TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

ADVISORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AUTHORITY: SECTION 381.0068. FLORIDA STArUTES

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP) MEETING

DATE: TIME: PLACE:

Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:00AM, Orlando Airport Marriott 7499 Augusta National Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 407-851-9000

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,

AGENDA

1 Introductions 2 Election of Chair and Vice Chair 3 Review minutes of last meeting 3, Passive Nitrogen Study Update 4, Senate Bill 550

10,-05 Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update standards 10-12 SB 550: Five-year System Evaluation

5, Old Business 07-23 Performance-Based Systems-Standards 08-09 Innovative Systems-Test Data Required 09-10 septage logs 09,-13 septage storage tanks 09-14 Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles 09-15 Duplexes on one lot 09-16 Triple-Wide mobile home spaces; cleanup MHP sizing 09-17 Site Plans 09-18 PBTS plans 09-19 Commercial Sewage Waste Definition 09-20 Incinerating Toilets 09-21 Inspection by engineers 10-01 Lower Flow rates for Large houses

6 New Business 10-,02 Soil Replacement for Drip Systems 10-06 Existing Systems 10-09 LTAR Adjustments 10-10 Site Plans, Mounds 10-11 PBTS design standards Other items of interest

7 Public Comment

Scott Johnson, P.E lony Macaluso Derek Woodruff PROFES,SlONAl ENGINEERS REAl ESTATE INDUSTRY

Russell Melling Frank Dragoun, P E COUNn HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONSUMER

Paul Steinbrecher Robert F Harper III, Chair LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOME BUIlDING INDUS'TRY

Greg Liskey SEPIIC TANK INDUSTRY SEPI1C TANK MANUFACT'URER

Scott Franz Patti Sanzone SOlI SOENTJ.'OT ENVIRONMENTAl HEALTH

Ken Odom, Vice Chair Dale Holcomb / Shirley Kugler HOJJE BUILDING' INDUSTRY DOH STAFF SUPPORT

1

MINUTES OF MEETING TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP)

July 15, 2010

Members present were: Robert Harper III, Florida Home Building Industry, Chairman Frank Dragoun, Consumer Representative Scott Franz, Soil Scientist Scott Johnson, P.E., Florida Engineering Society Greg Liskey, Septic Tank Manufacturer Russell Melling, County Health Department Ken Odom, Home Building Industry Patti Sanzone, Florida Environmental Health Association Derek Woodruff, Septic Tank Industry Alternate members present: Chris Brown, Septic Tank Industry Ed Cordova, Local Government Martin Guffey, Septic Tank Industry Roy Pence, Home Building Industry Oren Reedy, Soil Scientist William Sirmans, County Health Department Clay Tappan, Florida Engineering Society Pamela Tucker, Real Estate Professional Ellen Vause, Septic Tank Manufacturer Department of Health staff present: Gerald Briggs, Chief, Onsite Sewage Programs Marcelo Blanco, Environmental Health Program Consultant Paul Booher, P.E., Professional Engineer III Kim Duffek, Environmental Health Program Consultant Bart, Harriss, Environmental Manager Shirley Kugler, Administrative Assistant Eberhard Roeder, Professional Engineer III Lucy Schneider, Attorney Absent members and Alternates: Raymond Collins, Florida Environmental Health Association Dikran Kalaydjian, Home Building Industry Paul Steinbrecher, Local Government Speakers: Sam Averett, Averett Septic Tank Co. Jason Churchill, Orenco Systems, Inc. Quentin (Bob) Beitel, Markham Woods Assn., Inc.

