et seq
., and therefore must be consistent with all
applicable CMP goals and policies. The commission prepared a preliminary consistency
determination for the adopted rules in accordance with Coastal Coordination
Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.22, and found that the adopted
rulemaking is consistent with the applicable CMP goals and policies.
The generally applicable goals of the CMP are: to protect, preserve, restore,
and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and values of coastal
natural resource areas; to ensure sound management of all coastal resources
by allowing for compatible economic development and multiple human uses of
the coastal zone; to ensure and enhance planned public access to and enjoyment
of the coastal zone in a manner that is compatible with private property rights
and other uses of the coastal zone; and to balance these competing interests.
This rulemaking, applicable to all areas of the state, will comply with these
goals of the CMP.
The applicable CMP policy states that rules governing OSSFs require those
systems to be located, designed, operated, inspected, and maintained so as
to prevent a release of pollutants that may adversely affect coastal waters.
Promulgation and enforcement of these adopted rules will not violate any standards
identified in the applicable CMP policy because the adopted rules only allow
owners of OSSFs to allow back flush from water treatment equipment to enter
their OSSF under certain specified conditions that are intended to be protective.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A public hearing was held in Austin, Texas on January 8, 2004. Two oral
comments were received at the public hearing, one from the Texas Water Quality
Association (TWQA) and one from an individual. Each person who spoke at the
hearing also submitted written comments.
The comment period ended January 12, 2004. Two additional written comments
were received during the comment period. Culligan of San Antonio, Texas (Culligan),
and an individual also submitted written comments.
One individual commented in opposition to the rulemaking. The TWQA, Culligan,
and an individual commented in support of the rulemaking.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Culligan commented in favor of the rules.
RESPONSE
The commission notes this comment in support of the rulemaking.
TWQA commented that with the adopted rules rural and suburban homeowners
will be able to use water softeners to combat hard water. Both TWQA and an
individual commented that hard water is a nuisance to homeowners and that
softening water extends the life of plumbing fixtures and prevents problems
with water heaters and thereby saves consumers money. TWQA commented that
hard water requires homeowners to use excess clothes washing detergent which
introduces phosphates and total dissolved solids to the environment and that
softening water prevents this problem.
RESPONSE
There are advantages to using a water softener; the rules will now provide
a disposal option for the back flush or discharge created by water softeners.
Specifically, §285.37(b) allows homeowners to discharge back flush or
discharge from water treatment equipment, including water softeners, into
an OSSF provided certain conditions are met. No change has been made in response
to these comments.
An individual commented that it is important to protect both septic systems
and the consumer's right to choose how they treat their water.
RESPONSE
The adopted rules address each type of water treatment equipment and its
relationship to the septic system. The rules also provide a disposal option
for the back flush or discharge created by water treatment equipment and leaves
the system choice to the consumer. No change has been made in response to
the comment.
TWQA and an individual commented that the old rules outlawed water softener
use without an alternative and without a scientific basis to support the ban.
TWQA commented that water softeners do not introduce large flows of wastewater
to septic systems, nor do they discharge in rapid, surge type inflow like
other water-using appliances do. TWQA and an individual commented that DIR
systems introduce water less frequently into the septic system and use less
water than do the older time-clock models. TWQA also commented that DIR systems
use less salt than the older systems.
RESPONSE
Section 285.39(d) prohibited discharge of back flush into OSSFs and specified
no disposal option for back flush. The commission originally disallowed water
softener discharge into OSSFs because of concerns about additional hydraulic
loading not being considered in the sizing of the OSSF system.
The revised rulemaking requires all new systems except for DIR systems
to account for increased hydraulic load in order to address this issue. DIR
systems are expected to contribute smaller flows to OSSFs and therefore will
have a smaller impact on an OSSF system. The rule language implements a specific
statutory requirement in SB 1633. No change has been made in response to these
comments.
An individual commented that the commission "had it right the first time"
and that §285.39(d) should stay as it is currently written.
RESPONSE
The rule language implements a specific statutory requirement in SB 1633.
No change has been made in response to this comment.
An individual cited concerns about water softener back flush by stating
that calcium, magnesium, and sodium, which are neither organic nor biodegradable,
will be deposited into the drain field which will plug the drain field over
the life of the system. The commenter mentioned lined "E.T. beds" specifically,
saying that more sodium, calcium, and magnesium will limit the bed's life-span
and the proposed changes may be the "final blow" to this kind of system. The
individual also expressed concern over the oxygen demand that may result from
the additional inputs of water from water softeners and recommended that the
oxygen demand of the discharge be determined.
TWQA and an individual mentioned that studies have shown that discharging
water to septic systems is not harmful and in some cases it is helpful. Specifically,
TWQA mentioned studies done at the University of Wisconsin and the National
Sanitation Foundation in Michigan. TWQA and an individual also commented that
DIR systems introduce less salt and water and that the slow water introduction
means that there is minimal effect to the total loading factors of the system.
RESPONSE
No change has been made to the adopted rule because SB 1633 specifies that
water softener back flush and back flush from other water treatment equipment
may be discharged into an on-site sewage disposal system, provided certain
conditions specified in the statute are met.
