.38, titled "Owners
Responsibilities" be created to state that it is the responsibility of the
owner of an OSSF to properly operate and maintain the system.
The commission believes it is not necessary for a new section to be created
since the rules require that the owner is responsible for the proper functioning
of the OSSF.
Section 285.39. OSSF Maintenance and Maintenance Practices.
Austin-Travis County suggested the use of different terminology for certain
terms in this section.
The commission agrees in part with most of the suggested changes and has
modified the language of this section to be consistent with the suggestions.
The commission feels that the remainder of the suggested changes are not
appropriate within the context of the section.
Austin-Travis County, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, and A-1 Wastewater
Services, Inc. recommended modification of §285.39(1) to not allow discharge
of water softener backflush and condensate lines into any portion of an OSSF.
An individual suggested that more mandatory requirements for the installation,
maintenance and operation of OSSFs be included in this section. Another individual
provided an editorial comment that this section was very good and it should
be mailed to all rural routes in the state.
The commission believes that the information in this section is provided
as guidance to any owner/user of an OSSF. This section was not developed
to provide any hard and fast requirements, but instead was developed to create
a sense of awareness and provide information about what a homeowner should
know or do to assure proper operation of an OSSF.
SUBCHAPTER E-SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OSSFs LOCATED IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER
RECHARGE ZONE
Section 285.40. OSSFs on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
Hays County Environmental Health, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association,
Drip-Tech Wastewater Systems, Harrison Environmental Systems, Frank Aguirre
and Associates, Hydro-Action, two registered sanitarians and one individual
suggested that the commission reconsider excluding registered sanitarians
from submitting planning materials and other details for systems over the
Edwards aquifer recharge zone since they are currently authorized to do so
under existing rules.
The commission agrees with the comments and has modified the language of
the section to reflect the change.
A registered sanitarian expressed concern that it will be impossible to
fulfill the requirement to locate recharge features and comply with the separation
distances in the proposed rule since many recharge features are not mapped
or discovered.
The commission believes that the requirement under these rules for a site
evaluator to perform a complete evaluation of the site will be sufficient
to address these concerns. In addition, the initial platting of a subdivision
over the Edwards aquifer recharge zone also requires that a Water Pollution
Abatement Plan be developed under Chapter 213 of this title (relating to
Edwards Aquifer). Such plan would require that a complete assessment of the
development be performed to locate any recharge features. These rules require
that certain training requirements must be accomplished prior to obtaining
a certification as a site evaluator, staff of the executive director will
assure that such training will include elements related to the issue of properly
locating recharge features.
San Antonio Water System suggested that: 1) a review of the use of conventional
systems versus alternative systems be performed; 2) the set back requirement
for septic tanks be increased to 150 feet from a recharge feature; and 3)
these rules should have a mandatory requirement that septic tanks be pumped
out every three years.
The commission feels that the site evaluation provisions of these rules
provide sufficient evaluation of the soil and site characteristics at the
site to determine whether a conventional or an alternative system would be
appropriate. It would be inappropriate for the commission to establish an
inflexible minimum standard across the Edwards aquifer recharge zone when
the soil and site characteristics vary so widely.
The commission believes that the setback requirements of these rules for
septic tanks is sufficient. Under these rules, a person is only allowed to
install a water tight vessel as a treatment tank. This requirement in conjunction
with the 50-foot setback will provide sufficient protection.
The commission feels that it is not appropriate to establish a mandatory
pump out requirement due to the wide variability in the use of OSSFs across
the state. However, any local authorized agent which feels that this is an
issue within their jurisdiction which needs to be addressed may adopt higher
standards than the commission under the provisions of §366.032 of the
Health and Safety Code.
SUBCHAPTER F-REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATION AND/OR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
FOR INSTALLERS, APPRENTICES, SITE EVALUATORS OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES
The commission has slightly modified the provisions of this subchapter
to clarify its intent to provide greater access and flexibility for receiving
training and qualifying for certification. The modifications allow the use
of executive director approved third party provider(s) for such services.
Section 285.50. General Requirements for Registration and Certification.
Austin-Travis County, Harris County Engineering Department, Texas On-Site
Wastewater Association and A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc. recommended that
the proposed rules be amended to not allow any individual who is employed
by a permitting authority to work as an installer or private site evaluator.
The commission feels these rules eliminate as much conflict of interest
as possible within the extent of its jurisdiction. Any local authorized agent
which feels that this is an issue within their jurisdiction may condition
the employment of an employee or adopt higher standards than the commission
under the provisions of §366.032 of the Health and Safety Code.
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked for clarification on
how an authorized agent will know who is an apprentice; and suggested that
the proposed rules are too burdensome in requiring the permitting authority
to meet the installer at all jobs and expressed a need for more flexibility.
The commission agrees that the proposed rules did not provide for notification
to interested parties of registered apprentices. Section 285.52(5) has been
amended to clarify this issue. The commission feels that the existing language
of these rules provides the necessary flexibility to the permitting authority
in relation to site inspections of the installation of the OSSF.
Dallas County Health Department recommended no mandatory licensing programs
be implemented until complete training courses are in place.
The commission agrees in part and has changed the effective date of these
rules in relation to the new mandatory licensing programs. Language in §§285.50(j)
and (k), 285.54(d)(1), and 285.54(h) have been changed from 360 days to 540
days. It is estimated that the process for developing the training course
material to meet the certification requirements will take up to 180 days.
The process will include developing course outlines by a committee consisting
of TNRCC staff and the regulated community, developing course materials by
potential training providers, reviewing course material by TNRCC staff, and
developing examination material by TNRCC staff. This timeframe will allow
six months to develop training programs and one year for applicants to become
certified/licensed. The commission anticipates a large group of individuals
will seek certification/licensing through this program. This time extension
will allow a sufficient number of classes throughout the state to be in place
to avoid crowded conditions.
Smith County designated representative suggested that designated representatives
should be allowed to conduct site evaluations within their areas of jurisdiction.
The commission believes that designated representatives represent the authorized
agent in performing the permitting function. The designated representative
is responsible for plan review, system installation, inspection and permit
approval. As such it would not be appropriate for a designated representative
to be performing work for compensation directly from the applicant or his
representative for an installation over which they have regulatory authority.
Smith County designated representative asked for clarification on whether
an Installer II can do site evaluations on his own installation; City of
Denton and Community Environmental Services, Inc. recommended that Installer
IIs should not be considered for site evaluator certification, only registered
professional engineers and registered sanitarians; Amstar Engineering, Inc.
suggested that a soil texture and soil structure analysis must be performed
by a registered professional engineer; and a registered professional engineer
suggested that the establishment of the site evaluator certification requirements
were in conflict with the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Representative
Homer Dear, Hays County Environmental Health, Dallas County Health Department,
San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department, Galveston County Health District,
Fort Worth Water Department, a registered sanitarian and three individuals
recommended that the proposed rules be modified to not allow an installer
to perform a site evaluation on the site on which the installer is responsible
for the installation.
The commission believes that the creation of minimum statewide standards
for site evaluation along with certification requirements for both the site
evaluator and the Installer II and the overall responsibility and accountability
for the installation will diminish any perceived conflict of interest issues
associated with a person performing both site evaluation and installation
for the same site. The commission also believes it is appropriate to allow
individuals other than registered professional engineers and registered sanitarians
to demonstrate the necessary experience, take the required training and obtain
certification as a site evaluator. The commission feels that the function
of the site evaluator is not in conflict with the Texas Engineering Practices
Act or the Sanitarian Registration Act.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers and Community Environmental Services,
Inc. recommend that all reference to site evaluator be deleted from the proposed
rules. Texas Society of Professional Engineers and Amstar Engineering, Inc.
suggested that any fees be paid to the Texas State Board of Registration
for Professional Engineers to provide a list to the commission of qualified
engineers. Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested that registered
professional engineers should not be required to obtain certification as
a site evaluator. Harris County Engineering Department recommended that the
proposed rules be modified to exempt registered sanitarians and registered
professional engineers from the site evaluator certification requirements.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers, Hydro-Action, Amstar Engineering,
Inc. and a registered professional engineer suggested that registered sanitarians
and registered professional engineers should be exempt from required training
and testing for site evaluator certification. Community Environmental Services,
Inc. suggested that: 1) §285.50(k) be modified to exempt registered
(in Texas) professional engineers and registered sanitarians who have been
trained as designated representatives from the requirement to obtain certification
as a site evaluator; 2) the rules recognize anyone certified as a site evaluator
as a category of "qualified technical professional" separate and apart from
a registered sanitarian or registered professional engineer; and 3) issues
associated with appropriate education and any training issues associated
with inquiries or disciplinary action for registered sanitarians or registered
professional engineers should be referred to their respective certifying
boards and not the commission. Texas State Board of Registration for Professional
Engineers recommended that: 1) the commission evaluate the possible impact
on public health and safety by allowing design of OSSFs by persons with minimal
training; 2) consider restricting such designers to low flow rate or other
limiting criteria systems; and 3) commission should not certify engineers
for the work they are already licensed by their board to perform, suggest
a program similar to the one developed for the petroleum storage tank program.
The commission has general authority over location, installation of OSSFs
(see §366.011(1) of the Texas Health and Safety Code). The commission
is authorized to adopt rules governing the installation, training and registration
of installers (see §366.012(1)(b) and §366.013 of the Texas Health
and Safety Code). The rules may require the use of one or more specific management
practices where site conditions require the use of one or more specific management
practices (see §366.012(3) of the Texas Health and Safety Code). The
commission requires training, testing and certification of installers in
order to insure the proper installation and maintenance of these systems.
The most important aspect of installation is a proper site evaluation in
order to assess suitability for various types OSSFs. In order to ensure minimum
competency regarding site evaluation the commission has created the site
evaluator certification as part of the installer program. The commission
created a separate certification as part of the installer registration program
in order to allow competent candidates to perform this function without having
to also obtain installer certification. The rules establish minimum standards
for proper site evaluation as well as the requirement for specific training,
demonstration of competency through the taking of an examination and to be
certified as having accomplished these requirements. Numerous comments requested
exemption from the various training and certification requirements. The statutes
require training, testing and certification for installers and designated
representatives. The statutes do not provide for any exemptions to this requirement.
In order to insure that a minimum statewide standard of competency is demonstrated
and in order to prevent and eliminate health hazards from on-site systems
no exemption to these requirements is provided by these rules. In acknowledgment
of the general expertise and knowledge associated with being a registered
professional engineer or a registered sanitarian in good standing in Texas,
the commission is amending the rules to waive the fees for application/examination
and renewal upon demonstration by an individual that they have completed
all other requirements under Subchapter F.
Community Environmental Services, Inc. and a registered sanitarian recommended
that a certification program for maintenance companies be established. Austin-Travis
County indicated that these rules do not address needed regulatory control
over maintenance companies. Gregg County Health Department suggested that
there needs to be more emphasis and more clarification towards maintenance
and the controlling of the maintenance.
The commission will study this issue for possible future revisions. It
would be outside the scope of this rulemaking to consider a recommendation
to establish a certification program for maintenance companies. The commission
feels that the roles and responsibilities of a maintenance company are fully
identified in these rules. The executive director will publish guidance on
the rules for local authorized agents.
Section 285.51. Exceptions to Registration/Certification Requirements.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended
that references to individuals registered as an apprentice be deleted from
this section and Austin-Travis County also recommended that references to
"his or her own" OSSF be reworded.
The commission agrees and has made the appropriate changes to the section.
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District expressed support for
this section as written. Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments
asked for clarification on whether this section would require a person delivering
a treatment tank and setting it into an excavation to be registered/certified.
The commission did not intend for these rules to include delivery of components
of the OSSF system. The commission feels that the delivery of such items
does not constitute installation and therefore does not require any certification/registration.
Hays County Environmental Health expressed concern that this section as
written would allow a builder to install an OSSF on a tract of land that
he owns and is constructing a dwelling for future sale without using a registered
installer.
The commission believes that the rules must be read as a whole and not
just one section. The commission has defined the term "installer" to include
any person who is compensated for the installation. The commission would
consider any builder who is developing a tract of land for sale and has installed
an OSSF on the tract to be an installer under this definition and therefore
not subject to the exemptions under this section.
Section 285.54. Qualifications
Fort Worth Water Department asked that §285.54(c) be clarified to
include Installers I & II in the requirement to pass an examination.
The commission believes the language of subsection (c) is sufficient. The
definition of the term "installer" (see §285.2 of this title (relating
to Definitions)) is broad enough to include any category of installer.
Galveston County Health District, a registered sanitarian and two individuals
suggested that the requirement under §285.54(d) of the proposed rules
to have at least one year of experience as an apprentice will allow installers
to "freeze out" future competition. A registered sanitarian also suggested
that experience in other types of occupations in the on-site industry be
allowed for as acceptable experience in order to qualify for the Installer
I and II categories. An installer asked for clarification on the requirement
to have two years of experience before qualifying for an Installer II.
The commission received a number of comments during the development of
the proposed rules recommending that only individuals with sufficient experience
should be allowed to practice as installers. The commission believes that
an individual should have actual hands-on experience as an apprentice or
Installer I, the appropriate training and pass an examination in order to
qualify for certification under the requested category. In addition, the
experience requirement is considered under these rules to be a cumulative
level of experience. Therefore, no one installer will be able to keep an
individual from obtaining the experience level necessary to apply for certification.
Since this new category of installer (Installer II) will be responsible for
the installation and/or maintenance of more complex OSSF systems, the commission
feels the experience necessary to become an Installer II should be limited
to experience as an Installer I and not just any experience in another occupation.
Galveston County Health District and two individuals asked for clarification
of §285.54(f) in relation to whether maintaining an Installer I license
qualify or count as verified experience.
The commission believes that the provisions of subsection (f) are clear.
An individual must provide documentation of two years of actual experience
installing, altering or repairing OSSF systems. The mere holding of a license
would not be considered to be verified experience.
A registered sanitarian objected to the second sentence of §285.54(g)
as too limiting against others who could also perform the same functions
and indicated that this sentence was in conflict with other provisions of
the proposed rules. The same registered sanitarian was concerned that the
proposed rules did not allow a designated representative who was also a registered
sanitarian to have any credit towards becoming an Installer II.
On the first issue, the commission agrees and has modified the language
to remove the conflict. Related to the second comment, the commission disagrees.
An individual must provide documentation of two years of actual experience
installing, altering or repairing OSSF systems. The holding of a designated
representative license, whether or not the individual holds a license as
a registered sanitarian, would not be considered to be verified experience.
No changes will be made.
Representative Homer Dear, Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments,
Brazos County Health Department asked for clarification on whether a designated
representative will also require certification as a site evaluator. Wichita
Falls-Wichita County Public Health District suggested that the proposed rules
were unreasonable to require a designated representative to also have an
Installer II and site evaluator certificate. Fort Worth Water Department
and an individual suggested that §285.54(k) be modified to allow a designated
representative with appropriated experience to qualify to obtain certification
as a site evaluator.
The commission did not intend for a designated representative to obtain
separate certifications while under the employment of a permitting authority.
The commission agrees that the language in §285.54(j) may be unclear
and therefore has modified the subsection by adding language to clarify its
intent. In addition, the commission agrees with the last comment and has
modified the language of subsection (k) to allow a designated representative
with sufficient experience to qualify for certification as a site evaluator.
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked for clarification on
whether to qualify for site evaluator certification an individual would have
to have two years of experience plus the appropriate certifications as an
Installer II, registered sanitarian or registered professional engineer.
The commission agrees that §285.54(k)(1) needs clarification. The
language has been modified to clarify that the intent was to require both
the verifiable experience and the appropriate certifications as listed above
plus adding designated representative to the list.
Galveston County Health District and two individuals recommended that registered
"Code Enforcement Officers" be allowed to qualify for certification as a
site evaluator.
The commission feels it has not been presented sufficient evidence to determine
whether a "Code Enforcement Officer" should be allowed to qualify for certification
as a site evaluator. No changes have been made to the rules. The commission
will have staff evaluate this request prior to any future amendments to this
chapter.
Section 285.55. Examinations.
Dallas County Health Department opposed the testing requirement for existing
local government staff, they should be grandfathered.
The commission feels the amendments to §366.14 of the Texas Health
and Safety Code in 1993 requires that all designated representatives meet
the testing, training and certification requirements. The commission believes
that all designated representatives must be qualified by the same set of
standards.
Section 285.57. Fees.
Hays County Environmental Health, Dallas County Health Department, Wichita
Falls-Wichita County Public Health District and City of Arlington suggested
that the fees for designated representatives should be waived, were excessive
or needed to also be more reasonable for installers. City of Arlington suggested
that the certifications be renewed once every two years rather than every
year. Representative Homer Dear, Fort Worth Water Department, and an individual
suggested that the fees under this section are excessive and recommend that
a more reasonable fee structure be established.
The commission believes that the certification/registration fees and renewal
timeframes in these rules are in line with other certification programs established
by the legislature and administered by the TNRCC. These fees have been established
at the level necessary to offset the costs of administering the program.
Galveston County Health District and two individuals asked for clarification
on why employees of authorized agents be charged fees to administer the TNRCC
rules.
The commission believes it has the clear authority under §366.14 of
the Texas Health and Safety Code to establish a reasonable fee for any individual
who desires to be a designated representative for administration of the training
and certification. No changes will be made.
A registered sanitarian suggested that the fees for an installer and site
evaluator should not be combined.
The commission believes that a number of installers will also apply for
and obtain the site evaluator certification based on input during development
of this rule. The commission feels it is in the best interest of the public
and the regulated community to eliminate as much duplicity and paperwork
as possible. No changes have been made to the rules.
Section 285.58. Duties and Responsibilities.
Harris County Engineering Department and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association
suggested that a §285.58(b)(12) be added to require a designated representative
to report any professional discrepancies by a register sanitarian and registered
professional engineer to their respective governing boards.
The commission believes that this request already exists as a matter of
law. Any individual or person is required by the laws creating the referenced
governing boards to report any professional discrepancies to their respective
boards. No change to the rule will be made.
Section 285.59. Training.
Texas Society of Professional Engineers and Community Environmental Services,
Inc. recommended that the term "specific" be changed to "general" in §285.59(4).
The commission feels that "specific" is an appropriate term since most
of the OSSFs installed in this state are installed below the surface and
pose a potential threat to the surface and ground water in the state. No
change to the rule will be made.
City of Arlington suggested that eight hours of continuing education each
year is excessive, much of information does not change dramatically from
year to year, and eight hours every two years would be more appropriate.
The commission believes that eight hours of continuing education credit
is not excessive. Most professional certification programs in Texas require
eight or more hours annually of continuing education to assure that certificate
holders are kept up-to-date in their field. In the last five years, the number
of OSSF systems installed in this state has increased by 200%. The commission
feels that the technology of on-site treatment and disposal changes enough
on a yearly basis to provide ample continuing education topics and that certain
problems identified by permitting authorities across the state are identified
to assure the annual requirement is necessary.
Section 285.60. Apprentice Program.
Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District recommended that this
section be deleted since most of these people are manual laborers and most
do not stay long on the job.