2

Gary S. Duren, Code Compliance, Inc. Highland Tank & Mfg. Co. Doug Everson, Homeowner/PTI, Inc. Keith Hetrick, Florida Home Builders Association Bob Himschoot, Crews Environmental Cory Mong, Economy Septic, Inc. Maria Pecoraro, for State Representative Bryan Nelsen Chairman Harper called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM. Following welcoming remarks and introductions Mr. Harper observed that almost all of the panel members were present with only three absentees. He expressed gratitude to the panel for their past and present attendance and dedication to the TRAP. Mr. Harper called David Carter forward to receive recognition for his years of service with the Research Review and Advisory Committee (RRAC) noting also his valuable in tandem service to the TRAP when needed. Mr. Briggs also commended Mr. Carter as he presented him with a plaque for his unwavering commitment to the RRAC through the 14 years of serving as the RRAC’s chairman during which he shepherded the committee through many difficult issues. Mr. Harper then announced his resignation as member and Chairman of the TRAP. Like Mr. Carter’s tenure with the RRAC, Mr. Harper shares a long, dedicated history with the TRAP. He was elected chairman during the first meeting of the Technical Review and Advisory Panel in August 1996, and was subsequently re-elected chairman thereafter. Mr. Harper said that leading the TRAP has been an exciting venture as he recalled past efforts and accomplishments. Mr. Briggs then stepped forward, on behalf of the Department and the Panel, to present Mr. Harper with a plaque for his commitment and loyalty to the TRAP. Mr. Briggs commented that the years of service were omitted on the plaque because of the general disbelief that Mr. Harper would actually go through with his intentions to resign. Mr. Briggs expressed appreciation to Mr. Harper for being an outstanding chairman, crediting his strong leadership as being instrumental in building strong consensus and achievements. Mr. Harper deferred election of a new chairman and vice-chairman to the end of the meeting. The minutes of the January meeting were opened for review and comment. During the page by page critique, Mr. Johnson asked for a correction to be made to page 5 under Issue 09-07 – Low Pressure Design. The sentence in question will be stricken from the minutes. Also on pages 4 and 5, regarding Issue 08-15 – Bedroom Definition, Mr. Briggs said that an email update was sent to the Chair of the Building Commission work group explaining the outcome of that issue. There were no further questions or corrections to the minutes. Mr. Odom, seconded by Mr. Johnson, motioned to approve the minutes with the one noted correction. The motion carried. Mr. Briggs talked about the Legislature’s provision of an additional two million dollars in funding to continue the passive nitrogen study. Dr. Roeder provided a brief update of the passive nitrogen study that encompasses four areas, technology development that is the passive nitrogen reduction study – phase II, another is field testing of these technologies at home sites, the third is the movement of nitrogen in soil in shallow ground water and the fourth is the modeling of these processes of nitrogen in soil and shallow ground water. He talked further about a site visit to a test facility provided by Hazen and Sawyer to view progress being made. This recent funding provides certainty of moving forward with those various tasks. Mr. Briggs led a lengthy discussion about SB 550 which directs the Department of Health to create and administer a statewide 5-year cycle septic tank evaluation program. Mr. Harper found the way that SB 550 was put together interesting. Mr. Briggs said our thoughts along with those