An individual commented that increased sodium in his drinking water from
a water softener unit caused him to have high blood pressure. He also stated
that people are getting water treatment systems that they do not need or that
are improperly sized.
RESPONSE
This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. No change has been
made in response to the comment.
An individual stated that there is a lack of knowledge about what the back
flush from water treatment equipment contains. He also stated that the numerous
contaminants that reverse osmosis systems remove from water, like methyl-tertiery-butyl
ether, petroleum by-products, heavy metals, nitrates, pesticides, herbicides,
complex compounds, minerals, organic matter, coliform bacteria, viruses, and
metals, should not be sprayed into the air, put on the ground, or put into
a septic system without adequate treatment. He suggests that the discharge
would plug a septic system drain field and should be put on the grass, if
it is good enough to put on the grass.
RESPONSE
The volume of contaminants found in the water source will not be increased
by water treatment equipment, including reverse osmosis systems. Therefore,
the volume of contaminants going into the OSSF will be the same with or without
the use of water treatment equipment. Further, the rule language implements
a specific statutory requirement for disposal in SB 1633. No change has been
made in response to the comments.
An individual cited a lack of addressing cross connections and back flow
prevention as one of the reasons he opposes the rulemaking.
RESPONSE
Adopted §285.37(c) requires an air gap device to prevent a cross connection.
No change has been made in response to the comment.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The new and amended sections are adopted under the authority granted to
the commission by the Texas Legislature in Texas Health and Safety Code, §366.001
and §366.011. Specific statutory authorization derives from Texas Health
and Safety Code, §366.013 as added by SB 1633, 78th Legislature, 2003.
The new and amended section are also adopted under the general authority granted
in Texas Water Code, §5.013, which establishes the general jurisdiction
of the commission over other areas of responsibility as assigned to the commission
under the Texas Water Code and other laws of the state; and Texas Water Code, §5.103
and §5.105, which authorize the commission to adopt rules and policies
necessary to carry out its responsibilities and duties under Texas Water Code, §5.013(14)(b).
§285.37.On-Site Sewage Facilities and Water Treatment Equipment and Appliances.
(a)
Water treatment equipment is defined as an appliance, which
includes water softeners and reverse osmosis systems, used to:
(1)
alter the mineral content of water;
(2)
alter the microbiological content of water;
(3)
alter other substances found in water; or
(4)
purify water.
(b)
Back flush or discharge from water treatment equipment
installed on or after September 1, 2003, may be discharged into an on-site
sewage facility (OSSF) as provided in this subsection.
(1)
Water softener.
(A)
The water softener must regenerate using a demand-initiated
regeneration (DIR) control device. The water softener must be clearly labeled
as being equipped with a DIR control device as follows:
(i)
the label shall be affixed to the outside of the water
softener so the label can be easily inspected and read; and
(ii)
the label shall provide the name of the company that installed
the water softener.
(B)
A water softener may be connected to an OSSF with a non-standard
or proprietary treatment system only as described in §285.32(c) and (d)
of this title (relating to Criteria for Sewage Treatment Systems) if the water
softener drain line:
(i)
bypasses the treatment system; and
(ii)
connects directly to a pump tank if the OSSF has a pump
tank or directly to the pipe between the treatment system and the disposal
system if no pump tank exists.
(C)
An owner may continue to use a water softener that discharges
to an OSSF and does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph if the water softener was installed before September 1, 2003. An
owner must replace any water softener installed before September 1, 2003,
with a water softener that meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of this paragraph at such time as:
(i)
an owner replaces the existing water softener; or
(ii)
an owner or installer installs, alters, constructs, or
repairs an OSSF for the structure or property served by the existing water
softener.
(2)
Reverse osmosis system.
(A)
Point-of-use (under sink unit) reverse osmosis systems.
The back flush from a point-of-use reverse osmosis system may be discharged
into an OSSF without including calculations of the back flush water volume
in the OSSF planning materials.
(B)
Point-of-entry (whole house unit) reverse osmosis systems.
The back flush from a point-of-entry reverse osmosis system may be discharged
into an OSSF if:
(i)
the owner can demonstrate that the point-of-entry reverse
osmosis system does not cause hydraulic overloading of the OSSF; or
(ii)
the water volume from the point-of-entry reverse osmosis
system is accounted for (added to the usage rate in §285.91(3) of this
title (relating to Tables)) by providing calculations of the increase in wastewater
volume with the OSSF planning materials.
(3)
Water treatment equipment other than water softeners and
reverse osmosis systems. If an owner uses water treatment equipment other
than water softeners or reverse osmosis systems, the back flush from the water
treatment equipment may be discharged into an OSSF if the water volume is
added to the OSSF usage rate in §285.91(3) of this title. This water
volume calculation must be provided with the OSSF planning materials.
(c)
Discharges from all water treatment equipment shall enter
the OSSF system through an airgap or an airgap device as required in the Uniform
Plumbing Code (2000).
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.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on April 8, 2004.
TRD-200402396
Stephanie Bergeron
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Effective date: April 28, 2004
Proposal publication date: December 5, 2003
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087