The commission feels that this section allows any individual the opportunity
and a process by which they can develop the necessary experience, skill and
education to be a viable part of the OSSF industry in Texas. No change to
the rule will be made.
Section 285.61. Revocation, Suspension or Reinstatement of Certificate
and Registration.
Austin-Travis County suggested that in §285.61(a) the term "knowingly"
be placed before the word "violating".
The commission believes that the suggestion places the burden on the commission
to prove the state of mind of an individual at the time that individual committed
a violation. This would severely limit the ability of the commission to perform
its enforcement duties. No change to the rule will be made.
SUBCHAPTER G-OSSF ENFORCEMENT
Section 285.70. Agency Enforcement of OSSFs.
Lower Colorado River Authority indicated that enforcement was the key to
making the OSSF industry a credible and viable one in Texas. Dooly Plumbing
Company suggested that the TNRCC needs to enforce existing rules. North Texas
Marketing recommended that enforcement of proposed current standards is a
major factor that should be considered. Cecil's Backhoe Service, Inc. urged
the commission and executive director to take a hard look at what is being
approved in the counties which are designated authorized agents to assure
that they are complying with current standards or suffer the consequences.
A registered professional engineer suggested that qualified design professionals,
local desire and involvement and substantial fines for violations of current
rules would have a much better chance of preventing health hazards than these
proposed rules.
The commission agrees in principle with the commenters that enforcement
is the key to assure that the OSSF program is protective of the public health
and safety of its citizens and the ground and surface waters in the state.
The commission believes that these new rules provide authorized agents and
the regulated community with the necessary guidance on the proper planning,
design, installation, operation and maintenance of an OSSF. In addition,
these new rules provide the commission with the necessary enforcement mechanisms
and tools to swiftly and properly enforce the laws of this state in regard
to the protection of the public health and safety.
SUBCHAPTER H-TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF GREYWATER
Section 285.80. Treatment and Disposal of Greywater.
Smith County designated representative, Fort Worth Water Department, Austin-Travis
County, Brazos County Health Department, Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public
Health Departments, Amstar Engineering, Inc. and Kirk's Tractor Service,
Inc. suggested that they were either: 1) in need of additional guidance on
greywater; 2) opposed to the section as written; 3) wanted this section to
include standards for greywater; 4) confused on what the section meant and
needed clarification; or 5) needed the section to better define the role
of plumbers and installers. Representative Homer Dear and an individual suggested
that putting the installation of greywater systems under the rules of the
State Board of Plumbing Examiners would end installation of such systems.
Further, they suggested that greywater systems should continue to be installed
under TNRCC rules and not the State Board of Plumbing Examiners rules. An
individual suggested that if references to the Uniform Plumbing Code and
other codes are made in these rules they should be included as an appendix
to these rules.
The commission agrees in principle with the comments and has rewritten
the section to better clarify the overall jurisdiction under these rules
and the role and responsibilities of individuals working on or installing
components of a greywater system. References to the Uniform Plumbing Code
and other such codes has been deleted from this section. The commission feels
this section, as rewritten, reflects the intent of the Legislature when it
passed House Bill 346 (1993) to clearly define the roles and responsibilities
between the commission and the State Board of Plumbing Examiners.
SUBCHAPTER I-APPENDICES
Section 285.90. Figures.
Austin-Travis County, Scott Kitchner Septic Systems, Kirk's Tractor Service,
Inc. and a registered sanitarian suggested that figure 1 was unclear as to
how to decipher which application rate to use.
The commission agrees that clarification of the figure is needed and has
added a notation to the figure to better define how to decipher the application
rates drawn on the map.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested adding the following additional
information to the form: name of owner, site address, name of maintenance
company, name of inspector, signature spaces and legal description.
The commission believes the purpose of this form is to notify future landowners
of the requirement that they are purchasing a OSSF which will require they
maintain a maintenance contract with an approved maintenance company. Since
the maintenance company and its inspectors will likely change over time,
the commission does not feel that it is necessary to include that information
on the form. The commission agrees to add the site address to the form recognizing
that this may not be applicable in all cases. In addition, the form already
contains appropriate references to the name of the owner and the legal description
of the property.
Smith County designated representative, a registered sanitarian, and two
individuals suggested that 1) this form should contain meter readings off
of the water supply meter; 2) the form should be amendable/substitutable
with a similar form; and 3) the form should contain nitrates/nitrites as
required tests.
The commission feels that the information under item 1) is not necessary
or critical to determine the proper operation of the OSSF system. In relation
to item 2), the commission established this form as the type of minimum information
that would be needed to evaluate whether a system is performing properly.
This form is amendable and could be substituted in a different format, so
long as the minimum information required on this form is also identified
on the new form. Regarding item 3), the commission has not yet established
performance standards associated with OSSFs for nitrate/nitrites. No changes
to the rules will be made.
Austin-Travis County and Hays County Environmental Health recommended that
the following additional items be added to the form: property's address,
legal description of the property, owner's name, maintenance company name
and address, testing method used, signature block for inspector and a description
of the condition of the irrigation area and vegetative cover.
The commission agrees and has made the appropriate changes to the form.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended
that this figure be modified to only allow Class Ib or II soils for backfill
in a soil substitution drainfield.
The commission agrees with this comment and has revised the figures and
the text of the rule to consistently refer to backfill as Class Ib and Class
II, except as noted for ET drainfields where only Class II may be utilized
for backfill.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested porous media or graveless
pipe should be at least 12 inches below the outlet of the septic tank or
treatment device. A registered sanitarian suggests that the figure is not
clear on what it represents. The drawings need to be more explicit in what
is required.
The commission agrees and has modified the figure to reflect the change
regarding porous media/graveless pipe and has made notations to the figure
to clarify the intent and provide more explicit direction.
Smith County designated representative asked for clarification on whether
"tee drops" can still be used and whether you can use native soil as backfill.
The commission offers the following clarifications: 1) tee drops (90, 45,
33, 22.5 degrees) can all be used as long as the point (curve, drop) at which
the effluent flows to the lower excavation is equal to the top of the gravel;
and 2) you can backfill with native soil so long as the soil classifies as
a Class Ib, II or III soil.
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association and a registered sanitarian suggested
that the drawings in this figure should be revised and elaborated upon.
The commission agrees in part and has modified the drawings and added notations
to clarify the intent.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments asked that this drawing
in relation to the use of a single line be consistent with the text of the
rule. An individual asked for clarification on whether a single line could
be used and at what length.
The commission agrees with the first comment and has made the appropriate
changes in the text of the rule (§285.33) to provide consistent guidance.
As to the second comment, the commission offers the following clarification:
a single line, no longer than 150 feet may be used; this was also allowed
under current rules when an absorption trench with step-downs was being installed
on the side of a hill.
A registered sanitarian expressed concern that this figure shows drainfields
on a sloped surface with a single header without any means of achieving equal
distribution of effluent along the header, such equal distribution is essential
to proper functioning.
The commission believes the figure properly depicts the correct situation
since gravity drainfields on sloped terrain are not designed to have equal
distribution, they are designed to fill up one excavation before spilling
down to the next excavation.
Fort Worth-Tarrant County Public Health Departments suggested the cleanout
over the fitting is not consistent with the text in §285.32(a)(1)(D).
Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested that the arrow pointing to
the cleanout port be directed to the bottom and not the top of the port to
show the smaller opening size.
The commission agrees with both comments and has modified the figure to
reflect the changes.
Holmes Concrete Pipe and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association recommended
that the cleanout port opening minimum size be changed to 12 inches instead
of 15.
The commission agrees with the comment and has modified the figure and
text to reflect the change.
A registered sanitarian recommended that the figure should show the monitoring
port tied into the underdrain pipe.
The commission agrees with the comment and has modified the figure to reflect
the change.
Section 285.91. Tables.
Lower Colorado River Authority suggested a third sentence be added to reflect
the use of unlined ET systems as an option in Class IV soils. Two individuals
asked if standard absorptive systems would be allowed in Class IV soils based
on site specific data.
The commission agrees in part with the first commenter and has deleted
the first reference on the table and modified the language in §285.33(a)(2)
of the text to clarify that unlined ET is an option in Class IV soils. As
to the second commenters, the commission offers the following clarification:
standard absorptive drainfields can not be used in Class IV soils. The only
type of standard disposal method that could be utilized in Class IV soils
is an unlined ET system.
Williamson County and Cities Health District asked that this table be modified
to include application rates for clay loam and silty clay loam, an evapotranspiration-absorption
(ETA) application rate should be provided, and the figures are too conservative.
A registered sanitarian suggested that the table needed to be modified to
address some of the acceptable and functional material in Central Texas.
The commission feels that the information and data provided in Table VI
is sufficient to appropriately classify any soil into the classifications
identified in this table. ETA type systems are not addressed in these rules
due to insufficient information. The commission anticipates that these type
of systems will be addressed in future revisions/amendments to these rules.
Further, the commission believes that the application rates in this table
provide ample protection of the public health and safety of the citizens
in the state.
Austin-Travis County suggested that a column be added to the table specifying
percolation test ranges for each application rate.
The commission has removed the requirement of a percolation test from these
rules. No further changes to the rule will be made.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin-Travis County, Hays County Environmental
Health, Texas On-Site Wastewater Association, Scott Kitchner Septic Systems
and Robert Morris, Inc. recommended that the breakpoints in the table be
clarified and suggested different variations of how to calculate tank capacity.
The commission agrees the breakpoints in the table need to be modified
to clarify the intent. The table has been modified to reflect more definitive
breakpoints. The commission feels that this table provides for sufficient
treatment capacity without significantly increasing the costs of installing
an OSSF. If an authorized agent feels that these requirements under this
table should be increased, the commission believes that the statutes clearly
give an authorized agent the authority to adopt more stringent standards
in accordance with §366.032 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.
A-1 Wastewater Services, Inc. suggested that the wastewater usage table
be left at the old rates. Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. recommended that the
table not be complicated by the number of square feet, but use instead the
number of occupants. Amstar Engineering, Inc. suggested that the travel trailer/RV
parks are capable of controlling wastewater disposal with water saving devices
and the rate should be shown as the same in both columns.
The commission agrees in part with the first comment and has revised the
single family dwelling usage rates in accordance with its previous surface
irrigation policy which attributes the gallons per day per person to the
number of bedrooms in a single family dwelling. That is, use 75 gallons per
person per day and assume three persons for a two bedroom dwelling and one
additional person for each additional bedroom. However, the remaining wastewater
usage rates address commercial or institutional facilities and are provided
as a guide for system designers and are not intended to serve as actual wastewater
flow rates in all cases. On the second comment, the commission believes it
is better to calculate wastewater usage based on square footage because the
number of people in a dwelling may change significantly as mobile as our
society is today. A structure may have originally been built for a retired
couple and today is being used by a husband, wife and three children.
Austin-Travis County suggested that the table specify the type of store
or remove the specification. Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested
that the table include a church usage of five gallons per person per day.
The commission believes that this table provides sufficient information
and is to be used as a guide. If there is better site specific data, then
the data needs to be verified, documented and used for the appropriate calculations.
No changes to the rule will be made.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas Society of Professional Engineers
and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association pointed out a typographical error
and suggested other units of measurement.
The commission agrees with the suggested changes and has modified the table
accordingly.
Galveston County Health District, Scott Kitchner Septic Systems, two individuals
and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested that the reference to
being "permit specific" is vague and instead should provide options.
The commission feels that every circumstance with a non-standard system
is different and will need to be evaluated separately and then determine
the testing and reporting requirements based on that evaluation. In addition,
the commission believes that these rules need to provide permitting authorities
the flexibility they need to evaluate and determine what is best for the
type of system that is being proposed.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested
that the depth to ground water be changed to 48 inches for suitable and to
within 48 inches of the bottom of the excavation for unsuitable.
The commission believes that 24 inches is adequate for the proper treatment
of effluent from a treatment unit based on data staff has evaluated. Staff
did find a number of mistakes in the table and conflicts with the text of
the rules. The table has been modified to be consistent with the provisions
in the text of the rules.
Robert Morriss, Inc. recommended that standard subsurface disposal systems
should not be used on slopes greater than 20%.
The commission feels that restricting standard subsurface disposal systems
to slopes less than 20% is overly restrictive due to the different topography
and site-specific situations in the state.
Upper Guadalupe River Authority suggested that the table be modified to
determine depth to suitable soil based on soil class. The authority suggested
specific depth for each soil class.
The commission believes that the variability in soils upon an individual
site does not lend itself to different soil depths for each class. No change
is made to the rule.
Amstar Engineering, Inc. suggested there is conflict between the language
in this table and §285.33(a)(2)(F) in reference to "annual mean pan
evaporation" which should read"where annual average pan evaporation exceeds
the annual rainfall". Amstar Engineering, Inc. further suggested Table VII
be omitted and replaced with the following statement: "ET designs may be
based on average values derived from the Climatic Altas of Texas utilizing
an appropriate runoff factor when calculating for rainfall infiltration".
The commission agrees in part with this commenter. For purposes of consistency,
the language in the text and Table VII was revised to read "...average annual
evaporation...". For purposes of brevity and simplicity of use, the commission
has elected not to refer directly to the Texas Climatic Atlas for evaporation
rates, but has instead created a table (Table VII) based on those rates.
Austin-Travis County suggested that the one foot column be omitted and
make the two foot column to represent two feet and less. Texas On-Site Wastewater
Association suggested that the agency recalculate the one foot column and
delete the sidewall credit. Galveston County Health District and two individuals
expressed concern that the formula Q/Ra changes in coarse soils with four
or five bedroom homes. The excavation length under the new rules will be
less than the old rules, is this justified or reasonable.
The commission agrees in part with these comments and has revised the minimum
excavation width to 1.5 feet. The commission believes that standard absorptive
drainfield lengths in these rules will be consistent with those in the previous
rules. The commission disagrees that sidewall absorptive area should be deleted
from the standard absorptive drainfield excavation formula. Application rates
in the previous rules and these rules assume a minimum rate of passage by
wastewater through soils with bio-mat accumulation.
Austin-Travis County and Texas On-Site Wastewater Association suggested
that a column be added to this table to show whether a maintenance contract
is required.
The commission believes that the text of these rules clearly state in §§285.7,
285.32, and 285.33 of this chapter, as considered for adoption, when a maintenance
contract is required. No change will be made to the table.
Hays County Environmental Health and a registered engineer commented that
the commission should retain the 150 foot sanitary easement around private
wells, if important enough for public wells.
The commission disagrees with this comment since the cone of depression
for public water wells is far greater than for private wells.
The Fort Worth Water Department, Austin-Travis County, and Texas On-Site
Wastewater Association offered comment to make the setback distances from
streams, ponds, lakes, etc. consistent across the OSSF categories.
The commission agrees with these comments and has modified the setback
from streams, lakes, ponds, etc. and treatment/holding tanks, sharp slopes
and breaks, surface irrigation, drip emitters for private wells and added
notations to clarify certain setbacks.
Austin-Travis County suggested allowing monolithic, pour-in-place tanks
designed for submergence to be allowed beyond 50 feet.
The commission agrees in part with the comment and has amended the setback
to 50 feet.
The Fort Worth Water Department commented that tanks should be braced or
supported if there is a zero foot setback to a sharp slope or break.
The commission agrees with this comment and has modified the proposed rules
accordingly.
The Fort Worth Water Department commented that Chapter 290 should be contained
within this chapter for reference purposes.
The commission disagrees with this comment. A number of the commission's
rules overlap and/or reference one another when addressing cross regulatory
issues. To incorporate an entire set of rules each time a reference is made
in any one rule would inflate the size of this and every rule unnecessarily
and create confusion from the regulated community when applying the commission's
rules.
Highland Lakes Engineering commented that "stream" needed to be defined
in this set of rules.
The commission agrees in part with the comment and has revised the text
of these rules to replace the term "stream" with the term "watercourse" which
is defined in Chapter 297 of this title (relating to Water Rights, Substantive).
Highland Lakes Engineering commented that no setback is provided for evapotranspiration
systems with monitoring systems.
Evapotranspiration systems with monitoring are not addressed in this rulemaking
effort.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Galveston County Health District, Robert
Morriss, Inc., Scott Kitchner Septic Systems, and Kirk's Tractor Service,
Inc. commented that the setback from surface irrigation sprayfields to pressure
cemented wells is not consistent with drip emitter setbacks from a pressure
cemented well. In addition, the commission was asked to clarify whether it
intended drip irrigation lines to be able to run under foundations since
the proposed rules provided a zero foot setback. Robert Morriss, Inc commented
that drip emitter lines may be placed closer to sharps and breaks than allowed
by Table X.
The commission agrees with these comments and has modified Table X in the
proposed rules to make the setback from pressure cemented private water wells
consistent in surface irrigation and drip irrigation. The commission also
amended Table X to indicate that drip lines cannot be run under foundations.
Drip line setbacks from sharp slopes and breaks represent data obtained from
the OSSF Working Group during the drafting of the proposed rules.
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. commented that the proposed rules require
the same distances between two sealed systems as between an open system and
water supply lines.
The commission believes these setbacks consistently reflect criteria contained
in Chapter 290 of this title (relating to Water Hygiene).
Kirk's Tractor Service, Inc. commented that low aerosol spray heads should
be allowed within five feet of property lines. Also, it should be made clear
in Table X that the setback distances, in particular for surface irrigation,
reflect distances to the disposal area and not the disposal device (sprinkler
head).
The commission agrees in part with this comment. The proposed rules address
the use of sprinkler heads adjusted to prevent aerosol formation. Therefore,
all sprinkler heads, regardless of proximity to property lines, should not
produce aerosols. The commission has revised Table X to indicate that surface
irrigation setbacks are measured from the spray area and not the spray device.
A registered sanitarian commented that surface irrigation setbacks to streams,
ponds, lakes, etc. should be 150 feet to reduce the potential pollution threat
if any component fails.
The commission disagrees with this comment. The amount of water disposed
from surface irrigation coupled with the primary and secondary treatment
the effluent has already undergone substantially reduce the risk of pollution
entering a water body with a 50 foot setback.
Subchapter A. General Provisions
30 TAC §285.1-285.7
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The repeals and new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §5.103,
which provides the commission with the authority to adopt any rules necessary
to carry out its powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water
Code and other laws of this state.
Additionally, these repeals and new sections are adopted pursuant to the
Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 366, which provides the TNRCC with
the authority to regulate the on-site sewage facilities and adopt rules consistent
with the general intent and purposes of the statutes. SUBCHAPTER A : GENERAL
PROVISIONS §§285.1-285.7 The new sections are adopted under Texas
Water Code, §§5.103, 5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health
and Safety Code, §366.012, which provide the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (commission) with the authority to promulgate rules
as necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the codes and under
the laws of the state and to establish and approve all general policies of
the commission.
§285.2.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have
the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Abandoned tank
-A tank that is not to be used or is not allowed
to be used by a permitting authority.
Aerobic digestion
-The bacterial decomposition and stabilization
of sewage in the presence of free oxygen.
Anaerobic digestion
-The bacterial decomposition and stabilization
of sewage in the absence of free oxygen.
Apprentice
-An individual who has been properly registered
with the agency, and is undertaking a training program under the supervision
of an installer (holding a valid certificate under this chapter) who has
agreed to accept responsibility for the individual.