3

expressed by FOWA throughout the legislative process are that these evaluations while making the required determinations should be kept as low cost and the least invasive as possible. This evaluation process is fairly high level, looking at some very key things. We want to very narrowly define what those things are and what constitutes the pass or fail standard. Mr. Pence asked if the rule making for this new law is being addressed today. Mr. Briggs responded that this is the start of the rule making process. The first draft of the proposed language and the proposed form follow discussion of the SB 550 language in today’s agenda package. Mr. Harper noted that part of SB 550 speaks to the Florida Keys, Monroe County. Mr. Briggs said SB 550 addresses significant changes to the Keys that are also addressed in Issue 10-05. The Keys have been under a mandate to upgrade their sewers and their onsite systems by July 2010, this year. This legislation extends that deadline. He said great progress is being made in the Keys, particularly in the city of Marathon and the Key Largo areas in their sewering projects. The primary issue is funding. This bill extends time to meet requirements. Mr. Briggs noted, too, that there are changes in regard to the interim standard for onsite systems that was in place until July 2010. Homeowners in a sewered area were allowed to put in an aerobic treatment unit instead of a performance based nutrient reduction system, but that interim standard expired on July 1, 2010. The mandatory date for onsite systems in the Keys to be performance based, nitrogen reduction and phosphorous reduction systems is now December of 2015. He further commented on the amazing fact that there will probably be less than a thousand onsite systems in the Keys when the sewering projects are completed. Mr. Harper commented on areas of the language of SB 550. He noted on page 108 of 171 beginning on line 3123 that it appears that language was skipped from (2) through (4) picking up again with (5) Evaluation and Assessment. He surmised the skipped language was because there were no changes in that part of the law. Mr. Harper also asked about the expected prohibition of land application of septage by January 1, 2016 addressed beginning on line 3259 of page 113 of 171. Mr. Briggs said there are more and more restrictions on land application that holds true for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well. However, land application under DEP standards has not been prohibited. Review of SB 550 concluded and Mr. Briggs moved forward to Issue 10-12. Issue 10-12 – SB 550: Five Year System Evaluation Rule Sections: 64E-6.0NEW This issue presents the first draft of the proposed language that addresses the 5-year evaluation program. Mr. Briggs began with a page by page review of the language addressing comments and questions as the review progressed. Mr. Harper questioned the explanation for Possible Financial Impacts: on the cover page of the issue. He did not agree with the statement, ‘None for homeowners who have been maintaining their system.’ He proposed removing the word ‘none’ or using a different word such as ‘minimal’. The first part of the language speaks to the general provision of the statute in terms of assessing fundamental operational conditions to identify any failures. Mr. Harper noted that the language does not say ‘pump out’, it says ‘evaluate’. Mr. Briggs said that the statute talks about ‘pump out’, but the language says that evaluation can be done to determine if a pump out is needed. Mr. Harper wanted the language to be clear that it is an evaluation and not necessarily a mandatory pump out.

4

The second paragraph is about notification requirements to owners at least 60 days prior to the deadline for the system evaluation, required by statute, to have their system evaluated. Mr. Briggs noted that the statute also requires implementation of the program by January 2011. He said details of the implementation are still being worked on. It will take time for department and industry staff to be able to handle the full load of this. Mr. Briggs said the one fairly firm target number for the first year would be 104,000 systems. That number of systems would be added each year and by the fifth year there would be approximately 520,000 systems that would be the recurring number thereafter. At that point, the program would be up to full strength and fully manned to handle the ongoing evaluation program. Mr. Odom referred to lines 5 through 12 and asked about fines; in particular, the language that says ‘the department may impose a fine of up to $500 for failure to comply’. Mr. Briggs replied that there is the general administrative fine authority for the Department in Chapter 381 that is $500 per day per violation. The intention here is to be very up-front that there are penalties for not complying with the program. An initial notification would be sent, followed with a second notification. If there is no reply, then a letter of warning of non-compliance would follow. At that point, if that is ignored, we would need to move into the enforcement mode. Mr. Johnson asked if the notices will be issued through the county health departments noting the obvious expectation of fees and forms to be filled out by the appropriate inspection entity. He recognized that the counties vary in their range of fees. Mr. Briggs responded that he fee will be a state level fee, collected at the county level. Mr. Hetrick asked for clarification about line 11 that says ‘$500 fine for failure to comply with these provisions’. Mr. Briggs explained the sequence of potential fines. The verbiage on lines 13 through 16 speaks about implementation and the obvious need to build an inventory throughout the state. The thought is to begin notification using the systems that are currently in the Environmental Health data base that are at the 5 year point and work backward. Mr. Harper asked about the source of the funding. Mr. Briggs said funding will eventually come from the fees but at the moment, there is no additional budget or staffing provided to begin this year. Mr. Cordova referred to line 15, ‘Subsequent notification shall be to owners of developed property for which the Department has no record of central sewer connection’. He cited an example of problems in Northeast Florida of working through records in Duval County to find out homeowners who have electrical accounts but do not have sewer accounts. There are many people who legitimately do not have a sewer account such as a property being a parking lot that has lights but no sewer facilities. He wondered if the Department recognizes the complexity of accomplishing this task. Ms. Tucker commented about the record keeping process and how far back records are available. Mr. Briggs said the current data base goes back to 1992-93. Once entered, the data base becomes the main record. Paper records on many of the older systems may be non existent. Mr. Briggs said lines 17 through 20 addresses who are allowed to do the evaluations, i.e. registered septic tank contractors, professional engineers, and certified environmental health professionals. All those people authorized to do the evaluations must attend a course on the requirements involved in performing the evaluations. Ms. Vause asked if employees who install septic tanks and do pump outs working under the person licensed to do evaluations are also allowed to do evaluations. Mr. Briggs responded that they are not allowed to perform evaluations. Ms. Vause sees this as being a problem. Mr. Briggs agreed that this bears looking at and may require a statutory fix. Another issue was the determination of a surface water boundary. Mr. Harper said a potential flaw here is that persons identified to do evaluations are stated in the law referencing line 3176 of SB 550. He said that surface water is identified both in Chapter 381 and 64E. His opinion is that this should be clearly noted in the language drawing the example of confusion that might