Authorized agent
-A local governmental entity authorized by
the commission, executive director or Chapter 284 of this title (relating
to Private Sewage Facilities) to implement and enforce Chapter 366, Texas
Health and Safety Code.
Bedrock
-A continuous horizontal layer of hardened mineral
deposits that do not support growth of common plant life.
Blackwater
-All sewage other than greywater that contains sufficient
human or animal wastes to require the water to be treated prior to disposal
to the earth's surface or subsurface.
Borehole
-A drilled hole four feet or greater in depth and
one to three feet in diameter.
Certificate or certification
-The actual certificate of registration
held by an individual required to obtain such under this chapter or the process
of obtaining a certificate of registration from the agency.
Cesspool
-A non-watertight, covered receptacle intended for
the receipt and partial treatment of domestic sewage. This device is constructed
such that its sidewalls and bottom are open-jointed to allow the gradual
discharge of liquids while retaining the solids for anaerobic decomposition.
Chemical
-A substance that in sufficient quantity could have
a biotoxic effect on OSSFs.
Cluster system
-an on-site sewage collection, treatment, and
disposal system designed to serve two or more sewage-generating units on
separate legal tracts where the total combined flow from all units does not
exceed 5,000 gallons per day.
Composting toilet
-A self-contained treatment and disposal
facility constructed to decompose non-waterborne human wastes through bacterial
action facilitated by aeration.
Condensate drain
-Collection and disposal of water generated
by air conditioners, refrigeration equipment, and other equipment.
Delegation
-To delegate or designate.
Designated representative
-An individual who holds a valid
certificate with the agency and is designated by the authorized agent to
make site evaluations, percolation tests, system evaluations, and inspections
subject to the authorized agent's approval.
Direct supervision
-The responsibility of an installer to perform
the oversight, direction and approval of all actions of an apprentice related
to the installation of an OSSF.
Edwards Aquifer
-That portion of an arcuate belt of porous,
waterbearing limestones composed of the Comanche Peak, Edwards, and Georgetown
formations trending from west to east to northeast through Kinney, Uvalde,
Medina, Bexar, Comal, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties or as amended
under Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards Aquifer).
Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone
-Generally, that area where the
stratigraphic units constituting the Edwards Aquifer crop out, and including
the outcrops of other geologic formations in proximity to the Edwards Aquifer,
where caves, sinkholes, faults, fractures, or other permeable features would
create a potential for recharge of surface waters into the Edwards Aquifer.
The recharge zone is specifically that geological area delineated on official
maps located in the Austin and San Antonio Regional Offices of the agency,
or as amended by Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards Aquifer).
Emergency repair
-A repair made to an OSSF to abate a serious
and dangerous nuisance condition without altering the OSSF's planned function
and notification is given to the permitting authority within 72 hours of
when the repairs begin.
Evapotranspiration (ET) system
-A subsurface sewage disposal
facility which relies on soil capillarity and plant uptake to dispose of
treated effluent through surface evaporation and plant transpiration.
Floodplain (100-year)
-That area along a watercourse during
the time the watercourse is subject to the statistical 100-year flood.
Floodway
-The channel of a watercourse and adjacent land areas
(center portion of the 100-year floodplain) that must be reserved in order
to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the water
surface more than one foot above the 100-year flood elevation prior to encroachment
into the 100-year floodplain.
Geotextile filter fabric
-A non-woven fabric suitable for wastewater
applications.
Gravel-less drainfield pipe
-A generically labeled large diameter
(usually eight or ten inches) geotextile fabric-wrapped piping product which
is intended for use without gravel in a subsurface disposal facility.
Grease interceptor
-Floatation chambers where grease floats
to the water surface and is retained while the clearer water underneath is
discharged. There are no moving mechanical parts and its operational characteristics
are similar to a septic tank.
Greywater
-Wastewater from clothes washing machines, showers,
bathtubs, handwashing lavatories, and sinks not used for the disposal of
hazardous or toxic ingredients or waste from food preparations.
Groundwater
-Subsurface water that occurs beneath the water
table in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated either year-round
or on a seasonal or intermittent basis.
Hardness (water)
-Primarily the presence in water of calcium
bicarbonate, magnesium bicarbonate, calcium sulfate (gypsum), magnesium sulfate
(epsom salts), calcium chloride, and magnesium chloride in solution.
Holding tank
-A watertight container equipped with a high-level
alarm used to receive and store sewage pending its delivery to, and treatment
at, an approved treatment facility. This type of facility is generally intended
for interim use, if and when approved by the permitting authority.
Individual
-A single living human being.
Installer
-An individual who holds a valid certificate with
the agency and is compensated by another to perform services, construct,
install, alter, or repair an OSSF.
Local governmental entity
-A municipality, county, river authority,
or special district, including an undergroundwater district or soil and water
conservation district.
Maintenance
-The normal or routine upkeep, cleaning, or mechanical
adjustments to an OSSF.
Maintenance company
-A person in the business of maintaining
OSSFs. At least one individual in the company must hold an Installer II certificate
or a Class D or higher wastewater operator certificate and be certified by
the appropriate manufacturer's maintenance program for the proprietary unit
being maintained.
Maintenance findings
-The results of a required performance
check or component inspection on a specific OSSF by a valid maintenance company
as outlined in the maintenance contract.
Manufactured housing community
-Any facility or area developed
for lease or rental of space for the placement of two or more mobile homes.
Mound system
-A soil absorption disposal system which is installed
above the natural grade and in or below an artificially created mound of
earth.
Multi-unit residential development
- a building, structure
or combination of structures which have been designed to contain units in
which more than two families may reside.
NSF International
-National Sanitation Foundation International
testing laboratories located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Natural soil
-Earthen materials deposited into place by natural
processes and not disturbed by artificial processes.
Non-standard disposal
-All on-site disposal systems, components
and materials not described in this chapter as standard and not marketed
for sale in the state as a proprietary item.
Non-standard treatment
-All on-site sewage treatment processes
not described in this chapter as "standard" or "proprietary" treatment processes.
Nuisance
-
(A)
sewage, human excreta, or other organic waste
discharged or exposed in a manner that makes it a potential instrument or
medium in the transmission of disease to or between persons; or
(B)
an overflowing septic tank or similar device, including
surface discharge from or groundwater contamination by a component of an
OSSF, or a blatant discharge from an OSSF.
On-site sewage disposal system
-One or more systems of treatment
devices and disposal facilities that:
(A)
produce not more than 5,000 gallons of waste
each day; and
(B)
are used only for disposal of sewage produced on the
site (including cluster systems) where the system is located.
On-site sewage facility (OSSF)
-An on-site sewage disposal
system.
On-site waste disposal order
-An order adopted by local governmental
entity and approved by the executive director. Approval of this order by
the executive director grants authorized agent status to the local governmental
entity.
Owner
-A person who owns an OSSF.
Permit
-An authorization, issued by the permitting authority,
to install, construct, alter, extend, repair, or operate an OSSF. The permit
consists of the authorization to construct (including the approved planning
materials) and the license to operate.
Permitting authority
-The executive director or an authorized
agent.
Planning material
-Plans and other supporting materials submitted
to the permitting authority for the purpose of obtaining a permit to construct
and operate an OSSF.
Platted
-Subdivided property recorded with the county/city
in an official plat record.
Pretreatment tank
-A tank placed ahead of a treatment unit
that functions as an interceptor for material such as plastics, clothing,
hair, and grease that are potentially harmful to treatment unit components.
Probation
-A formal procedure in which an individual or authorized
agent is subject to an evaluation for a trial period to ascertain whether
an individual should retain possession of a registration or certification
as issued by the executive director or an authorized agent should retain
delegation as an authorized agent.
Proprietary system
-An OSSF in which all or part of the treatment
or disposal process is owned by a person and has a registered trademark or
patent or utilizes a tradename or trademark.
Regional office
-A regional office of the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission.
Restrictive horizon
-A layer of the soil profile with a significant
observable change in density, clay content, or particle size which restricts
the vertical movement of water.
Revocation
-A formal procedure initiated by the executive director
in which an authorized agent's delegation or an installer's, site evaluator's,
or designated representative's registration or certification is rescinded
by the commission.
Scum
-A mass of organic and/or inorganic matter which floats
on the surface of sewage.
Secondary Treatment
- the reduction of pollutants to the levels
specified in §309.1 of this title (relating to Domestic Wastewater Effluent
Limitation and Plant Siting).
Seepage pit
-An unlined covered excavation in the ground which
operates in essentially the same manner as a cesspool.
Septic tank
-A watertight covered receptacle constructed to
receive, store, and provide treatment to domestic sewage. Its function is
to separate solids from the liquid, digest organic matter under anaerobic
conditions, store the digested solids through a period of detention, and
allow the clarified liquid to be disposed of by an approved method in accordance
with this chapter.
Sewage
-waste that:
(A)
is primarily organic and biodegradable or decomposable;
and
(B)
generally originates as human, animal, or plant waste
from certain activities, including the use of toilet facilities, washing,
bathing, and preparing food.
Sewage disposal plan
-A technical report prepared by either
a registered professional engineer or registered sanitarian, having demonstrated
expertise in on-site sewage disposal planning. The plan must include, but
is not limited to, the location of structures, easements, wells, treatment
units and disposal areas.
Single family dwelling
-A habitable structure constructed on,
or brought to its site, and occupied by members of one family.
Site evaluator
-An individual who holds a valid certificate
with the agency and visits a site and conducts a pre-construction site evaluation
which includes performing soil analysis, a site survey, and other criteria
necessary to determine the suitability of a site for a specific OSSF.
Sludge
-A semi-liquid mass of partially decomposed organic
and inorganic matter which settles at or near the bottom of a receptacle
containing sewage.
Soil
-The unconsolidated mineral material on the surface of
the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of plants.
Soil absorption system
-A subsurface method for the disposal
of partially treated sewage which relies on the soil's ability to absorb
moisture and allow its dispersal by lateral and vertical movement through
and between individual soil particles.
Subsurface sewage facility
-A system which treats sewage and
distributes the pretreated sewage effluent into a below ground level disposal
area.
Subdivision
-A division of a tract of property into two or
more parts either by platting or field notes with metes and bounds, and transferred
by deed or contract for deed.
Uniform gravel size
-Gravel to be used in standard absorption
drainfields that has been processed through shaker screens to produce a size
passing one size screen and retained on another. The smaller screen shall
be at least 50% of the size of the larger screen.
Water softening
-The removal of minerals causing hardness from
water.
§285.3.General Requirements.
(a)
Applicability.
(1)
All aspects of the planning, installation, construction,
alteration, extension, repair, operation, and maintenance of OSSFs must be
in accordance with this chapter or in accordance with an order/ordinance
or other published criteria of an authorized agent which has received the
executive director's written approval.
(2)
In the case of OSSFs proposed for installation, construction,
alteration, extension, repair, operation, and maintenance in areas of the
state void of an authorized agent, the executive director will be the permitting
authority in accordance with this chapter.
(b)
Unauthorized systems. Boreholes, cesspools, and seepage
pits shall not be authorized for installation and use in Texas.
(c)
Variances. Requests for variances from provisions of this
chapter may be considered by the appropriate permitting authority on an individual
basis. The variance request must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting
authority that the variance has been requested because conditions are such
that the equivalent protection of the public health and the environment can
be provided by alternate means. Any request for a variance under this subsection
must contain planning materials prepared and sealed by either a registered
sanitarian or a registered professional engineer.
(d)
Exclusions. The following are exclusions from provisions
of this chapter and must be permitted under Chapter 26, Texas Water Code,
and Chapter 305 of this title (relating to Consolidated Permits):
(1)
One or more systems of treatment devices and disposal facilities
that cumulatively produce more than 5,000 gallons of sewage per day on one
piece of property;
(2)
Any system that produces waste that is either non-domestic
municipal, recreational, agricultural, industrial, or other as defined in
Chapter 26, Texas Water Code; and
(3)
Any system that will have surface discharges into
waters in the state or discharges adjacent to waters in the state.
§285.4.Facility Planning.
(a)
Land planning and site evaluation. Land developments and
land subdivided for building construction which will utilize OSSFs for sewage
disposal shall be evaluated for overall site suitability and this submittal
shall be reviewed and approved by the permitting authority prior to approval
being granted for subdivision of the property. The following items shall
be evaluated:
(1)
Residential lot sizing.
(A)
General considerations. The failure of an OSSF may be
caused by a large number of circumstances, including inadequate soil percolation,
improper construction, planning, installation, and misuse. The single most
important factor concerning public health problems resulting from these failures
is the residential dwelling density which is primarily a function of lot
size. The failure of an OSSF in a highly populated area is the fundamental
cause of public health hazards resulting from on-site sewage disposal. Failure
of an OSSF provides a medium for the transmission of disease and the fact
that many people are in the vicinity causes concern over the spreading of
disease. OSSFs using soil absorption for effluent disposal are more likely
to malfunction in high population density situations because the soil available
to absorb or evaporate the effluent is limited. The failure of an absorption
system on a small lot can be financially disastrous to the owner because
the lot may not contain sufficient room to construct a new absorption field
in a new location.
(B)
Platted or unplatted subdivisions served by a public water
supply. Subdivisions of single family dwellings platted or created after
January 1, 1988, and served by a public water supply but utilizing individual
OSSF methods for sewage disposal, shall provide for individual lots having
surface areas of at least 1/2 acre, or shall have site-specific sewage disposal
plan submitted by a registered professional engineer or registered sanitarian
and approved by the permitting authority. The location of an OSSF under this
paragraph shall be in accordance with §285.91(10) of this title (relating
to Tables). In no instance shall the area available for such systems be less
than two times the design area.
(C)
Platted or unplatted subdivisions served by individual
water systems. In subdivisions platted or created after January 1, 1988,
for single family dwellings where each lot maintains an individual water
supply well and an OSSF, the sewage disposal plan shall show the approved
well location and a sanitary control easement around the well within a 100-foot
radius in which no subsurface sewage system may be constructed. A watertight
sewage unit or lined evapotranspiration bed with leak detection capability
may be placed closer to the water well than 100 feet, provided the permitting
authority has granted a variance. To minimize the possibility of the transmission
of waterborne diseases due to the pollution of the water supplied for domestic
use, each lot in a subdivision shall contain no less area than one acre,
or shall have site-specific planning materials prepared by a registered professional
engineer or a registered sanitarian and approved by the permitting authority.
In no instance shall the area available for such systems be less than two
times the design area.
(2)
Manufactured housing communities or multi-unit
residential developments served by a central sewage collection system for
on-site disposal. Manufactured housing communities or multi-unit residential
developments which are owned and controlled by a person which rents or leases
space may utilize smaller lots than stated in paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B)
of this subsection provided a sewage disposal plan addressing replacement
area is submitted to the permitting authority and approved. Developments
of this type which connect living units to a sewage collection system for
on-site disposal, must provide planning materials for the system prepared
by a registered professional engineer or registered sanitarian. The total
anticipated sewage production for such property shall not exceed 5,000 gallons
per day from the connected homes and the OSSF must conform to the definition
of OSSFs in §285.2 of this title (relating to Definitions).
(3)
Site evaluation. The subdivided property must be evaluated
for soil suitability in accordance with §285.30 of this title (relating
to Site Evaluation).
(b)
Approval of existing small lots or tracts. Existing small
lots or tracts, subdivided prior to January 1, 1988, and not conforming to
the minimum lot size requirements, may be approved for an OSSF provided the
following conditions are met:
(1)
Minimum separation distances in §285.31 of this title
(relating to Separation/ Setback Requirements) are maintained; and
(2)
The site has been evaluated by the site evaluator
in accordance with §285.30 of this title (relating to Site Evaluation).
(c)
Review of subdivision or development plans. Persons proposing
residential subdivisions, manufactured housing communities, multi-unit residential
developments, business parks, or other similar uses and utilizing OSSFs for
sewage disposal must submit planning materials for these developments to
the permitting authority. The planning materials must include an overall
site plan, topographic map, 100-year floodplain map, soil survey, location
of water wells, and complete report detailing the types of OSSFs to be considered
and their compatibility with area wide drainage and groundwater. A comprehensive
drainage and 100-year floodplain impact plan must also be included in these
planning materials. Planning materials shall also address potential replacement
areas. A response to the submitted planning material from the permitting
authority will be provided within 45 days of receipt.
§285.5.Submittal Requirements for Planning Materials.
Planning materials required under this chapter shall be submitted to
the permitting authority for review and approval in accordance with this
section. All planning materials shall be in compliance with the provisions
of this chapter and shall be submitted in accordance with of §285.91(9)
of this title (relating to Tables).
(1)
Submittal of planning materials by an owner or installer.
For OSSFs not requiring planning materials to be submitted in accordance
with paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section, an owner or installer must submit
the appropriate planning materials for the proposed OSSF.
(2)
Submittal of planning materials by a registered professional
engineer or registered sanitarian. OSSF planning materials shall be prepared
and submitted by a registered professional engineer or registered sanitarian
(with appropriate seal, date and signature) as follows:
(A)
proposals for treatment and/or disposal that are not standard
as described in Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to Planning, Construction,
and Installation Standards for OSSF Systems);
(B)
any OSSF proposed to serve manufactured housing communities,
recreational vehicle parks, multi-unit residential developments which are
owned or controlled by a person who rents or leases such space.
(C)
any OSSF for a structure not exempted by §20 of the
Texas Engineering Practice Act shall have planning materials submitted by
a registered professional engineer.
(D)
all standard or proprietary treatment systems that utilize
surface irrigation disposal as detailed in Subchapter D of this chapter (relating
to Planning, Construction, and Installation Standards for OSSF Systems).
(E)
all non-standard treatment systems that utilize surface
irrigation disposal as detailed in Subchapter D of this chapter and cluster
systems shall have planning materials submitted by a registered professional
engineer only.
(3)
Review of non-standard planning materials. The
executive director shall review initial plans for all non-standard planning
material, as described in Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to Planning
Construction and Installation Standards for OSSFs). Any subsequent similar
non-standard planning materials may be reviewed by the local authorized agent
once the original concept and planning materials has received favorable review
by the executive director.
§ 285.6.Cluster Systems.
Use of a cluster system shall be considered when lot sizes, lot location,
or soil conditions make a standard system unacceptable.
(1)
Design. These systems shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with the requirements of this chapter or Chapter 317 of this
title (relating to Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems). These systems shall
be designed and submitted to the permitting authority for review under seal
of a registered professional engineer.
(2)
Permits required. Each single family dwelling on a
cluster system must be individually permitted by the permitting authority.
(3)
Maintenance/Ownership agreement. Each permittee on
a cluster system must be a party to a legally binding agreement regarding
ownership, service, and maintenance of the cluster system. The minimum required
elements of that agreement are as follows:
(A)
The agreement must be legally binding to all parties;
(B)
Each person who uses the system for treatment and/or disposal
must be a party to the agreement;
(C)
Each permittee must be a joint owner of the cluster system
and the property on which the cluster system is located or the property on
which the cluster system is located is owned in fee simple by one or more
of the permittees to the cluster system and the owner/owners has granted
a perpetual easement of access and use to all other permittees using the
system.
(D)
The agreement must provide a reliable management structure
for performing service, maintenance, and inspection of the system;
(E)
The agreement must include a reliable plan for handling
apportionment and collection of cost among the parties; and
(F)
The agreement must denote that all parties are individually
and severally responsible for the proper maintenance and functioning of the
system.
(4)
Property ownership. The parties to the agreement
must obtain all necessary rights of way, easements, or ownership of properties
necessary for operation of the cluster system. The site for a cluster system
shall be owned by all of the parties to the maintenance/ownership agreement
or owned in fee simple by one or more of the permittees to the cluster system
and having granted a perpetual easement of access and use to all other permittees
using the system. The application for a cluster system shall include a certified
copy of an affidavit, which has been duly recorded with the county/city clerk's
office and added to the real property deed where the cluster system is located
and the real property deed of each permittee. The affidavit shall state that
the property shall not be transferred to a new owner without the new owner
being advised that the property is part of a cluster system and shall be
party to the agreement.
§285.7.Additional Application Requirements for Surface Irrigation Systems.
(a)
Technical report. Each application for an OSSF permit utilizing
surface irrigation as a disposal method shall be accompanied by a report
outlining the planning and operation of the entire wastewater treatment and
disposal system. A basis of planning, construction drawings, calculations,
and system flow diagram shall be included in this report. Proprietary aerobic
systems may reference the agency's approval number instead of furnishing
construction drawings for the unit. All other information except construction
drawings will be required for proprietary submittal.
(b)
Site drawing. A scale drawing and legal description of
all land which is to be a part of the surface irrigation system will be included
in the submittal of an application for a permit. At a minimum, the drawing
will show the location of all existing and proposed buildings, wastewater
disposal area, buffer zones, water wells, and any other pertinent features
or information.
(c)
Landscape plan. The application for a permit shall be accompanied
by a landscape plan, which will describe, in detail, the type of vegetation
to be maintained on the irrigated area during any calendar year. Installations
may irrigate existing vegetation provided all areas of bare ground are seeded
or covered with sod, capable of growth, prior to system start up.
(d)
Maintenance requirements. Final permit approval will be
issued after planning materials approval, provided the applicant furnishes
a valid maintenance contract with a maintenance company. The maintenance
company will verify that the surface irrigation system is operating properly
and that they will provide on-going maintenance of the installation. The
initial maintenance contract must be valid for a minimum of two years.
(e)
Maintenance contract. A maintenance contract will authorize
the maintenance company to maintain and repair the system as needed. A copy
of the signed maintenance contract between the property owner and the approved
maintenance company shall be provided to the permitting authority prior to
final permit approval.
(f)
On-going maintenance. On-going maintenance shall be provided
by a maintenance company.
(1)
The owner of each surface application system shall continuously
maintain a signed written contract with a valid maintenance company and shall
submit a copy of the contract to the permitting authority at least 30 days
prior to expiration of the previous contract.
(2)
If the property owner or maintenance company desires
to discontinue the provisions of the maintenance contract, the maintenance
company shall notify, in writing, the permitting authority at least 30 days
prior to the date service will cease.
(3)
If a maintenance company discontinues business, the
property owner shall within 30 days of the termination date, contract with
another approved maintenance company and provide the permitting authority
with a copy of the newly signed maintenance contract.
(g)
Affidavit. Prior to issuance of a permit, a certified copy
of an affidavit, which has been duly recorded at the county/city clerk's
office and filed in reference to the real property deed on which the surface
application system is to be installed, must be submitted. Such an affidavit,
for example see §285.90(2) of this title (relating to Figures), shall
state that the property shall not be transferred to a new owner without:
(1)
the new owner being advised that the property contains
a surface application system for wastewater disposal;
(2)
the permit issued to the previous owner of the property
being transferred to the new owner in accordance with §285.20(5) of
this title (relating to Application Requirements General); and
(3)
the new owner submitting a valid signed maintenance
contract to the permitting authority.
(h)
Testing and reporting. The maintenance company shall inspect
each permitted surface irrigation system as directed by the testing and reporting
schedule shown in §285.91(4) of this title (relating to Tables). The
maintenance company shall report any responses to homeowner complaints and
the results of its maintenance findings to the permitting authority within
ten days of the specified reporting frequency. The number of site visits
may be reduced to two per year for all systems having electronic monitoring
and automatic telephone or radio access which will notify the maintenance
company of system or component failure. This monitoring system shall also
monitor effluent disinfection.
(i)
Effluent disinfection. Treated effluent must be disinfected
prior to surface application. Approved disinfection methods shall include
but not be limited to chlorination, ozonation, or ultraviolet radiation.
Tablets or other dry chlorinators shall use calcium hypochlorite of a type
properly encapsulated and suitable for wastewater disinfection. The efficiency
of the disinfection procedure will be established by monitoring the fecal
coliform count or total chlorine residual from representative effluent grab
samples as directed in the testing and reporting schedule. The frequency
of testing and type of tests required are shown in §285.91(4) of this
title.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700581
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.10, §285.11
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366. 012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.10.Delegation to Authorized Agents.
(a)
Requirements/Procedures.
(1)
Local governmental entities which desire to become authorized
agents of the commission shall request such in writing to the executive director.
(2)
Upon request, the executive director shall forward
to the entity a description of the process of delegation and a copy of the
model order/ordinance. Any changes to the model order/ordinance by the local
entity based on local conditions must be consistent with this chapter. The
executive director shall be the sole and final authority in determining the
acceptability of proposed changes from the model order/ordinance. A local
government entity which wants to be designated an authorized agent for the
OSSF program shall follow the following procedures:
(A)
Upon request, the executive director shall provide model
orders or ordinances to local entities.
(B)
The executive director consults with local authorities
as to specific procedures and requirements to obtain authorized agent status.
(C)
The local government entity shall draft an order or resolution
regulating OSSFs within its jurisdiction which meets the requirements of
§366.032 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. In the event that the
local government entity drafts a proposed order which is different from the
model order/ordinance, the local government entity shall submit the proposed
order/ordinance to the executive director for review and comment prior to
notice being published. Within 30 days of receipt of the proposed order/ordinance,
the executive director shall review the proposal and provide comment to the
local government entity on whether the proposed order/ordinance meets the
agency's minimum requirements.
(D)
The local government entity shall cause notice to be published,
in a newspaper regularly published and of general circulation in the area
of jurisdiction, of a public hearing to be held to discuss the adoption of
the proposed order or resolution;
(E)
The local government entity shall hold a public meeting
to discuss the proposed order or resolution;
(F)
The local government entity shall adopt that order or
resolution;
(G)
The local government entity shall send a certified copy
of the minutes of the meeting which adopted the order or resolution;
(H)
The local government entity shall send a certified copy
of the order or resolution;
(I)
Upon receipt of the complete package requesting delegation,
the executive director will review to see that it complies with the requirements
of this chapter and Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code. If found to
be compliant, the executive director will notify the local entity by mail
of their authorized agent status and the date the authorized agent shall
assume jurisdiction of the OSSF program. The authorized agent shall administer
its OSSF program in accordance with its approved OSSF waste disposal order/ordinance.
All authorized agents shall maintain their orders/ordinances in accordance
with the minimum requirements of this chapter.
(b)
Amendments to existing orders/ordinances. The amendment
procedure may be initiated by the authorized agent in accordance with subsection
(a) of this section. The executive director may require periodic revisions
or renewals of OSSF orders/ordinances for compliance with new rules or regulations.
(c)
Resolution of nuisance complaints by an authorized agent.
A major activity of any authorized agent is the satisfactory resolution of
nuisance complaints involving OSSFs. An authorized agent may require a property
owner to repair a malfunctioning OSSFs on the owner's property not later
than the 30th day after the date which the owner is notified by the authorized
agent of the malfunctioning system.
(d)
Authorized agent's reporting requirements. Each authorized
agent shall provide to the executive director a detailed monthly report of
OSSF activities as prescribed by the executive director. Categories in this
report shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(1)
subdivision reviews;
(2)
complaint and enforcement activities;
(3)
information on the numbers and types of OSSFs permitted;
and
(4)
administrative activities performed by the authorized
agent.
(e)
Relinquishment of authorized agent delegation. If an authorized
agent decides to relinquish its delegation to regulate OSSFs under the regulatory
authority granted by Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code and this chapter,
the authorized agent shall adhere to the following procedures:
(1)
The authorized agent shall inform the executive director
by certified mail at least 30 days prior to publishing the notice that it
wishes to relinquish its OSSF order.
(2)
The authorized agent shall publish notice, indicating
its intent to relinquish, in a newspaper regularly published or circulated
in the area of jurisdiction prior to taking further action to relinquish.
(3)
The authorized agent shall send the executive director
copies of the following: the public notice, a publisher's affidavit of public
notice, and a certified copy of the entity's minutes of the meeting in which
it formally considered relinquishment of its delegation.
(4)
The executive director shall process the request for
relinquishment and may issue an order relinquishing the authority to regulate
OSSFs within an authorized agent's jurisdiction or may refer the request
to relinquish to the commission.
(5)
Prior to issuance of a relinquishment order the local
governmental entity and the executive director shall determine the exact
date the authorized agent would surrender its authorized agent designation
to the executive director.
(f)
Revocation of authorized agent delegation.
(1)
An authorized agent must consistently enforce this chapter
and Chapter 366 of Health and Safety Code.
(2)
An authorized agent's OSSF order may be revoked at
any time by order of the commission for good cause after opportunity for
public hearing is given in accordance with Subchapter C of the Texas Administrative
Procedures Act.
(3)
Failure by an authorized agent to consistently enforce
this chapter, or Chapter 366 of the Health and Safety Code is good cause
for revocation.
(4)
When the executive director determines that revocation
is warranted a petition seeking revocation may be filed by the executive
director with the commission requesting that a public hearing be held.
(5)
If the executive director files a petition for revocation
with the commission, notice shall be given to the authorized agent of the
time and place for the hearing not less than ten days prior to the hearing
by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(6)
If an authorized agent wants to consent to revocation,
a written request or a written consent and wavier may be filed with the executive
director not later than ten days after the receipt of notice of the petition
to revoke. If the authorized agent requests or consents to revocation, the
executive director may revoke without the necessity of a public hearing or
commission action. The executive director shall notify the commission of
each revocation of an authorized agent's authority.
(7)
Upon completion of a public hearing the commission
may do any of the following:
(A)
Issue an order revoking the authorized agent's delegation;
(B)
Issue an order placing the authorized agent on probation
for a specified period of time; or
(C)
Take no action on the request.
(8)
Upon issuance of a revocation order by the commission,
the executive director shall assume responsibility for the OSSF program in
the former agent's jurisdiction.
§285.11.Review of Locally Administered Programs.
The executive director shall review not more than once per year an
authorized agent's locally administered program for adequate performance
and compliance with requirements established by Chapter 366, Texas Health
and Safety Code, this chapter, and the order/ordinance adopted by the authorized
agent. If the executive director's review determines that an authorized agent
does not enforce the commission's minimum requirements for OSSFs, the commission
may hold a hearing to determine whether the entity shall lose its designation
as an authorized agent in accordance with §285.10(f) of this title (relating
to Delegation to Authorized Agents).
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700580
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§285.11-285.18
The repeals are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120, and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700594
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.20, §285.21
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.20.Application Requirements General.
Procedures for obtaining an agency permit include:
(1)
Application for OSSF permits shall be made to the appropriate
agency regional office. Application for a permit shall be made on a standard
form provided by the executive director and must include the appropriate
planning material in accordance with §285.5 of this title (relating
to Submittal Requirements for Planning Materials). Any OSSF for a single
residence located on a land tract that is ten acres or larger in which the
sewage disposal line is not closer than one-hundred feet of the property
line is not required to submit an application for authorization.
(2)
Upon receipt of a complete application, the appropriate
fee in accordance with this subchapter and a positive site evaluation performed
by a certified site evaluator, the regional office shall issue an authorization
to construct.
(3)
An authorization to construct, if granted, will be
valid for one calendar year from the date of application. Should a construction
inspection not be requested during this one-year period, the application
for authorization shall be rendered invalid. Fees for reapplication shall
be the fee in effect on the date of reapplication.
(4)
Upon approval of the OSSF planning materials and construction
inspection, the regional office shall issue a license to operate the OSSF
with a unique identification number.
(5)
The permit will be issued in the name of the owner
of the OSSF. Permits shall be transferred to the new owner automatically
upon legal sale of the OSSF. The transfer of an OSSF permit under this section
shall occur upon actual transfer of the property on which the OSSF is located
unless the ownership of the OSSF has been severed from the property.
(6)
A reinspection shall be required if the OSSF failed
to pass the construction inspection. The installer shall pay the appropriate
reinspection fee in accordance with §285.21 of this title (relating
to Fees).
§285.21.Fees.
(a)
Application fees. The application fee for an OSSF permit
is:
(1)
$200 for a single family dwelling OSSF; or
(2)
$400 for other types of OSSFs. The fee is payable
upon application from the owner/agent to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission for an OSSF permit. This fee shall be submitted to the appropriate
agency regional office. Money orders or personal checks only, payable to
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, shall be accepted. All
applications shall expire one year from the date of the original application.
No refunds of any amount shall be granted.
(b)
Reinspection fee. A reinspection fee shall be equal to
one half of the permit application fee required at the time of application
and shall be assessed to the installer of record each time a reinspection
is required.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700588
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§285.30-285.36, 285.39
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.30.Site Evaluation.
(a)
Soil analysis procedures. At least two soil borings or
two backhoe pits shall be taken in opposite ends of the area to be used for
soil absorption systems. In the areas of high soil variability the permitting
authority may require additional borings and backhoe pits. These borings
or backhoe pits shall be excavated to the depth of two feet below the proposed
excavation or to a restrictive horizon whichever is less. The type and size
of an OSSF shall be determined on the basis of the most restrictive soil
class located anywhere within two feet of the bottom of the proposed excavation.
Evaluation of these borings and overall site evaluation shall be performed
by individuals currently certified as a site evaluator. Characteristics including
soil texture, soil structure, soil drainage, and soil depth shall be evaluated.
(b)
Soil texture analysis. The soil classes shall be determined
by a general texture analysis in accordance with §285.91(6) of this
title (relating to Tables).
(1)
Soil Class Ia. Sandy texture soils which contain more than
30% gravel. This class is considered unsuitable with respect to texture.
(2)
Soil Class Ib. Sandy soils which contain less than
or equal to 30% gravel. This class is be considered suitable with respect
to texture.
(3)
Soil Class II. This class is considered suitable with
respect to texture.
(4)
Soil Class III. This class is considered suitable
with respect to texture.
(5)
Soil Class IV. This class is considered unsuitable
with respect to texture.
(c)
Soil structure analysis. Soils determined to be in Class
Ib or Class II soils are generally considered suitable as to structure. In
Class IV soils structure analysis need not be performed. Three soil structures
significant to the movement of sewage effluent through Class III soils are
blocky, platy, and massive.
(1)
Massive soil structure. A massive soil structure is considered
unsuitable with respect to structure.
(2)
Blocky soil structure. A blocky soil structure is
considered suitable with respect to structure.
(3)
Platy soil structure. A platy soil structure is considered
unsuitable with respect to structure.
(d)
Soil depth analysis. The depth of soils classified suitable
as to texture and structure shall be at least 24 inches below the bottom
of the proposed disposal area when standard ground absorption systems are
to be utilized. Soils without at least 24 inches of suitable soil beneath
the proposed drainfield shall be considered unsuitable.
(e)
Restrictive horizons evaluation. Dense clay subsoils, rock
and plugged laminar soils are considered to be restrictive horizons. They
can be recognized by an abrupt change in texture from a sandy or loamy surface
horizon to a clayey subsoil or rock like material which an auger will not
penetrate. Soils in which restrictive horizons are less than 24 inches below
the bottom of the proposed drainfield shall be considered unsuitable.
(f)
Groundwater evaluation. The presence of groundwater shall
be determined by a site evaluator. Any soil profile that is indicative of
high water tables within 24 inches below the bottom of the proposed drainfield
shall be considered unsuitable.
(g)
Topography. Uniform slopes under 30% are considered suitable
with respect to topography. When slopes are less than 2.0%, provisions shall
be made to insure good surface drainage of rainfall or runoff from covering
the soil absorption field. The drainfield excavation shall follow the contour
of the ground. Soil absorption systems shall not be located in a depression
or in areas of complex slope patterns where slopes are dissected by gullies
and ravines.
(h)
Flood hazard. No new OSSFs or substantial improvements
to existing OSSFs shall be allowed in the regulated floodway, determined
from either Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps or a flood study
prepared by a professional engineer registered in Texas. Any sites within
the 100-year floodplain, determined from either FEMA maps or flood studies
prepared by a professional engineer registered in Texas, shall be subject
to special planning requirements to indicate that the location of the OSSF
will not result in damage to the OSSF or result in contamination from the
OSSF during flooding. Any planning materials submitted under this subsection
shall indicate how possible tank flotation is eliminated.
(i)
Determination of over-all site suitability. The following
criteria shall determine if the site can be utilized for standard subsurface
disposal methods without need of any significant modification of the site.
Section 285.91(5) of this title (relating to Tables) summarizes soil and
site criteria for construction of a standard treatment and disposal system.
(1)
If all of the soil or site criteria categories are determined
to be suitable, standard subsurface disposal methods may be utilized.
(2)
If the site and soil evaluation proves to be suitable,
the size of the subsurface absorption system may be calculated using data
in §285.91(5) of this title (relating to Tables). Unsuitable sites must
use appropriate proprietary or non-standard systems.
(3)
If one or more of the soil or site criteria categories
are evaluated as unsuitable, standard subsurface disposal methods cannot
be utilized. However, the site may still be utilized for standard on-site
wastewater treatment by using non-standard sub-surface disposal methods,
except as noted in §285.33(a)(2) of this title (relating to Criteria
for Sewage Disposal Systems).
§285.31.Setback and Separation Requirements.
The construction of an OSSF (treatment and disposal systems) must be
isolated from certain areas such as water wells, lakes, roads, and other
objects subject to contamination from the OSSF or which may prevent the proper
operation of the system. The minimum requirements for the state are described
in §285.91(10) of this title (relating to Tables) for OSSFs subject
to the following provisions:
(1)
Surface irrigated areas shall be considered as drainfields
for determining separation distances.
(2)
Private and public water wells shall be completed
in accordance with Chapters 290 and 338 of this title (relating to Water
Hygiene and Water Well Drillers).
§285.32.Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems.
(a)
Treatment processes-standard.
(1)
Septic tanks (gravity flow). The septic tank is attached
to wastewater fixtures through a watertight pipe identified as a building
"stub out" or "house sewer". The septic tank is connected to the house sewer
by an inlet device. Effluent from the septic tank, having undergone primary
treatment, flows out of the tank through an outlet device into additional
treatment processes or a disposal system. A septic tank, constructed in accordance
with this chapter, shall meet the following material, component, construction,
and approval requirements:
(A)
Tank volumetric capacity. Measured from the bottom of
the outlet, the liquid volume of a septic tank shall not be less than established
in §285.91(2) of this title (relating to Tables). The liquid depth of
the tank shall not be less than 30 inches.