5

occur about what is defined as a swale, surface water, etc. which are defined both in the rule and the law. The evaluator must be qualified to identify what those surface waters are. Mr. Harper said that two people may be needed in certain areas that include wetlands or surface water. He further said that some other areas on the form may need to have a definition or a reference to the law or to the rule because of potential confusion if not clearly defined. Mr. Briggs said to bear in mind that the evaluation form will be part of the rule. The terms stated on the form are in relation to statute language. Mr. Harper said that fact should be noted on the evaluation sheet so that people know they have an available reference. Mr. Pence commented further about the restrictive, specific statutory language of who can do the evaluations leading to more discussion involving Ms. Vause, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Franz, Mr. Reedy, Mr. Melling and Ms. Groover. Mr. Bob Himschoot, speaking from the audience, stated his interpretation of this legislation is basically meant to verify septic tank integrity noting that septic tanks can deform or deteriorate. He also talked about causes for drainfield failure. He said that we have to assume that the two and a half million existing systems have already gone through the permitting process and thinks too much time is being spent trying to ‘recreate the wheel’. Former TRAP member, Gerald Prescott, asked questions about non surface water. He sought to verify that this is not counted as a mean annual flood line but rather looking at the current observed measurement to observed water. Mr. Briggs responded that boundary is looked at which is the mean annual flood line and the mean high water line. Discussion continued about possible situations where an evaluation finding results in a system having to be moved because of a too close proximity to a body of water. Mr. Harper reiterated his thoughts of having to use more than one evaluator in such situations. Ms. Vause commented that she senses a general feeling of ‘we are going too far’. She agreed with Mr. Himschoot about assuming that these systems have met pre-determined permitting criteria. What is done with this inspection program is double checking or making a visual inspection of those things. She described her procedure when doing a pump out; the first step being to pull up a GS map, find the property ID number, map it, soil map it and look at the satellite map to see if there are any water features, etc. In doing those things, she has three fourths of the information asked for on the form. Her opinion of this legislation is to have a tool to look at a piece of property with issues to determine if the septic system needs to be upgraded. She does not think the evaluator is asked to make all those determinations, but rather to score the system from good to bad. She thinks that perhaps too much is being put in this inspection. Mr. Odom pointed out a statement close to the bottom of the form that says the system is not being evaluated to meet precise code compliance. Mr. Briggs said that Ms. Vause makes a very good point to keep in mind. He talked about a grant program that is part of this legislation that does not come into effect for another year. Information gathered from this form will also help to make a straight forward determination that will allow us to handle grant applications when we get to that program. In doing so those people who are eligible for grants have a better understanding of grant requirements. In addition to their income, two things looked at are severity of the failure and the relative environmental impact. Mr. Averett asked if a simple change of one word could be made on the form under ‘surface water’ to ‘surface water appears.’ Mr. Johnson said he strongly favors the overall rule. He thinks the design and verbiage on the form is a good start but needs some revision to simplify its use as pointed out in this discussion. Regarding forms, Mr. Himschoot referred to Issue 10-06 – Existing Systems, specifically speaking about a voluntary system inspection report that many contractors have used, with some adaptations, for a number of years. That form provides opportunity to inventory the existing systems in a systematic manner that points out highlights of problem areas. He suggested that the panel may want to reference that form.