(B)
Inlet and outlet devices. The flowline of the inlet device
shall be at least three inches higher than the flowline of the outlet device,
see §285.90(6) and (7) of this title (relating to Figures). The entry
point of the outlet device shall be below the liquid level of the tank at
a depth between 25% to 50% of the overall liquid depth of the tank. The inlet
and outlet devices shall be "T" branch fittings, constructed baffles or other
structures or fittings approved by the executive director. All outlet devices
must use a "T" unless a executive director approved fitting is installed
on the outlet. All inlet and outlet devices shall be installed water tight
to the septic tank walls and be a minimum of three inches in diameter.
(C)
Baffles and series tanks. All septic tanks shall be divided
into two or three compartments by the use of baffles or by connecting two
or more tanks in series. In a baffled tank, the baffle shall be located so
that one half to two thirds of the total tank volume is located in the first
of two compartments. Two or three tanks may be arranged in series to achieve
the required liquid capacity. The first tank in a two tank system shall contain
at least one half the required volume. The first tank in a three tank system
shall contain at least one third of the total required volume, but no less
than 500 gallons. Interconnecting inlet and outlet devices may be installed
at the same elevation for multiple tank installations. Baffles shall be constructed
the full width and height of the tank with a gap between the top of the baffle
and the tank top. The baffle shall have an opening located below the liquid
level of the tank at a depth between 25% and 50% of the liquid level. The
opening may be a slot or hole and a "T" may be fitted. If a "T" is fitted,
the inlet to the fitting shall be at the stated depth in this paragraph.
Any metal structures, fittings, or fastenings shall be stainless steel.
(D)
Inspection and cleanout ports. All septic tanks shall
have an inspection and/or cleanout port located on the tank top, but not
directly over, the inlet and outlet devices. These ports may be any configuration
with the smallest dimension of the opening not less than 12 inches, but large
enough to provide maintenance and equipment removal. Septic tanks buried
more than 12 inches below the ground surface shall have risers over the port
openings. These risers shall extend from within six inches of the ground
surface up to the ground surface and be sealed to the tank and capped.
(E)
Septic tank construction materials. The septic tank shall
be of sturdy, water-tight construction. Materials used shall be steel-reinforced
poured-in-place concrete, steel-reinforced pre-cast concrete, fiberglass,
reinforced plastic polyethylene, or other materials approved by the executive
director. Metal septic tanks are prohibited. The septic tank shall be structurally
designed to resist buckling from internal hydraulic loading and exterior
loading caused by earth fill and additional surface loads. Tanks exhibiting
obvious deflections, leaks, or structural defects shall not be used. Where
concrete tanks are installed, sweating at construction joints is acceptable.
(F)
Precast concrete tanks. In addition to the general requirements
aforementioned in subparagraph (E) of this paragraph, precast concrete tanks
shall conform to requirements in the Materials and Manufacture Section and
the Structural Design Requirements Section of American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Designation: C 1227- 93, Standard Specification for
Precast Concrete Septic Tanks (1993).
(G)
Fiberglass and plastic polyethylene tank specifications.
(i)
General. The tank shall be fabricated to perform its intended
function when installed. The tank shall not be adversely affected by normal
vibration, shock, climate conditions, nor typical household chemicals. The
tank shall be free of rough or sharp edges that would interfere with installation
or service of the tank.
(ii)
Watertight integrity. The tank shall be designed and constructed
so that all joints, seams, component parts, and fittings prevent the entrance
of groundwater and prevent the exit of wastewater, except through designed
inlet and outlet openings.
(iii)
Structural characteristics. Full or empty tanks shall
not collapse or rupture when subjected to earth and hydrostatic pressures.
(H)
Special requirements for poured-in-place concrete tanks.
Concrete tanks shall be structurally sound and water-tight. The concrete
structure shall be designed by a registered professional engineer with relevant
experience in the field.
(I)
Tank manufacturer specifications. Beginning 180 days after
the effective date of these rules, all pre-cast or prefabricated tanks shall
be clearly and permanently marked, tagged, or stamped with the manufacturer's
name, address, and tank capacity near the level of the outlet so as to be
clearly visible. Direction of flow into and out of the tank shall be indicated
by arrows or other identification clearly marked at the inlet and outlet.
(J)
Installation of tanks. Septic tanks must be installed
so as to provide at least 12 inches of drop in elevation from the bottom
of the outlet pipe to the bottom of the disposal area. A minimum of four
inches of sand, sandy loam, clay loam, or pea gravel free of rock shall be
placed under and around all tanks, except poured-in-place concrete tanks.
Tank excavations should be left open until such time that they have been
inspected by the permitting authority. Tank excavations must be backfilled
with sand, sandy loam, clay loam, or pea gravel free of rock. It is acceptable
to mound soil over a septic tank, which would normally be exposed, to maintain
slope to the drainfield.
(K)
Pretreatment (Trash) tanks. The executive director may
require the use of a pretreatment tank for use in conjunction with aerobic
treatment units. Plastics and other non-digestible sewage can impair or prevent
an aerobic unit from functioning properly. Those aerobic treatment units
that do not prevent non-digestible sewage from interfering with aeration
lines and diffusers may be required by the executive director to use pretreatment
tanks for all units installed in the state. All pretreatment tanks shall
meet all applicable structural requirements of this subchapter.
(2)
Intermittent sand filters.
(A)
Overview. An intermittent sand filter (a secondary treatment
unit) applies wastewater received from a septic tank (the primary treatment
unit) through a coarse porous media layer above a bed of sand by means of
pressure distribution. The wastewater moves downward through the course sand
media receiving further treatment on the surface of the sand particles. The
treated wastewater is collected at the bottom of the sand filter and discharged,
via gravity or pressure, to an appropriate disposal method discussed in this
subchapter. A typical layout and cross-section of an intermittent sand filter
is presented in §285.90(8) of this title (relating to Figures).
(B)
Filter Bed.
(i)
Sand media specifications. Sand filter media must meet
ASTM C-33 specifications as outlined in §285.91(11) of this title (relating
to Tables).
(ii)
Loading rate. Shall not exceed 1.2 gallons/day/square
foot.
(iii)
Surface area. Minimum surface area shall be calculated
using the formula: Q/1.2=Surface Area (Square Feet), where Q is the wastewater
flow in gallons per day.
(iv)
Depth (thickness) of sand media. There shall be a minimum
of 24 inches of sand media.
(v)
Filter bed containment. The filter bed shall be constructed
of an impervious lined pit or tank. Acceptable liners specifications are
detailed in §285.33(a)(2)(A) of this title (relating to Criteria for
Sewage Disposal Systems).
(vi)
Underdrains. For gravity discharge of effluent to a drainfield,
place a three inch layer of pea gravel over a six inch layer of 0.75 inch
gravel containing the underdrain collection pipe. When pumpwells are to be
used to pump the effluent from the underdrain to the drainfield, they must
be constructed of concrete or plastic sewer pipe. The pumpwell must contain
a sufficient number of holes so that effluent can flow from the gravel void
space as rapidly as the effluent is pumped out of the pumpwell, refer to
§285.90(9) of this title (relating to Figures).
(b)
Treatment processes-proprietary.
(1)
System maintenance. On-going maintenance contracts in accordance
with the maintenance provisions of §285.7 of this title (relating to
Additional Application Requirements for Surface Irrigation Systems) shall
be required for all proprietary systems.
(2)
Electrical wiring. Electrical wiring for proprietary
systems shall be in accordance with §285.34(b)(4) of this title (relating
to Other Requirements).
(3)
Approval of all proprietary systems. All proprietary
treatment and disposal systems shall be approved by the executive director
prior to their use in the State. Approval of proprietary systems shall be
handled utilizing the procedures found in this section.
(4)
Approval of proprietary aerobic treatment systems.
All agency approved proprietary aerobic treatment systems will be identified
and published in a list of approved systems which may be obtained from the
executive director. Only treatment systems which have been tested by and
are currently listed by NSF International as Class I systems under NSF Standard
40 (1990) or have been tested and certified as a Class I system in accordance
with NSF Standard 40 by an American National Standard Institute (ANSI) or
NSF International accredited testing institution shall be considered for
approval by the executive director. All agency approved systems at the time
of the effective date of this rule shall continue to be listed on the list
of approved systems subject to retesting under the requirements of NSF Standard
40 and Certification Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices (1991). In
addition, all proprietary aerobic treatment systems undergoing testing by
a certification institution recognized by the executive director at the time
of the effective date of this rule shall be considered for inclusion on the
list of approved systems notwithstanding the fact that the certification
institution does not have NSF or ANSI accreditation. The manufacturers of
proprietary treatment systems and the accredited certification institution
must comply with all the provisions of NSF International Standard 40 and
Certification Policies for Wastewater Treatment Devices (1991).
(5)
For systems which NSF International, NSF International
or ANSI accredited third party testing institutions will not accept for testing
because of system size or type and are not approved systems at the time of
the effective date of these rules, the manufacturer shall seek approval in
the following manner:
(A)
These proprietary systems, components, or materials shall
be tested by an independent third party in accordance with this subsection
and with the supporting data submitted to the executive director for approval
before being marketed for sale in the state.
(B)
Testing may be accomplished by allowing a number of the
items (usually 20 to 50) to be installed via a temporary authorization in
areas typical of the site conditions for which the system would be installed.
The temporary authorization may be issued by the executive director and,
if issued, shall be specific and pertinent to the proposed proprietary process
and shall contain provisions as to how the proprietary process is installed
and maintained; the testing protocol for collecting and analyzing samples
from the system; the monitoring of equipment, if applicable, and provisions
for recording data and data retention necessary to evaluate the performance
as well as the effect of the proprietary system on public health, groundwater,
and surface waters.
(C)
Authorized agents may issue installation permits upon
receipt of the temporary authorization. The homeowner must be advised in
writing that the system is temporarily approved for testing. System failures,
regardless of the material or component, shall be replaced by the manufacturer
at the manufacturer's expense. A system installed under §285.32(b)(5)
of this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems) is considered
to be the responsibility of the manufacturer until the system has obtained
final approval by the executive director in accordance with this section.
(D)
Upon completion of the two-year test period, the executive
director shall require the certification institution to submit a detailed
report on the performance of the system tested. After evaluation of the detailed
report, the executive director may issue conditional approval for installations
only in areas similar to the area in which the system was tested and for
a specified performance and evaluation (monitoring) period, not to exceed
an additional five years. The system must be monitored by an entity approved
by the executive director. Approval or disapproval of these systems, components
or materials will be based on their performance during this five year monitoring
period. Failure of one or more of the installed units may be cause for disapproval
of the proprietary item. The monitoring method for the units shall be established
by the executive director. System failures, regardless of the material or
component, shall be replaced by the manufacturer at the manufacturer's expense.
The homeowner must be advised in writing that the system is conditionally
approved.
(E)
Upon successful completion of the monitoring period without
failure, systemic or otherwise, the monitoring requirements may be lifted
by the executive director and the system deemed suitable for use in conditions
similar to areas in which the system was tested and monitored.
(c)
Treatment processes-non-standard. All OSSFs not described
or defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section will be considered
to be non-standard treatment systems. These systems shall be submitted to
the permitting authority for review by a registered professional engineer
or registered sanitarian in accordance with §285.5(3) of this title
(relating to Submittal Requirements for Planning Materials). Upon approval,
a permit will be issued by the permitting authority.
(1)
Types of systems considered non-standard include, but are
not limited to, all forms of the activated sludge process, rotating biological
contactors, recirculating sand filters, trickling type filters, submerged
rock biological filters, sand filters not described in subsection (a)(2)
of this section.
(2)
Non-standard systems submitted for review will be
analyzed on basic engineering principles and the criteria established in
this chapter. These systems will be reviewed as one of a kind, site-specific
installations.
(3)
Electrical wiring. Electrical wiring for non-standard
systems shall be in accordance with §285.34(b)(4) of this title (relating
to Other Requirements).
§285.33.Criteria for Sewage Disposal Systems.
(a)
Disposal processes-standard. The effluent discharged from
an approved treatment process requires further handling to render it safe
from a public health standpoint. Acceptable standard disposal methods shall
consist of a drainfield to disperse the effluent into adjacent soil (absorptive)
or into the surrounding air through evapotranspiration (evaporation and transpiration).
(1)
Absorptive drainfield. An absorptive drainfield is an excavation
constructed in suitable soil. A porous media (crushed rock, stone, etc.)
is then placed in the excavation and perforated pipe (drainline) placed in
the media and connected to the outlet of the treatment system. The media
is covered with a permeable geotextile fabric and the remainder of the excavation
backfilled with previously removed soil. The top of the excavation area is
seeded with plants or grasses, where vegetation is sustainable, to aid in
water elimination. The following considerations must be met for approval
of an absorptive drainfield:
(A)
Excavation. The excavation must be constructed in suitable
soils as described in §285.30 of this title (relating to Site Evaluation).
The excavation shall not exceed a depth of three feet or six inches below
the soil freeze depth, whichever is the larger. However, in areas of the
state where annual precipitation is less than 26 inches of rainfall per year
(as identified in the Climatic Atlas of Texas, (1983) published by the Texas
Department of Water Resources and suitable soils (Class Ib, II, or III) lie
below unsuitable soil caps, the maximum permissible excavation shall be five
feet. Multiple excavations must be separated horizontally by at least three
feet of undisturbed soil. After excavation the excavated surfaces (sidewalls
and bottom) must be scarified as needed. The bottom of the excavation shall
be not less than 18 inches in width and level to within one inch over each
25 feet of excavation. The size of the excavation shall be calculated using
data from §285.91(8) of this title (relating to Tables). The formula
A = Q/Ra shall be used to determine drainfield area where:
Figure 1: 30 TAC §285.33 (a)(1)(A)
(i)
The usable surface area shall be calculated by adding the
excavation bottom area to the total excavated perimeter (in feet) multiplied
by one foot (bottom area + perimeter X 1.0).
Figure 2: 30 TAC §285.33 (a)(1)(A)(i)
(ii)
The length of the excavation may be determined as follows
when the area and width are known:
Figure 3: 30 TAC §285.33 (a)(1)(A)(ii)
(iii)
For excavations three feet wide or less use the following
formula or §285.91(8) of this title (relating to Figures) to determine
L:
Figure 4: 30 TAC §285.33(a)(1)(A)(iii)
(B)
Porous media. The porous media shall consist of clean,
washed and graded gravel, broken concrete, rock, crushed stone, chipped tires,
or similar aggregate that is generally one uniform size ranging from 0.75-2.0
inches as measured along its greatest dimension.
(i)
The permitting authority may consider and approve on a
case-by-case basis the use of chipped tire sizes greater than 0.75-2.0 inches
along the greatest dimension.
(ii)
When chipped tires are used in conjunction with geotextile
fabric, a heavier duty geotextile fabric must be utilized to minimize fabric
punctures and eliminate fabric tears due to protruding steel belt remnants.
(iii)
Soft media such as oyster shell and soft limestone will
not be approved.
(C)
Drainline. The drainline shall be constructed of perforated
distribution pipe and fittings in compliance with the following specifications:
(i)
Three or four inch diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe with
a standard dimension ratio- (SDR) of 35 or less.
(ii)
Four inch diameter corrugated polyethylene, ASTM F405
in rigid ten foot joints only.
(iii)
Three or four inch diameter polyethylene smoothwall,
ASTM F810.
(iv)
Any other pipe approved by the executive director.
(D)
Installation Requirements. The drainline shall be placed
in the porous media with at least six inches of media between the bottom
of the excavation and the bottom of the drainline. The drainline shall be
completely covered by the porous media and the drainline perforations shall
be below the horizontal center line of the pipe. Single drainlines shall
not exceed 150 feet, see §285.90(5) of this title (relating to Figures).
The drainlines shall be placed parallel to each other and parallel to the
longest horizontal dimension of the excavation. For excavations greater than
three feet in width, the maximum separation distance between parallel drainlines
shall be four feet (center to center). Multiple drainlines shall be manifolded
together with solid or perforated pipe. The opposite ends of multiple drainlines
shall be manifolded together with solid line or looped together using perforated
line and bedding. If drainfield is not to be looped, end caps must be used.
(E)
Permeable soil barrier. A permeable soil barrier shall
be placed between the top of the porous media and the excavation backfill.
Geotextile fabric shall be used for the permeable soil barrier. Geotextile
fabric shall conform to the following specifications for unwoven, spun-bounded
polypropylene, polyester or nylon filter wrap:
Figure 5: 30 TAC §285.33 (a)(1)(E)
(F)
Backfilling. Backfilling is the process of replacing the
soil removed during excavating back into the drainfield and on top of the
geotextile fabric. Only Class Ib or II soils as described in §285.30(b)
and (c) of this title (relating to Site Evaluation) shall be used for backfill.
Rock and high shrink swell clays are specifically prohibited for use as a
backfill material. The backfill material shall be mounded over the excavated
area so that the center of the excavation slopes down to the outer perimeter
to allow for settling. The excavated area may be bermed or drainage swales
may be used to divert surface runoff from the site.
(G)
Drainfields on irregular terrain. Where topography or
ground slope is greater than 15% but less than 30% slope for the construction
of a level single drainfield, multiple long narrow drainfields may be constructed
along descending contours. An overflow line shall be provided from the upper
excavations to the lower excavations. This overflow line shall be constructed
from solid pipe with an SDR of 35 or less and the excavation carrying the
overflow pipe shall be backfilled with soil only.
(H)
Drainfield plans. A number of approved sketches, specifications
and details for drainfield construction are provided in §285.90(4) and
(5) of this title (relating to Figures).
(2)
Evapotranspirative drainfield (ET). An ET drainfield
is a standard disposal process which may be used in soils which are classified
as unsuitable in §285.30 of this title (relating to Site Evaluation)
with respect to texture, structure, restrictive horizons and ground water.
Water saving devices must be utilized in all structures for which ET beds
are recommended. ET drainfields are generally constructed in accordance with
the specifications for absorptive drainfields with the following exceptions:
(A)
Liners. An impervious liner must be used between the excavated
surface and the constructed drainfield in all Class Ia soils classified as
unsuitable due to the possibility of ground water contamination. Liners are
also required for Class IV soils with seasonal ground water tables which
penetrate the excavation. Liners shall be constructed from impervious rubber
or plastic material having a thickness of 20 mils or greater per layer. Reinforced
concrete, gunite, and compacted and tested clay (one foot thick or more)
may also be used for liner material. Liners shall be constructed in such
a manner as to have a permeability of 10
-7
cm/sec or less as tested by a certified soil laboratory. Rubber or plastic
liners must be protected from rocks and stones (when exposed) by covering
the excavated surface with a uniform sand cushion at least four inches thick.
(B)
ET drainfield sizing. The following formula shall be used
to calculate the top surface area of a constructed ET drainfield:
Figure 6: 30 TAC §285.33 (a)(2)(B)
(C)
Backfill material. Backfill material shall consist of
soil Class II as described in §285.30 of this title (relating to Site
Evaluation). Excavations containing two or more drainlines may eliminate
the porous media between the drainlines to allow the backfill material to
contact the bottom of the excavation. This construction procedure will enhance
the wicking action of the soil and improve water transfer. The porous media
shall extend at least one foot beyond the edge of the drainline horizontally.
(D)
Vegetative cover for transpiration. The final grade shall
be covered with vegetation fully capable to take maximum advantage of transpiration,
depending on the season and the site's location. Evergreen bushes having
shallow root systems may be planted in the drainfield to assist in water
uptake. Grasses with dormant periods shall be overseeded to provide year-round
transpiration.
(E)
Multiple ET drainfields. ET drainfields shall be divided
into two or more separate units connected by flow control valves. One of
the units may be removed from service for an extended period of time to allow
it to dry out and decompose biological material which might tend to plug
the drainfield. If one of the units is removed from service, the daily water
usage must be reduced to prevent overloading of the units still in operation.
Normally, a unit must be removed from service for two to three dry months
for biological breakdown to occur.
(F)
Geographical location. ET drainfields shall only be used
in those areas of the state where the annual average evaporation exceeds
the annual rainfall. As the annual rainfall approaches the annual evaporation,
the required ET drainfield size becomes very large and expensive to construct
(see data in §285.91(7) of this title (relating to Tables)).
(G)
ET drainfield plans. A number of approved sketches for
ET drainfield construction are provided in §285.90(4) and (5) of this
title (relating to Figures).
(3)
Pumped effluent drainfield. Pumped effluent drainfields
must utilize low pressure dosed drainfield specifications described in subsection
(c)(1) of this section, with the following exceptions:
(A)
Applicability. Pumped effluent drainfields may only be
utilized by single family dwellings and not commercial or institutional structures.
(B)
Length of drainfield. There shall be at least 1,000 linear
feet of perforated drain pipe for a two bedroom single family dwelling. For
each additional bedroom, there shall be an additional 400 linear feet of
perforated drain pipe. No individual lateral may exceed 70 feet in length.
(C)
Trench width and horizontal separation. Trenches shall
be at least six inches wide. There shall be at least three feet of separation
between trenches.
(D)
Lateral depth and vertical separation. All drainfield
laterals shall adhere to a depth range from 1.5 feet to 3 feet. There shall
be at a minimum vertical separation distance of 2.0 foot from the bottom
of the excavation to a restrictive horizon or to ground water.
(E)
Porous media. Each dosing pipe shall be placed with the
drain holes facing down and placed on at least six inches of porous media
(pea gravel or larger) between the bottom of the excavation and pipe.
(F)
Pipe and hole size. Lateral drain pipe shall use 1.25-1.5
inch diameter line. Manifolds or headers shall use 1.25-1.5 inch diameter
line, where the manifold or header lines must have a diameter as large or
larger than the lateral line diameter. Lateral drain pipe hole sizes shall
be 3/16-1/4 inch diameter spaced 5 feet apart.
(G)
Pump size. Pumped effluent drainfields shall utilize at
least a 1/2 horsepower pump.
(H)
Topography. When slopes are greater than 2.0%, pumped
effluent drainfields shall not be used.
(b)
Disposal processes-proprietary.
(1)
Gravel-less drainfield piping. Gravel-less pipe may be
used only on sites suitable for standard subsurface sewage disposal methods.
Gravel-less pipe is available in eight-inch or ten-inch diameter corrugated
perforated polyethylene pipe. The pipe is enclosed in a layer of unwoven
spun-bonded polypropylene, polyester or nylon filter wrap. Gravel-less pipe
shall meet American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM F-667 Standard
Specifications for large diameter corrugated high density polyethylene (ASTM
D 1248) tubing. The filter cloth must meet the same material specifications
as described under subsection (a)(1)(E) of this section.
(A)
Planning parameters. Gravel-less drainfield pipe may be
substituted for pipe in both absorptive or ET drainfields. When gravel-less
pipe is substituted, the porous media around conventional pipe will not be
required. ET drainfields shall be backfilled with Class II soils only. Gravel-less
pipe shall not be used for absorptive drainfields in Class IV soils. All
other planning parameters for absorptive or ET drainfields apply to gravel-less
pipe.
(B)
Installation. The proper installation of adequate construction
materials is vitally important to the success of gravel-less drainfield systems.
Materials include gravel-less pipe, backfill, end caps, offset connectors
and filter cloth. All connections from the house to the septic tank shall
be in accordance with §285.34(a) of this title (relating to Other Requirements).
The connection from the septic tank to the gravel-less line shall be made
by using an eight or ten-inch offset connector. It is important that the
gravel-less line be laid level with the continuous stripe up, and joined
with couplings. The filter cloth must be pulled over the joint to eliminate
soil infiltration. The gravel-less pipe must be held in place during initial
backfilling to prevent movement of the pipe in the excavation. The end of
each gravel-less line shall have an end cap and inspection port installed.
An inspection port is required because the amount of sludge or suspended
solids in the line can be easily monitored and the distribution lines can
be back-flushed.
(C)
Drainfield Sizing. Eight inch diameter gravel-less pipe
shall use W = 2.0 feet and ten inch gravel-less pipe shall use W = 2.5 feet
for absorptive drainfield sizing.
(2)
Leaching chambers. Leaching chambers are bottomless
chambers which are planned for installation in a drainfield excavation with
the open bottom of the chamber in direct contact with the excavation. The
chambers are linked together with sewer pipe (no perforations) in such a
manner as to completely cover the excavation with adjacent chambers in contact
with each other. Other special conditions for leaching chambers are as follows:
(A)
The excavation may be reduced by 40% from the value calculated
using §285.91(1) of this title (relating to Tables). The following formula
may be used for excavations utilizing leaching chambers:
Figure 7: 30 TAC §285.33 (b)(2)(A)
(B)
These chambers shall not be used for absorptive drainfields
in Class Ia or IV soils.
(C)
Backfill covering leaching chambers should be Class Ib,
or II soil.
(3)
Drip Irrigation. A drip irrigation system consist
of small diameter pressurized lines directly buried in the soil to a nominal
depth of six inches. The lines contain pressure reducing emitters spaced
at 30 inch maximum intervals. The purpose of the pressure reducing emitter
is to restrict the flow of effluent from the pipe into the surrounding soil
to a very low rate. This distribution method promotes uniform wetting of
the soil in the root zone of surface vegetation. Since the near surface root
zone of plants will absorb water, even in Class IV soils, this type of system
may be used for on-site disposal in these soils. The system must be equipped
with a filtering device capable of filtering to 100 microns and meet drip
irrigation (pressure emitter) manufacturer requirements.
(A)
Drainfield layout. The drainfield shall consist of a matrix
of lines and emitters arranged in almost any configuration where the layout
would ensure equal distribution throughout the drainfield. The system must
be equipped with a mechanism to flush from the drainfield back to the treatment
unit.
(B)
Effluent quality. Treatment preceding this disposal process
shall treat the wastewater to a degree to preclude plugging of the emitters.
This quality shall be determined by the executive director.
(C)
System maintenance. On-going maintenance contracts in
accordance with the maintenance provisions of §285.7 of this title (relating
to Additional Application Requirements for Surface Irrigation Systems) shall
be required for all emitter systems. Systems must be equipped to flush the
system back to the treatment unit.
(D)
Loading Rates. Pressure emitters can be used in all classes
of soils using loading rates as specified in §285.91(1) of this title
(relating to Tables). Emitters are assumed to wet four square feet of absorptive
area per emitter, however, overlapping areas shall only be counted once toward
absorptive area requirements.
(E)
There shall be a minimum of 1 foot of soil between the
drip emitter and ground water or solid or fractured rock.
(F)
No device associated with a drip irrigation system shall
be installed which has not been labelled by the manufacturer as suitable
for use with domestic sewage or is on an approved list of the executive director
in accordance with §285.32(b)(5) of this title (relating to Treatment
processes- proprietary).
(4)
Testing and monitoring of proprietary disposal
systems. All proprietary disposal systems other than those described in this
section shall be approved by the executive director prior to their use in
the state. Proprietary systems shall be approved by the executive director
utilizing the procedures established in §285.32(b) of this title (relating
to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems).
(c)
Disposal processes-non-standard. Non-standard disposal
processes are all systems, components and materials not described as standard
and not marketed for sale in the state as a proprietary item. The permitting
authority may at its option review and either approve or disapprove the planning
materials on a case-by-case basis. Planning criteria will be derived from
basic engineering analysis and scientific investigation of the proposed disposal
process.
(1)
Low pressure dosed drainfield. A low pressure dosing system
consists of an approved treatment system as specified in §285.32 of
this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems). Effluent
from this system is pumped, under low pressure, into a solid wall force main
and then into a perforated distribution pipe which is installed within the
drainfield area.
(A)
The effluent pump in the pump tank must be capable of
an operating range that will assure that effluent is delivered to the most
distant point of the perforated piping network, yet not be excessive to the
point that "blow-outs" occur.
(B)
A start/stop switch or timer must be included in the system
to control the dosing pump. A high water alarm, on an electric circuit separate
from the pump, must be provided.
(C)
Drainfield criteria. Pressure dosing systems may be installed
in accordance with design criteria in the North Carolina State University
Sea Grant College Publication UNC-S82-03 (1982) or other publications containing
criteria or data on pressure dosed systems which are acceptable to the permitting
authority. The following parameters are required for all low pressure subsurface
drainfields:
(i)
The low pressure dosed drainfield area shall be sized in
accordance with §285.91(1) of this title (relating to Tables). Use 3
square feet of wetted area per linear foot of dosing pipe for all excavated
areas less than one foot wide.
(ii)
Each dosing pipe shall be placed with the drain holes
facing down and placed on at least 6 inches of porous media (pea gravel or
larger) between the bottom of the excavation and pipe.
(iii)
Geotextile fabric shall be placed over the porous media
and the excavation filled with Class Ib or II soil.
(iv)
There shall be a minimum of one foot of soil between the
bottom of the excavation and solid or fractured rock. There shall be a minimum
of two feet of soil between the bottom of the excavation and ground water.
(2)
Surface irrigation systems. Surface irrigation
methods include, but are not limited to, spray irrigation, landscape irrigation
or any other method of applying treated effluent onto the surface of the
ground.
(A)
Types of wastewater treatment. The treatment system shall
consist of any standard, proprietary, approved aerobic units or non-standard
treatment methods described in §285.32 of this title (relating to Criteria
for Sewage Treatment Systems) and meeting the following effluent criteria:
Figure 8: 30 TAC §285.33 (c)(2)(A)
(B)
Acceptable surface application areas. Acceptable land
for surface application will include generally flat terrain (land less than
or equal to 15% slope) covered with grasses, evergreen shrubs, bushes, trees
or landscaped beds containing mixed vegetation. Sloped land may be acceptable
if properly landscaped and terraced to minimize runoff.
(C)
Unacceptable surface application areas. Land which cannot
be used for surface irrigation includes land for growing food, gardens, orchards
or crops which may be used for human consumption. Additionally, effluent
shall not be applied to unseeded bare ground under any circumstances.
(D)
Minimum required application area. The minimum surface
application area required shall be determined by dividing the daily usage
rate (Q) as established in §285.91(3) of this title (relating to Tables)
by the allowable surface irrigation application rate (Ri) found in §285.90(1)
of this title (relating to Figures) or as approved by the permitting authority.
Figure 9:30 TAC §285.33 (c)(2)(D)
(E)
Uniform application of effluent. Distribution pipes, sprinklers,
flow channels and other application methods/devices must provide uniform
distribution of treated effluent. The application rate must be adjusted so
as not to produce runoff.
(i)
Sprinkler criteria. When sprinklers are used as the application
method, the maximum inlet pressure shall be 40 pounds per square inch. Low
angle nozzles (13 degrees or less in trajectory) shall be used in the sprinklers
to keep the spray stream low and reduce aerosols. Sprinkler operation shall
be controlled by commercial irrigation timers, when property line setbacks
are less than 20 feet.
(ii)
Sprinkler head requirements. Circular spray patterns may
overlap to cover all irrigated area including rectangular shapes. However,
the overlapped area will be only counted once toward the total application
area. For large systems, multiple sprinkler heads are preferred to single
gun delivery systems.
(iii)
Effluent storage requirements. Storage requirements and
pump tank construction and installation shall be in accordance with §285.34(b)
of this title relating to Other Requirements). A sampling port shall be provided
in the treated effluent line in the pump tank.
(3)
Mound systems. A mound drainfield is an
absorptive drainfield constructed above the native soil surface. A scarified
interface (for absorptive mounds) between the native soil, a porous media
around the distribution pipe, the distribution piping, and a topsoil cover
are all components of the mound system. The depth of the material between
the distribution pipe and the restrictive horizon or ground water shall be
at least two feet. The preferred constructed shape is a long narrow rectangle,
with the long dimension laid out along a contour. Effluent shall be pressure
dosed into the distribution piping to ensure equal distribution and to control
application rates. Planning criteria for mound construction may be as specified
in the North Carolina State University Sea Grant College Publication UNC-SG-82-04
(1982), the United States Environmental Protection Agency's On-site Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems Design Manual (1980) or any technical publication
containing mound system criteria and acceptable to the executive director.
Shallow placement of the pressure distribution pipe is recommended to reduce
mound height.
(4)
Soil substitution drainfields. Soil substitution drainfields
may be constructed in Class Ia soils, fractured rock, fissured rock, or other
conditions of high permeability where septic tank effluent could rapidly
reach ground water without undergoing adequate treatment through soil contact.
A soil substitution drainfield is constructed similar to a standard absorptive
drainfield with one exception. The exception consists of a 24-inch thick
Class Ib, Class II or Class III soil buffer placed below and on all sides
of the drainfield excavation to an elevation less than the top of the porous
media. The Class Ib, Class II or Class III soil acts as a filter medium to
remove contaminants from the wastewater prior to its contacting the highly
permeable natural ground. Class IV soils may not be utilized for soil substitution.
Disposal areas shall be sized based on the textural class of the substituted
soil. It is recommended, but not mandatory, that low pressure dosing be used
for effluent distribution.
(5)
Drainfields Following Approved Aerobic Units, Secondary
Treatment and Disinfection. Subsurface drainfields following secondary treatment
and disinfection may be constructed in Class Ia soils, fractured rock, fissured
rock, or other conditions where insufficient soil depth will allow septic
tank effluent to reach fractured rock, fissured rock, or a restrictive horizon
before undergoing adequate treatment through soil contact.
(A)
Drainfield Sizing.
(i)
If the unsuitable feature is Class Ia soils, the disposal
area sizing should be based on the application rate for Class Ib soils. It
is recommended, but not mandatory, that some form of pressure distribution
be used for effluent disposal.
(ii)
If the unsuitable feature is insufficient soil depth to
fractured or fissured rock, the system sizing should be based on the application
rate for Class III soils. It is recommended, but not mandatory, that some
form of pressure distribution system be used for effluent disposal.
(B)
Maintenance Requirements. The maintenance requirements
of §285.7(c)-(g) of this title (relating to Additional Application Requirements
for Surface Irrigation Systems) apply to these systems.
§285.34.Other Requirements.
(a)
House sewer. The sewer from the building's plumbing to
the septic tank shall be constructed of cast iron, ductile iron, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) Schedule 40, SDR 26 or other material approved by the executive
director. The slope of the sewer shall be no less than 1/8 inch fall per
foot of pipe. The sewer stub out should be as shallow as possible to facilitate
gravity flow. A two-way cleanout plug must be provided between building's
plumbing and the septic tank. All fittings used on this section shall be
sanitary type. An additional cleanout plug shall be provided every 50 feet
(where applicable, near 90 degree bends) on long runs of pipe and may be
of the single sanitary type. This sewer shall have a minimum inside diameter
of three inches.
(b)
Pump tanks. Pump tanks may be necessary when the septic
tank outlet is at a lower elevation than the disposal field. All requirements
in §285.32(a)(1)(D)-(H) of this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage
Treatment Systems) are also applicable to pump tanks. The pump tank shall
be constructed in accordance with the following specifications:
(1)
Pump tank criteria. When effluent must be pumped to a disposal
area, an appropriate pump shall be placed in a separate water-tight tank
or chamber. A check valve may be required if the disposal area is above the
pump tank. The pump tank shall be equipped to prevent siphoning. The tank
shall be provided with an audio and visual high water alarm. If an electrical
alarm is utilized the power circuit shall be separate from the pump. Batteries
may be utilized for back-up power supply only. All electrical components
shall be approved by Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
(2)
Pump tank sizing. Pump tanks shall be sized for one-third
day of flow above the alarm-on level. Reserve capacity (capacity above the
alarm-on level) may be reduced to four hours average flow when pump tank
is equipped with multiple pumps.
(3)
Pump specifications. A single pump may be used for
flows equal to or less than 1,000 gallons per day. Dual pumps are required
for flows greater than 1,000 gallons per day. A dual pump system shall have
the "alarm on" level below the "second pump on" level, and shall have a lock-on
feature in the alarm circuit so that once it is activated it will not go
off when the second pump draws the liquid level below the "alarm on" level.
All audio and visual alarms shall have a manual "silence" switch. Pump switch-gear
shall be selected such that both pumps shall operate as the first pump on
an alternating basis. All pumps shall be rated by the manufactures for pumping
sewage or sewage effluent.
(4)
Electrical wiring. All electrical wiring shall be
in accordance with the most recent edition of the National Electric Code.
Connections shall be in approved junction boxes and all external power wiring
shall be in approved electrical conduit, buried and terminated at a main
circuit breaker panel or sub-panel. All electrical components should have
an electrical disconnect within direct vision. Electrical disconnects must
be weatherproof (approved for outdoor use) and have maintenance lockout provisions.
(c)
Grease interceptors. Grease interceptor shall be used on
kitchen waste-lines from institutions, hotels, restaurants, schools with
lunchrooms, and other places that may discharge large amounts of greases
and oils to the OSSF. Grease interceptors shall be structurally equivalent
to the requirements established for septic tanks under §285.32(a)(1)(D)-(H)
of this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems). The interceptor
shall be installed near the plumbing fixture that discharges greasy wastewater
and shall be easily accessible for cleaning. Grease interceptors shall be
cleaned out periodically to prevent the discharge of grease to the disposal
system. Grease interceptors shall be properly sized and installed in accordance
with the most recent requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code or other prevailing
code.
(d)
Holding tanks. Tanks shall be constructed in accordance
with subsection (b)(1) of this section and shall be structurally equivalent
to the requirements established for septic tanks under §285.32 (a)(1)(D)-(H)
of this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems). Inlet
(no outlet shall be provided) fittings are required. A baffle is also not
required. Holding tanks shall be used only on lots where no other methods
of sewage disposal are feasible (these holding tank provisions do not apply
to portable toilets). All holding tanks shall be equipped with a visual and
audible alarm to indicate when the tank has been filled to within 75% of
its rated capacity. A port with its smallest dimension being 15 inches or
greater shall be provided in the tank lid for inspection, cleaning, and maintenance.
This port shall be accessible from the ground surface and must be easily
removable and watertight.
(1)
Minimum capacity. Holding tank minimum capacity shall be
sufficient to store the estimated or calculated daily wastewater flow for
a period of one week (wastewater usage rate in gallons/day X 7 days).