6

Mr. Briggs continued on page 1, line 21 with review of the proposed language that talks about the submission of the report within 5 business days. He pointed out that electronic submission is allowed. The language beginning on lines 28 through 35 deals with pump out requirements that allows the evaluator to determine if a pump out is required. Mr. Jason Churchill affiliated with Orenco Systems commented about line 29 that says…’Tanks shall be pumped out if either layer is within 8 inches of the bottom of the outlet filter’…and spoke of a problem for some effluent filter designs. He suggested that the Department of Health may want to consider working with manufacturers to develop a better criterion based on inches from intake or on the percentage of solids in the tank. Discussion followed about the need for mandatory pump outs, at least during the first evaluation. Continuing the review, lines 36 through 40 the proposed language speaks about what to do about broken or missing septic tank lids. The language beginning on line 41 is about determining when a repair is required. The Department would make that determination based on the documentation submitted. The language beginning on 44 through 60 delineates when a repair permit shall be required. Mr. Odom referred to line 46 and asked Mr. Briggs to describe a visible failure. Mr. Briggs acknowledged more detailed language probably needs to be developed describing visible failure. Continuing review of the proposed language, Mr. Briggs said lines 61 through 68 speak to the separation from the wettest season water table. He reiterated that language is spelled out in the statute. Mr. Odom referred to line 64 about systems installed after 1983 and posed the question about a documentation showing that the health department permitted and approved a system, but now it does not meet the water table separation requirement. Who is responsible for paying for that system upgrade? The answer is the applicant. Mr. Odom spoke about the possible legal quagmire if the Department of Health made a mistake on the water table call. Will the Department of Health be responsible for bringing those systems up to code if they originally permitted and approved a system with less than a 24 inch water table separation? Mr. Briggs recognized the possibility of such a situation causing legal issues. Another question posed was if the repair code is changing for systems for separations after 1983. The repair code will be changed to bring it in line with the statute. Review of page 4 began with line 69 that states the owner shall submit an application for a construction permit within 60 days of the notice to obtain a permit. The language on line 71 through 81 addresses conditions for requesting exemptions or extensions. The next paragraph beginning on line 82 outlines disciplinary standards for the evaluators. The last part on page 5 addresses the septage disposal issue. Owners who do not comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to citations, administrative fines, and other legal remedies. Mr. Briggs reviewed specifics of the form. He reiterated that the thought is to use this form to acquire data to be able to score applications in preparation for the grant program. Soil profile