(2)
Location. Holding tanks shall be installed in an area
readily accessible to the pump truck under all weather conditions, and at
a location that meets the minimum distance requirements in accordance with
§285.91(10) of this title (relating to Tables).
(3)
Maintenance. A scheduled pumping contract with a licensed
waste transporter, holding a valid registration with the executive director,
must be provided to the permitting authority before any holding tanks are
installed. Records of such activities must be retained for five years.
(e)
Composting toilets. Composting toilets will be approved
by the executive director provided the system has been tested and certified
under NSF International Standard 41 (1983).
(f)
Condensation. If condensate lines are plumbed directly
into a OSSF, the increased water volume must be accounted for (added to the
usage rate) in the system planning materials.
§285.35.Emergency Repairs.
An emergency repair may be made to an OSSF providing that such repair
is made for the abatement of an immediate, serious and dangerous health hazard,
that such repair does not constitute an alteration of that OSSF system's
planning materials and function, and includes such items as replacing tank
lids, inlet and outlet devices and repair of solid lines and that such repair
meets minimum state criteria established in this chapter. The permitting
authority must have written notification within 72 hours of the repair and
given a detailed description of the methods and materials used in said repair.
An inspection of the emergency repairs may be required at the discretion
of the permitting authority.
§285.36.Abandoned Treatment, Holding, and Pump Tanks.
It is the responsibility of the property owner to conduct the following
actions, in the order listed, to properly abandon an OSSF:
(1)
All tanks, boreholes, cesspools, seepage pits, holding
tanks, and pump tanks shall have the wastewater/septage removed by a licensed
waste transporter, holding a valid registration with the executive director;
and
(2)
All tanks, boreholes, cesspools, seepage pits, holding
tanks, and pump tanks shall be filled with clean sand or other suitable fill
material (less than three inches in diameter), free of organic debris, and
completely covered with soil.
§285.39.OSSF Maintenance and Management Practices.
An installer shall provide the owner of an OSSF the following maintenance
and management practices and water conservation measures related to the OSSF
installed, repaired or maintained by the installer.
(1)
Maintenance and management practices.
(A)
An OSSF should not be treated as if it were a normal city
sewer system.
(B)
The excessive use of in-sink garbage grinders and grease
discarding should be avoided. In-sink garbage grinders can cause a rapid
buildup of sludge or scum resulting in a requirement for more frequent cleaning
and possible system failure.
(C)
Do not use the toilet to dispose of cleaning tissues,
cigarette butts, or other trash. This disposal practice will waste water
and also impose an undesired solids load on the treatment system.
(D)
Septic tanks shall be cleaned before sludge accumulates
to a point where it approaches the bottom of the outlet device. If sludge
or scum accumulates to this point, solids will leave the tank with the liquid
and possibly cause clogging of the perforations in the drainfield line resulting
in sewage surfacing or backing up into the house through the plumbing fixtures.
(E)
Since it is not practical for the average homeowner to
inspect his tank and determine the need for cleaning, a regular schedule
of cleaning the tank at two-to-three year intervals should be established.
Commercial cleaners are equipped to readily perform the cleaning operation.
Owners of septic tank systems shall engage only persons registered with the
TNRCC to transport the septic tank cleanings.
(F)
Do not build driveways, storage buildings, or other structures
over the treatment works or its disposal field.
(G)
Chemical additives or the so-called enzymes are not necessary
for the operation of a septic tank. Some of these additives may even be harmful
to the tank's operation.
(H)
Soaps, detergents, bleaches, drain cleaners, and other
household cleaning materials will very seldom affect the operation of the
system. However, moderation should be exercised in the use of such materials.
(I)
It is not advisable to allow water softener back flush
to enter into any portion of the OSSF.
(J)
The liquid from the OSSF is still heavily laden with bacteria.
The surfacing of this liquid constitutes a hazard to the health of those
that might come into contact with it.
(2)
Water conservation measures/practices.
(A)
Showers usually use less water than baths. Install a water
saving shower head that uses less than two and 1/2 gallons per minute and
saves both water and energy.
(B)
If you take a tub bath, reduce the level of water in the
tub from the level to which you customarily fill it.
(C)
Leaky faucets and faulty toilet fill-up mechanisms should
be repaired as quickly as possible.
(D)
Check toilets for leaks that may not be apparent. Add
a few drops of food coloring to the tank. Do not flush. If the color appears
in the bowl within a few minutes, the toilet fill or ball-cock valve needs
to be adjusted to prevent water from overflowing the stand pipe or the flapper
at the bottom of the toilet tank needs to be replaced.
(E)
Reduce the amount of water used for flushing the toilet
by installing one of the following: a new toilet (1.6 gallon); a toilet tank
dam; or filling and capping one-quart plastic bottles with water (usually
one is all that will fit in smaller toilet tanks) and lowering them into
the tank of the existing 3.5 gallon or larger toilet. Do not use bricks since
they may crumble and cause damage to the fixture.
(F)
Try to run the dishwasher with a full load, whenever possible.
(G)
Avoid running the water continuously for brushing teeth,
washing hands, rinsing kitchen utensils or for cleaning vegetables.
(H)
Use faucet aerators that restrict flow to no more than
2.2 gallons per minute to reduce water consumption.
(I)
Keep a container of drinking water in the refrigerator
instead of running the faucet until the water turns cool.
(J)
Insulate all hot water pipes to avoid long delays of wasted
water while waiting for the heated water.
(K)
Ask your city, county, or local government about their
programs to conserve water and how they can help you save water.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption
has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the
agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700587
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.40
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provide the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.40.OSSFs on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
(a)
Applicability. In addition to the requirements given in
this chapter, the following additional provisions apply to the Edwards Aquifer
recharge zone as defined in §285.2 of this title (relating to Definitions)
and is not intended to be applied to any other areas in the State of Texas.
(b)
Additional application requirements for new OSSFs.
(1)
All planning and design materials shall be submitted by
a professional engineer or sanitarian registered in Texas.
(2)
Site evaluation to be conducted by a certified site
evaluator possessing a valid certificate.
(c)
Conditions for obtaining a permit to construct. In order
to obtain a permit to construct in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, the
following conditions must be met.
(1)
Minimum lot sizes. Each lot or tract of land on the recharge
zone on which OSSFs are to be located must have an area of at least one acre
(43,560 square feet) per single family dwelling.
(2)
Minimum separation distances from recharge features.
The following separation distances shall be maintained from recharge features
found during a site evaluation or in accordance with a geologic assessment
performed in accordance with Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards
Aquifer). No sewage treatment tank or holding tank may be located within
50 feet of a recharge feature. No soil absorption system may be located within
150 feet of a recharge feature.
(3)
No OSSF may be installed closer than 75 feet from
the banks of the Nueces, Dry Frio, Frio, or Sabinal Rivers downstream from
the northern Uvalde county line to the recharge zone.
(d)
Existing OSSFs. OSSFs licensed by, or registered with,
the appropriate permitting authority at the time of adoption of this section
shall remain licensed or registered under the terms and conditions of the
current license or registration. Any relicensing shall be performed in accordance
with §285.3 of this title (relating to Applicability). An OSSF installed
on the recharge zone prior to April 11, 1977, in either Uvalde or Kinney
Counties is not required to be permitted or licensed, provided the OSSF is
not causing pollution, is not a threat to the public health, or is not a
nuisance, and has not been substantially modified.
(e)
Exceptions for certain lots. Lots platted and recorded
with the county in its official plat record, deed, or tax records of the
following counties prior to the dates for the counties indicated in this
subsection, are exempted from the one-acre minimum lot size requirement,
pursuant to the conditions of subsection (f) of this section.
(1)
Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, and Comal Counties-March
26, 1974;
(2)
Hays County-June 21, 1984;
(3)
Travis County-November 21, 1983; and
(4)
Williamson County-May 21, 1985.
(f)
Notice. Any person, or his agents or assignees, desiring
to construct a residential development with two or more lots in which OSSFs
will be utilized in whole or in part on the recharge zone and desiring to
sell, lease, or rent the lots therein, must inform in writing each prospective
purchaser, lessee, or renter of the following.
(1)
Each lot within the regulated development is subject to
the terms and conditions of this section.
(2)
A permit to construct shall be required before an
OSSF can be constructed in the subdivision.
(3)
A license to operate shall be required for the operation
of an OSSF.
(4)
Whether or not an application for a water pollution
abatement plan as defined in Chapter 213 of this title (relating to Edwards
Aquifer), has been made, and whether or not it has been approved, and whether
any restrictions or conditions have been placed on that approval.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700586
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§285.50-285.63
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.50.General Requirements for Registration and Certification.
(a)
The purpose of this section is to set forth a statewide
uniform procedure for the training and registration of installers of OSSFs
and training and certification of site evaluators and designated representatives
and to assist individuals employed or seeking employment in the OSSF industry
in meeting the educational and testing requirements for obtaining registration
or certification.
(b)
No individual shall install, construct, alter, extend,
or repair an OSSF unless the individual holds a valid certification issued
by the executive director or is expressly exempted from the installer's certification
or registration requirements.
(c)
No individual may represent himself or herself as an installer,
site evaluator, or designated representative unless they possess a valid
agency certificate for that profession.
(d)
In addition to the requirements of this section, an installer
shall comply with all requirements of this title and be responsible for the
proper installation of all OSSFs installed under the installer's registration
or certification.
(e)
No individual shall work under an installer's certificate
unless said individual is an apprentice of that installer or under direct
supervision of that installer or the apprentice at the jobsite. Apprentices
will be issued a registration card in accordance with §285.60 of this
title (relating to Apprentice Program).
(f)
The installer shall directly supervise all individuals
working under the installer's certificate during the installation, construction,
alteration, or repair of the OSSF and shall be present on the jobsite during
each major phase, or may be represented by his or her apprentice.
(g)
When required by the permitting authority, the installer
or apprentice must be present at the job-site during the inspection or re-inspection
of the OSSF.
(h)
The executive director may allow reciprocity for an installer
with a valid certificate from another state having certification requirements
substantially equivalent to those of this state.
(i)
Individuals who act in any capacity for a permitting authority
which has jurisdiction over OSSFs shall not work as an installer or private
site evaluator in that permitting authority's area of jurisdiction.
(j)
Beginning 540 days after the effective date of this chapter,
no individual shall be employed or compensated by an authorized agent as
a designated representative without being registered with the executive director
and possessing a valid designated representative's certificate.
(k)
Beginning 540 days after the effective date of this chapter,
no individual shall be compensated as a site evaluator conducting pre-construction
site evaluation or soil analysis without being registered with the executive
director and possessing a valid site evaluator's certificate.
§ 285.51.Exceptions to Registration/Certification Requirements.
A single family residential property owner shall not be subject to
the training and registration requirements when installing, constructing,
altering, extending or repairing an OSSF on his or her property. However,
the permitting authority must be contacted prior to construction of the OSSF
regarding any permitting requirements to insure compliance with the commission's
criteria or such criteria duly established by the authorized agent. The homeowner
shall not compensate any person to perform any phase of the OSSF installation
work where the individual performing the work is not a registered installer
of the correct level. An exception shall be made for installation of electrical
components by a licensed electrician where required.
§285.52.Administration.
The executive director shall be responsible for the administration
and management of the certification and registration of installers, apprentices,
site evaluators, and designated representatives. This administration includes:
(1)
accepting and reviewing applications to determine if qualifications
are met and notifying applicants as to action taken;
(2)
preparing and administering examinations;
(3)
scoring examinations and promptly notifying applicants
as to the results;
(4)
issuing and renewing registrations and certifications;
(5)
publishing of a roster with semi-annual updates of
apprentices, installers, site evaluators, and designated representatives
holding valid registration or certification;
(6)
maintaining training records of installers, site evaluators,
and designated representatives;
(7)
approving training schools, courses, and instructors
for registration and certification purposes; and
(8)
collecting fees.
§285.53.Applications.
(a)
Applications for registration or certification shall be
made on a standard form provided by the executive director or designee.
(b)
Each applicant shall submit a non-refundable application
fee in accordance with §285.57 of this title (relating to Fees).
(c)
The applicant shall furnish evidence of any training credit
or any other information pertaining to the license or renewal.
(d)
Applicants shall meet the qualifications and training requirements
established in this subchapter before taking the examination.
(e)
An application is valid for 12 months from the initial
date of the examination.
§285.54.Qualifications.
(a)
All applicants shall be required to successfully complete
the educational training program provided by or for the executive director
in accordance with §285.59 of this title (relating to Training).
(b)
Only training that has been approved by the executive director
is acceptable for registration or certification.
(c)
All applicants for installer registration shall be required
to pass an examination covering the field of OSSFs.
(d)
Installer I qualifications:
(1)
beginning 540 days after the effective date of this chapter,
an applicant shall have at least one year of experience as a registered apprentice
under the supervision of an Installer I or Installer II holding a valid certificate;
(2)
successful completion of the Installer I training
course; and
(3)
must pass the Installer I examination.
(e)
An Installer I is qualified to install, construct, alter,
extend, or repair standard OSSFs as described in §285.91(9) of this
title (relating to Tables). These systems consist of conventional trench
drainfields, unlined ET beds, as well as the proprietary systems utilizing
gravel-less pipe drainfields and leaching chambers.
(f)
Installer II qualifications:
(1)
must possess an Installer I certificate;
(2)
have at least two years of verified experience in
OSSF installation, construction, extension, alteration, and/or repair under
said certification;
(3)
must successfully complete the Installer II training
course; and
(4)
must pass the Installer II examination.
(g)
An Installer II is qualified to install, construct, alter,
extend, or repair all types of OSSFs.
(h)
Beginning 540 days after the effective date of this chapter,
an installer shall no longer operate as an Installer II without meeting all
the requirements set forth in this subchapter.
(i)
All applicants for certification as a site evaluator or
designated representative shall be required to pass an examination covering
the field of OSSF installation, construction, repair, operation, disposal,
planning, maintenance, soil analysis, site evaluation, and program administration.
(j)
Designated representative qualifications. Each individual
appointed, employed, or compensated by a permitting authority having duties
and responsibilities for the regulation and inspection of OSSFs shall be
required to take and complete designated representative training and pass
an examination for designated representatives. A designated representative
is not required to hold a separate site evaluator certificate provided the
individual only performs duties and responsibilities required by the permitting
authority. If the individual leaves the employment of the permitting authority,
or works as a site evaluator in another area of jurisdiction, a site evaluator
certificate must be obtained in order for the individual to conduct preconstruction
site evaluations.
(k)
Site evaluator qualifications:
(1)
must have two years of verifiable experience in the OSSF
field and possess an Installer II certificate, designated representative
certificate, registered sanitarian certificate, or professional engineer
registration;
(2)
must successfully complete the site evaluator training
course; and
(3)
must pass the Site Evaluator examination.
(4)
A site evaluator is qualified to conduct preconstruction
site evaluation which includes performing soil analysis, a site survey, and
other criteria necessary to determine the suitability of a site for a specific
OSSF.
§285.55.Examinations.
(a)
An applicant shall take an examination for an Installer
(I or II), Designated Representative, or Site Evaluator certificate after
presenting qualifications acceptable to the executive director. The passing
score for an examination shall be 70 percent. The examinee shall be informed,
in writing only, as to the results of the examination.
(b)
Any applicant who fails an examination may repeat the examination
after waiting 60 days and paying the reexamination fee in accordance with
§285.57 of this title (relating to Fees). The examination may be repeated
not more than three times in a given 12-month period.
(c)
Following the failure of the examination, the initial application
shall be held by the executive director for not more than 12 months from
the initial date of the examination. If after the 12-month period, the applicant
has not passed the examination, the application will be deemed invalid and
he or she must submit a new application with the appropriate fee and repeat
the appropriate training course before taking the examination again.
(d)
Examinations shall be given at places and times approved
by the executive director. Examinations shall be graded and the results shall
be forwarded to the applicant no later than 45 days after the examination
date.
§285.56.Certificates/Renewal Applications.
(a)
Issuance of certificate.
(1)
Upon satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements provided
in this subchapter, the appropriate installer, designated representative,
or site evaluator certificate shall be issued by the executive director.
(2)
The installer, designated representative, or site
evaluator shall inform the executive director in writing of any change in
address and phone number during the validity period of the certificate. All
certificates expire on August 31 of each year.
(3)
The authorized agent shall notify the executive director
in writing of any change in job status of its designated representative.
(4)
An installer, designated representative, or site evaluator
certification will be issued to individuals only and will not be transferable.
(5)
The issuance of a certificate shall not be construed
by any individual that the commission or the executive director is responsible
for the performance of the certificate holder.
(6)
When an Installer I passes the Installer II examination,
the lower level certificate becomes invalid and the individual is issued
an Installer II certificate.
(b)
Renewal application procedure.
(1)
At least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the certificate,
the executive director or designee shall mail to the installer, designated
representative, or site evaluator a renewal application showing the expiration
date and fee to be paid.
(2)
The executive director or designee shall mail the
renewal application to the installer, designated representative, or site
evaluator at the most recent address provided to the executive director.
(3)
It is the responsibility of the installer, designated
representative, or site evaluator to make sure the renewal application and
the renewal fee along with proof of the continuing educational course requirements
are returned to the executive director or designee by the August 31 deadline.
(4)
Upon the applicant's satisfactory fulfillment of the
requirements for renewal provided in this section, an appropriate certificate
renewal will be issued by the executive director.
(5)
If an installer, designated representative, or site
evaluator needs a duplicate certificate, the executive director shall upon
request issue another certificate to the individual for a duplicate certificate
fee in accordance with §285.57 of this title (relating to Fees).
(6)
Applications for renewal shall be made according to
this subchapter and on forms which may be obtained from the executive director.
(c)
Denial of Certificate and Registration. The executive director
or designee may deny a certificate or a registration for the following grounds:
(1)
when an applicant fails to submit the required documentation
as required by §285.50 of this title (relating to General Requirements
for Registration and Certification);
(2)
when an applicant fails to pay the appropriate fee
as required under §285.57 of this title (relating to Fees);
(3)
when an applicant submits an application with fraudulent
or deceptive information; or
(4)
for other cause(s) which in the opinion of the executive
director constitute adequate ground(s) for denial.
§285.57.Fees.
(a)
The fees applicable to the registration and certification
program administered by the executive director shall be as follows:
(1)
Application fee-$75
(2)
Installer Renewal Fee-$75
(3)
Site Evaluator Renewal Fee-$75, a registered professional
engineer or registered sanitarian in good standing in Texas is exempt from
the application/examination and renewal fees.
(4)
Designated Representative Renewal Fee-$50
(5)
Combination Installer II and Site Evaluator Renewal
Fee-$125
(6)
Late Fee-Any individual failing to make payment of
fees when due will be assessed late payment penalties and interest at the
maximum rates established for delinquent taxes under Texas Tax Code, §111.060(a)
and (b) and §111.061.
(7)
Apprentice Registration/Renewal Fee-$25
(8)
Duplicate Certificate Fee-$20
(9)
Renewal/Late Fees
(A)
If an installer's, designated representative's, or site
evaluator's certification has not been renewed by August 31, the individual
may renew the certification by submitting to the executive director the renewal
fee in addition to a late fee and providing proof of the continuing educational
course requirements. If an installer has not renewed his or her certificate
in accordance with this section, the executive director shall terminate the
registration of all apprentices registered under that installer's supervision.