7

documentation was discussed, particularly in regard to the industry using existing records from the health department, where available, to document the soil profile of the water table. Mr. Melling asked about the many irrigation wells that are too close to a drainfield creating a source of contamination for the groundwater. Mr. Harper asked for opinions from contractors about the cost for an evaluation. Mr. Mong, Mr. Prescott, Ms. Vause, Mr. Woodruff, and Mr. Averett spoke their projections of the cost beginning as low as $250 and upward depending on the variables of the evaluation. Mr. Hetrick commented on implementing the program in January 2011. Mr. Hetrick said we all want an inspection program but cautioned that this is a very sensitive issue especially to Central Florida legislators and that we do not want to see the gains made falter because we went ‘out of the box’ and did something more stringent creating consumer complaints about costs, etc. Mr. Briggs acknowledged Mr. Hetrick’s warnings and said that he realizes the danger that the Legislature could come back and repeal. He said the program office thinks the water table separation is a critical issue. If we are not going to address those systems that are too close to the water table, then what are we doing? We are not fixing the problem…just continuing it. Ms. Sanzone asked where the variance process comes into play in this current situation. Mr. Briggs responded that any variance granted would be honored. A section in Chapter 381 provides for variances. Paul Runk from Representative Alan Hayes’ office asked for a more specific cost estimation for the evaluation process. He attended a meeting last year with Senator Constantine and the Markham Woods folks where the cost was represented as being in the $200 range for a pump out and inspection. If the cost is closer to $1,000, he said he could guarantee that the representatives from the Central Florida area will have serious concerns. Mr. Briggs responded that the goal is to keep this at the lowest cost level possible but that there are key issues in the statute that need to be addressed. We are very sensitive to the costs for the homeowners. Ms. Vause spoke of the responsibilities of this panel and that they will work diligently to provide the state with the information needed but to also give the consumer the quality that they deserve for a reasonable price. Mr. Runk requested that he be provided copies of the rule as it is being reworked. Mr. Bietel with the Markham Woods Association agreed with the comments from Mr. Hetrick and Mr. Runk. Issue 10-05 – Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.017, 018, 0181, 0182 SB 550 amended repair standards for the Florida Keys. Mr. Briggs explained that the Keys are under a 10-10-10 1 standard to reduce both nitrogen and phosphorous. All systems that are not going to be connected to sewer are required to be upgraded to that standard under the new law by December of 2015. Prior to this there was statutory language in a separate law that provided an interim standard for all systems in those areas that were scheduled to be sewered. That provision expired July 1, 2010. Monroe County is moving forward with the sewer projects. Mr. Briggs expects that Monroe County will end up with less than 1,000 onsite systems by the time the 2015 date is reached. He told the panel that the language seen in this issue is statutory language being brought into place as well as a roll back to the rule that was in place with the sand lined drainfield and brought those standards for repairs forward into the new rule. A workshop will be held in Monroe County on this proposed rule. Mr. Johnson noted minor corrections/additions that need to be made to this language. On line 86, the word ‘to’ should be added before ‘frequent’. Then on line 22 of page 4, he expressed uncertainty about the intent of ‘…minimum chlorine contact time of 15 minutes in the injection well…’. Mr. Briggs said it should read ‘…prior to the injection well…’. Mr. Johnson also thought that perhaps ‘at the peak hourly rate’ should be added to that verbiage. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Melling, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved.

8

Issue 07-23 – Performance-Based Systems-Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.025 Dr. Roeder explained that this issue proposes changes to replace current 7-day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal and summarizes the performance requirements into a table format. This issue was first introduced in August 2007 and subsequently tabled several times for revisions. Dr. Roeder said the issue co-mingles with a couple of other issues on today’s agenda. He explained that this revision reorganizes the standards of performance based systems and that some clarifying changes were made to the table. Changes to the table were specifically for the grab sample standards for the Florida Keys for nitrogen/phosphorous being four times the annual average. Mr. Johnson asked a question about the standards for reading the table about the hierarchy for removal of pollutants. Dr. Roeder referred to line 74 of the proposed language for the answer. Mr. Liskey motioned to approve the issue. Mr. Johnson called the second. Mr. Pence asked about the stricken language beginning on line 50 regarding maintenance entities. Dr. Roeder responded that there is language on how to approve maintenance entities under the operating permit section so there was no need to repeat the language for the approval process for maintenance entities under ‘Definitions’. From the audience Mr. Churchill commented about a change reflected in this revision being the reduction to 62 percent from 70 percent nitrogen removal. He said that two different standards are being talked about, 10 mg/l and 62 percent citing examples of ‘real world’ infinite nitrogen levels. Dr. Roeder explained the reasoning for changing to 62 percent. Discussion concluded and the panel voted to approve the issue. Issue 08-09 – Innovative Systems – Test Data Required Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 64E-6.026 Dr. Roeder asked the panel to peruse the more recent version of this issue that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting instead of the one included in the mail out in the original package. He pointed out that the main change is seen in the ‘Summary’ language on page 1. Mr. Johnson suggested that in the future with changes in the text of an issue that those changes be flagged. He expressed the difficulty the panel faces in the short timeframe of reading and understanding changes brought forward on the day of a meeting. Mr. Hetrick asked how this relates to the on-going, passive nitrogen reduction study and wanted to know if this will impact the two million dollars appropriated by this year’s Legislature. Mr. Briggs said this language is intended to get into place in order to utilize results of that study. Mr. Everson stated concerns with this issue about the inability under these innovative protocols to obtain permits from the state for either an innovative system demonstration permit or more importantly an innovative system development permit because both of those require outside third party testing in order to prove that they can get a permit. He further said the whole purpose of the passive study and the research being done was to provide a way for innovative technology to be explored within the state to provide cost effective alternatives. Dr. Roeder responded that Mr. Everson’s concerns are covered under the development permit on lines 86 88. Mr. Everson was unconvinced that this would satisfy his concerns. Mr. Harper suggested that Department staff work with Mr. Everson regarding his concerns. Mr. Johnson motioned to approve this issue 08-09 as originally submitted in the agenda packets, not those subsequent revisions that were distributed at the beginning of today’s meeting. Mr. Dragoun called the second. Mr. Liskey stated his interpretation of the intention of this proposed language and said that everyone needs to understand that this is a positive move. Issue 08-09 was approved. Issue 09-10 – Septage Logs Rule Sections: 64E-6.010

9

This issue proposes changes in the reporting requirements for service providers to provide quarterly summaries of septage and holding tank waste pumped, treated and land applied. Mr. Briggs said the collected information will be instrumental in supplementing the inventory data base. Mr. Averett asked several questions and stated that his company already has this type of information involving septage services on work orders but added this requirement will definitely add more cumbersome paperwork. He also asked if this issue affects the portable toilet industry to which Mr. Briggs responded that this issue does not include portable toilets. Following questions and comments by Mr. Himschoot, discussion concluded. Mr. Franz, seconded by Mr. Dragoun, motioned to approve the issue. The motion carried and the issue was approved. Issue 09-13 – Septage Storage Tanks Rule Sections: 64E-6.010 Mr. Briggs briefly explained the issue and its progression through the Variance Committee. There were no questions or comments. Mr. Odom motioned to approve the issue. Mr. Melling called the second and the motion carried. Issue 09-14 – Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles Rule Sections: 64E-6.013 Mr. Briggs explained the issue. Mr. Gary Duran with Code Compliance, Inc./Highland Tank & Mfg. Co. stepped forward to thank the panel and the department for working with him and his company on this issue. Mr. Woodruff, seconded by Mr. Franz, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved. Issue 09-15 – Duplexes on One Lot Rule Sections: 64E-6.004 The proposed language for this issue clarifies when an easement is required for duplexes on single lots or establishments on multiple lots. The issue was discussed at the previous meeting and has been reviewed by the Variance Committee. There were no questions or comments. Mr. Melling motioned to approve. Mr. Johnson called the second and the panel approved the issue. Issue 09-16 – Triple-Wide Mobile Home Spaces; Cleanup MHP Sizing Rule Sections: Mr. Briggs said the proposed language provides sizing criteria for triple-wide mobile home spaces in Mobile Home Parks. The issue was reviewed by the Variance Committee and is ready for final approval by the TRAP. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Odom, motioned to approve and the panel concurred. Issue 09-17 – Site Plans Rule Sections: 64E-6.004 This issue was discussed at the January 28 TRAP meeting and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Variance Committee. The proposed language sets standards in regard to the scale and how much error is allowed in the drawings. Mr. Johnson felt that more clarity is needed to be made to the language on lines 5 and 6 regarding the margin of error. Mr. Briggs said bureau staff will clarify the language. Mr. Johnson motioned to approve with clarification of the margin of error scale. Mr. Liskey seconded the motion and the issue was approved by the panel.