(B)
If an installer, designated representative or site evaluator
renews after August 31, and their certification has been expired less than
two years, the installer, designated representative, or site evaluator must
pay all delinquent renewal and late fees and provide proof of the continuing
educational course requirements to the executive director to obtain a current
OSSF installer, designated representative, or site evaluator certification.
(C)
If an installer's, designated representative's, or site-evaluator's
certification has been expired for two years or more, the person may not
renew the certification. The individual may obtain a new certification by
taking the executive director-approved training course, submitting to reexamination,
and complying with all other requirements and procedures for obtaining an
original certification.
(b)
An applicant shall pay all required fees before receiving
a certificate. All fees shall be paid by personal check, cashier's check,
or by money order. Cash cannot be accepted for payment of fees. If the applicant
does not submit the appropriate payment with the new or renewal application,
the certificate shall not be issued. The application fee for registration
or certification shall not be prorated.
(c)
All fees shall be made payable to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, and are not refundable.
§285.59.Training.
All training credits and instructors shall be approved by the executive
director.
(1)
Training credit shall be based upon recorded attendance.
The applicant is expected to attend at least 95% of the course hours. If
the applicant attends less than the minimum 95% of the course hours, then
he or she will not receive credit for having completed the course.
(2)
The basic training required for the Installer I certificate
shall cover specific knowledge regarding the basic treatment and disposal
of wastewater. The training will offer instruction to applicants on rules,
regulations, permitting, an introduction to using soils for wastewater treatment,
wastewater characteristics and operation, installation, and construction
of basic or conventional OSSFs utilizing standard subsurface treatment and
disposal methods. The applicant shall also be familiar with distribution
mechanisms and shall have the ability to make calculations, determine slope,
and be familiar with the use of a leveling device.
(3)
The advanced training required for the Installer II
certificate shall cover specific knowledge regarding the subsurface treatment
and disposal of wastewater. The training will offer instruction to applicants
on installation, construction, and maintenance of alternative, standard,
non-standard or proprietary OSSFs using non-standard treatment and disposal
methods, ground-water protection practices, basic soil analysis, and site
evaluation. The applicant shall also be familiar with distribution mechanisms
and shall have the ability to make calculations and measure water flow rates.
(4)
The training required for the designated representative's
or site evaluator's certificate shall cover specific knowledge regarding
the subsurface treatment and disposal of wastewater, concepts and theory
of OSSF systems, operations, installation, construction, and maintenance
of all types of OSSFs, soil analysis and site evaluation, ground-water, regulatory
operations, health laws, and the judicial system as it relates to OSSF enforcement.
The applicant shall also be familiar with wastewater characteristics, distribution
mechanisms, shall have the ability to make calculations, measure water flow
rates, be able to operate different surveying equipment, and be acquainted
with the proper inspection procedures, as well as having the ability to keep
records.
(5)
An individual holding an installer, designated representative,
and/or site evaluator certificate must successfully complete a minimum of
eight hours of continuing education training approved by the executive director
prior to August 31 of each year in order to renew their certificate.
§285.60.Apprentice Program.
(a)
An individual who wishes to undertake a training program
under the supervision of an installer holding a valid certificate under this
chapter shall register with the executive director and provide proof that
the supervising installer has agreed to accept the responsibility for the
apprentice.
(b)
A registration form and annual fee must be submitted by
an installer for each individual desiring to register as an apprentice under
his or her supervision. Registration shall be on forms which may be obtained
from the executive director and shall include:
(1)
the name, business address, and permanent mailing address
of the apprentice;
(2)
the name and business address of the installer who
will supervise the apprentice;
(3)
a detailed description of the apprentice program as
set by the supervising installer;
(4)
the effective commencement and termination dates of
the apprentice training program (no apprentice program may be shorter in
duration than one year);
(5)
a statement by the supervising installer that he or
she accepts financial responsibility for the activities of the apprentice
undertaken on behalf of the installer; and
(6)
the signatures of the apprentice and the supervising
installer and a notarized statement from each that the information provided
is true and correct.
(c)
Commencement of the apprentice registration will take place
upon receipt of the completed apprentice application and fee by the executive
director. The executive director shall notify the apprentice and the supervising
installer that the apprentice has been accepted as a registered apprentice
and that the registration form shall remain in the agency's files for the
stated duration of the apprentice period.
(d)
The registration of an apprentice shall remain on file
only for the stated duration of the period specified in the application.
Upon completion of the apprentice training period, an apprentice may decide
to apply to the executive director to obtain certification as an installer.
Either the supervising installer or the apprentice may terminate the apprentice
training program by written notice to the executive director. No reason for
termination is required, and upon receipt of a letter stating that the apprentice
training program has been terminated, the executive director shall terminate
the apprentice's registration status.
(e)
An apprentice shall:
(1)
represent his supervising installer during operations at
the site; and
(2)
perform services associated with OSSF installation
or repairs under direct supervision of an installer by directions on-site
or by radio or other direct communication at all times.
(f)
It is unlawful for an apprentice to act as or to offer
to perform services as an installer on their own behalf. An apprentice may
not perform any services associated with OSSF installation except under the
supervision of an installer holding a valid certificate and/or according
to the supervising installer's expressed directions. An apprentice's registration
may be revoked if the apprentice is found to have engaged in prohibited activities.
§285.61.Revocation, Suspension, or Reinstatement of Certificate and Registration.
(a)
If the executive director determines good cause exists
to suspend or revoke a certificate of a site evaluator or designated representative,
or a registration of an installer or apprentice, the executive director shall
request that the commission schedule a hearing before the State Office of
Administrative Hearings or the commission. Such hearing shall be held only
after proper notice has been provided to the certificate holder or registrant.
The commission may suspend or revoke the certificate or the registration
if the commission finds that the certificate holder or registrant was responsible
for violating the provisions of this chapter, for falsifying any information
or documents submitted to the executive director, or for other good cause.
(b)
A certificate or registration may be suspended for a period
of up to one year, depending upon the seriousness of the offense(s). A certificate
or registration is revoked automatically upon a second suspension. At the
request of the certificate holder or registrant, or for other good cause
shown, the certificate or registration may be suspended indefinitely by the
commission.
(c)
A certificate or registration may be permanently revoked
by the commission, or may be revoked for a term designated by the commission.
If the certificate or registration is revoked for a term designated by the
commission, then the certificate holder or registrant may apply for a new
certificate or registration, in accordance with §285.53 of this title
(relating to Applications), upon the expiration of the term of revocation.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700585
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§285.51-285.63
The repeals are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700593
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.70
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700584
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.80
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040 and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012 which
provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.80.Treatment and Disposal of Greywater.
New construction or modification to an existing greywater conveyance,
treatment, storage or disposal system outside of a structure or building
must be carried out in accordance with provisions of this chapter and any
established requirements of the permitting authority. Any new construction
or modification to an existing greywater reuse or reuse conveyance system
associated with a structure or building must be carried out in accordance
with requirements of the State Board of Plumbing Examiners.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700596
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §285.90, §285.91
The new sections are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
§285.90.Figures.
The following figures are necessary for the proper location, planning,
construction, and installation of an OSSF.
(1)
Figure 1. Maximum Application Rates for Surface Irrigation
of Treated Effluent in Texas.
Figure 1: 285.90 (1)
(2)
Figure 2. Affidavit to the Public.
Figure 2: 285.90 (2)
(3)
Figure 3. Sample Testing and Reporting Record.
Figure 3: 285.90 (3)
(4)
Figure 4. Typical Drainfields-Sectional View.
Figure 4: 285.90 (4)
(5)
Figure 5. Typical Drainfields-Plan View.
Figure 5: 285.90 (5)
(6)
Figure 6. Two Compartment Septic Tank.
Figure 6: 285.90 (6)
(7)
Figure 7. Two Septic Tanks in Series.
Figure 7: 285.90 (7)
(8)
Figure 8. Intermittent Sand Filters.
Figure 8: 285.90 (8)
(9)
Figure 9. Intermittent Sand Filter Underdrain and
Pumpwell.
Figure 9: 285.90(9)
§285.91.Tables.
The following tables are necessary for the proper location, planning,
construction, and installation of an OSSF.
(1)
Table I. Effluent Loading Requirements Based on Soil Classification.
Figure 1:285.91 (1)
(2)
Table II. Septic Tank Minimum Liquid Capacity.
Figure 2: 285.91 (2)
(3)
Table III. Wastewater Usage Rate.
Figure 3: 285.91 (3)
(4)
Table IV. Required Testing and Reporting.
Figure 4: 285.91 (4)
(5)
Table V. Criteria for Standard Subsurface Disposal
Methods.
Figure 5: 285.91
(6)
Table VI. USDA Soil Textural Classifications.
Figure 6: 285.91 (6)
(7)
Table VII. Yearly Average Net Evaporation (Evaporation-Rainfall).
Figure 7:285.91 (7)
(8)
Table VIII. OSSF Excavation Length (3 Feet in Width
or Less).
Figure 8:285.91 (8)
(9)
Table IX. OSSF System Designation.
Figure 9: 285.91 (9)
(10)
Table X. Minimum Required Separation Distances for
On-Site Sewage Facilities.
Figure 10: 285.91 (10)
(11)
Table XI. Intermittent Sand Filter Media Specifications
(ASTM C-33).
Figure 11: 285.91 (11)
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700595
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
30 TAC §§285.101-285.109
The repeals are adopted under Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, 5.120 and 26.040, and Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.012,
which provides the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission)
with the authority to promulgate rules as necessary to carry out its powers
and duties under the codes and under the laws of the state and to establish
and approve all general policies of the commission.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 8, 1997.
TRD-9700592
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 5, 1997
Proposal publication date: July 16, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-4640
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) adopts
amendments to §§305.29, 305.30, 305.62, 305.125, 305.127, 305.151,
305.152, and 305.154, and new §305.72, concerning Consolidated Permits.
Section 305.127 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published
in the October 11, 1996, issue of the
Texas Register
(21 TexReg 9757); and §§305.29, 305.30, 305.62, 305.125,
305.151, 305.152, and 305.154, and new §305.72 are adopted without changes
and will not be republished.
Section §305.127(3)(E)(iii)(III)(-d-) is adopted with an amendment
to correct the spelling of the word "cessation."
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED RULE. The purposes of the adopted changes are to
maintain consistency with federal regulations applicable to the state Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program, to maintain state primacy for the UIC Program,
to clarify existing rules and make editorial changes, and to provide more
flexibility in modifying permits.
HEARINGS AND COMMENTERS. No hearings were held, and no comments were received.
TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT. The commission has prepared a Takings Impact
Assessment for these rules pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated, §2007.043.
The following is a summary of that assessment. The specific purpose of the
rules is to incorporate federal language into current state regulations so
that the UIC Program can maintain compliance with the federal program. The
rules will substantially advance this specific purpose by allowing the commission
to maintain primacy, and thus state control, for the UIC Program. Promulgation
and enforcement of these rule amendments will not create a burden on private
real property.
These rule amendments are administrative in nature and do not impose any
additional or substantial burden on private real property. UIC facilities
are already subject to this federal requirement, this amendment merely incorporates
the federal requirement into the state UIC Program. Also, because this rulemaking
is reasonably taken to fulfill an obligation mandated by Federal Law, this
rule amendment is excepted from the Private Real Property Preservation Act
pursuant to §2007.3(b)(4) of Texas Government Code (the "Act").
Subchapter B. Emergency Orders, Temporary Orders, and Executive Director Authorizations
30 TAC §305.29, §305.30
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendments are adopted under the
Texas Water Code, §§5.103 and 5.105, and 27.019, which authorizes
the commission to promulgate rules necessary to carry out the powers and
duties under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of the
state, and under Texas Health and Safety Code, §361.017 and §361.024
(Vernon 1992), which further authorizes the commission to promulgate rules
necessary to manage industrial solid waste and municipal solid and hazardous
wastes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 21, 1997.
TRD-9700929
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 11, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 11, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
30 TAC §305.62, §305.72
The amendment and new rule are adopted under the Texas Water
Code, §§5.103, 5.105, and 27.019, which authorizes the commission
to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties under the provisions
of the Texas Water Code and other laws of the state, and under Texas Health
and Safety Code, §361.017 and §361.024, which further authorizes
the commission to adopt rules necessary to manage industrial solid waste
and municipal solid and hazardous wastes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 21, 1997.
TRD-9700930
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 11, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 11, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
30 TAC §305.125, §305.127
The amendments are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, and 27.019, which authorizes the commission to promulgate rules necessary
to carry out the powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water
Code and other laws of the state, and under Texas Health and Safety Code,
§361.017 and §361.024 (Vernon 1992), which further authorizes the
commission to promulgate rules necessary to manage industrial solid waste
and municipal solid and hazardous wastes.
§305.127.Conditions to be Determined for Individual Permits.
Conditions to be determined on a case-by-case basis according to the
criteria set forth herein, and when applicable, incorporated into the permit
expressly or by reference, are:
(1)
Duration.
(A)
Injection well permits.
(i)
Permits for Class I and Class V wells shall be for a fixed
term not to exceed ten years.
(ii)
Permits for Class III wells or projects may be for the
life of the well or project, and shall be reviewed at least once every five
years.
(B)
Solid waste permits.
(i)
Hazardous waste permits shall be for a fixed term not to
exceed ten years.
(ii)
Other solid waste permits may be for the life of the project.
(iii)
(No change.)
(C)
Waste discharge permits.
(i)
Texas pollutant discharge elimination system (TPDES) permits,
including sludge permits, shall be for a term not to exceed five years.
(ii)
All other permits shall be as follows:
(I)
Permits which authorize a direct discharge of wastewater
into a surface drainageway shall be for a term not to exceed five years.
(II)
Confined animal feeding operation permits may be for the
life of the project.
(III)
Other wastewater permits, including permits which regulate
land disposal systems, shall be for a term not to exceed ten years.
(D)
Drilled or mined shaft permits. Drilled or mined shaft
permits which authorize operation of a drilled or mined shaft shall be for
a term not to exceed ten years.
(E)
(No change.)
(F)
Duration of permit. The executive director may recommend
that a permit be issued and the commission may issue any permit, for a duration
less than the full allowable term under this section.
(2)
(No change.)
(3)
Schedule of compliance.
(A)
A schedule of compliance prescribing a timetable for achieving
compliance with the permit conditions, the appropriate law, and regulations
may be incorporated into a permit. The schedule shall require compliance
as soon as possible and may set interim dates of compliance. For injection
wells, compliance shall be required not later than three years after the
effective date of the permit. For TPDES permits the schedule of compliance
shall require compliance not later than authorized by Chapter 307 of this
title (relating to Texas Surface Water Quality Standards)
(B) - (C)
(No change.)
(D)
For TPDES permits the following additional conditions
apply:
(i)-(iii)
(No change.)
(E)
For UIC permits, the time for compliance shall require
compliance as soon as possible, and in no case later than three years after
the effective date of the permit. Except as provided in clause (iii)(I)(-b-)
of this subparagraph, if a permit establishes a schedule of compliance which
exceeds one year from the date of permit issuance, the schedule shall set
forth interim requirements and the dates for their achievement.
(i)
The time between interim dates shall not exceed one year.
(ii)
If the time necessary for completion of any interim requirement
is more than one year and is not readily divisible into stages for completion,
the permit shall specify interim dates for the submission of reports of progress
toward completion of the interim requirements and indicate a projected completion
date.
(iii)
A permit applicant or permittee may cease conducting
regulated activities (by plugging and abandonment) rather than continue to
operate and meet permit requirements as follows:
(I)
If the permittee decides to cease conducting regulated
activities at a given time within the term of a permit which has already
been issued:
(-a-)
The permit may be modified to contain a new or additional
schedule leading to timely cessation of activities; or
(-b-)
The permittee shall cease conducting permitted activities
before noncompliance with any interim or final compliance schedule requirement
already specified in the permit.
(II)
If the decision to cease conducting regulated activities
is made before issuance of a permit whose term will include the ceasation
date, the permit shall contain a schedule leading to ceasation of activities
which will ensure timely compliance with applicable requirements.
(III)
If the permittee is undecided whether to cease conducting
regulated activities, the executive director may issue or modify a permit
to contain two schedules as follows:
(-a-)
Both schedules shall contain an identical interim deadline
requiring a final decision on whether to cease conducting regulated activities
no later than a date which ensures sufficient time to comply with applicable
requirements in a timely manner if the decision is to continue conducting
regulated activities;
(-b-)
One schedule shall lead to timely compliance with
applicable requirements;
(-c-)
The second schedule shall lead to cessation of regulated
activities by a date which will ensure timely compliance with applicable
requirements;
(-d-)
Each permit containing two schedules shall include
a requirement that after the permittee has made a final decision under item
(-a-) of this subclause, it shall follow the schedule leading to compliance
if the decision is to continue conducting regulated activities, and follow
the schedule leading to cessation if the decision is to cease conducting
regulated activities.
(IV)
The applicant's or permittee's decision to cease conducting
regulated activities shall be evidenced by a firm public commitment satisfactory
to the executive director, such as a resolution of the board of directors
of a corporation.
(4) - (6)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 21, 1997.
TRD-9700931
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 11, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 11, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
30 TAC §§305.151, 305.152, 305.154
The amendments are adopted under the Texas Water Code, §§5.103,
5.105, and 27.019, which authorizes the commission to promulgate rules necessary
to carry out the powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water
Code and other laws of the state, and under Texas Health and Safety Code,
§361.017 and §361.024, which further authorizes the commission
to promulgate rules necessary to manage industrial solid waste and municipal
solid and hazardous wastes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on January 21, 1997.
TRD-9700932
Kevin McCalla
Director, Legal Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Effective date: February 11, 1997
Proposal publication date: October 11, 1996
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
Subchapter A. Use of Reclaimed Water
Subchapter B. General Requirements for the Production, Conveyance, and Use of Reclaimed Water
Subchapter C. Quality Criteria and Specific Uses for Reclaimed Water
Subchapter D. Alternative and Pre-Existing Reclaimed Water Systems
Chapter 281.
Applications Processing
Chapter 285.
On-Site Sewage Facilities
Subchapter B. Local Administration of the OSSF Program
General Procedures and Information
Subchapter C. Commission Administration of the OSSF Program In Areas Where No Local Administration Exists
Subchapter D. Planning Construction and Installation Standards for OSSFs
Subchapter E. Special Requirements for OSSFs Located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone
Subchapter F. Registration, Certification and/or Training Requirements for Installers, Apprentices, Site Evaluators or Designated Representatives
Design Criteria For Sewerage Systems
Subchapter G. OSSF Enforcement
Subchapter H. Treatment and Disposal of Greywater
Subchapter I. Appendices
Administrative Requirements for On-Site Sewerage
Chapter 305.
Consolidated Permits
Subchapter D. Amendments, Modifications, Renewals, Transfers, Corrections, Revocation, and Suspension of Permits
Subchapter F. Permit Characteristics and Conditions
Subchapter H. Additional Conditions for Injection Well Permits
Chapter 310.
Use of Reclaimed Water