10

Issue 09-18 – PBTS Plans Rule Sections: - 64E-6.028 This issue language requires all plans to be signed and sealed but does not specify the number of copies to submit. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Odom, motioned to approve and the panel concurred. Issue 09-19 – Commercial Sewage Waste Definition Rule Sections: 64E-6.002 The issue aligns definition of commercial waste with that in DEPs interagency agreement. Motion to approve called by Mr. Liskey. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion and the panel voted approval. Issue 09-20 – Incinerating Toilets Rule Sections: 64E-6.009 This language updates the references for incinerating toilet standards. The issue was reviewed and approved by the Variance Committee. Mr. Odom, seconded by Mr. Liskey, motioned to approve. The panel concurred and the issue was approved. Issue 09-21 – Inspection by Engineers Rule Sections: 64E-6.003 This issue was originated by Mr. Franz that removes the residential exemption for engineer inspection. Following a brief discussion and comments by Mr. Himschoot, a motion was called by Mr. Johnson to approve. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion followed with a vote to approve by the panel. Issue 10-01 – Lower Flow Rates for Large Houses Rule Section: 64E-6.008, Table I Mr. Briggs explained that this is the bedroom sizing issue that was originally part of issue 08-15 regarding bedroom re-definition. The issue was discussed at the previous meeting and sent to the Variance Committee for their review and comment. The language was also sent to the Florida Building Commission. Mr. Odom, seconded by Ms. Sanzone, motioned to approve and followed with a unanimous vote to approve the issue. Mr. Harper stopped the meeting at 11:55 AM for lunch. Following the lunch break, Mr. Harper resumed the meeting with election of a new chairman and vice-chairman. Ms. Tucker nominated Ken Odom as Chairman recalling his strong leadership on the few occasions when Mr. Harper was absent. Mr. Franz seconded the nomination and the panel voted Mr. Odom to be the new Chairman. Mr. Liskey nominated Roy Pence to fill the position as Vice-Chairman. Ms. Tucker nominated Ellen Vause but Ms. Vause declined the honor because of responsibilities involving a family illness. Mr. Franz called the second to nominate Mr. Pence. Unanimous panel approval followed and Mr. Pence was voted to be the new Vice Chairman. Issue 10-02 – Soil Replacement for Drip Systems Rule Sections: 64E-6.009

11

This issue was originated by Mr. Franz who briefly explained specifics of the language that would eliminate the requirement for replacement of spodic horizons between 24 and 42 inches below a drip emitter drainfield. Brief discussion followed with Mr. Harper commenting on the money saving potential. Mr. Liskey motioned to approve. Mr. Dragoun seconded the motion followed with a unanimous vote from the panel to approve the issue. Issue 10-06 – Existing Systems Rule Sections: 64E-6.001 Mr. Briggs said this language is a re-write of the opening section of the rule for the existing systems section in an attempt to make the verbiage clearer. He said there is only one change in the language regarding water table separation. Currently when doing a repair or modification a 12 inch separation is required. The language on lines 35 and 36 brings into compliance with the new language in SB 550 in regard to that separation, i.e. pre-1983 has to be modified to meet a 12 inch separation and after 1983 a 24 inch separation is required. Mr. Pence asked to be directed to the language in SB 550 that relates to this issue. Mr. Briggs complied indicating that the language is found on page 109 on line 3154. Mr. Johnson pointed out missing words/corrections in the issue language on lines 11, 12, 31, 42, and 53. Mr. Odom asked how this language about existing systems relates to mobile homes. Additional comments and questions ensued with Mr. Briggs agreeing that more clarity is needed on lines 34, 35 and 36 for mobile homes when not increasing flow in terms of the water table separation. Mr. Himschoot, Mr. Averett, Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Johnson commented about the Voluntary System Inspection Report form eliciting more questions and discussion about liability issues, etc. culminating in general consensus that there needs to be more clarity in the language on the form. Ms. Tucker, seconded by Mr. Liskey, motioned to table the issue pending clarification of who can perform the inspections and also to allow time for the panel to compare the re-written language to the old language. A unanimous vote to table followed. Issue 10-09 – LTAR Adjustments Rule Sections: 64E-6.028 Mr. Briggs said this is more clean-up language that modifies one table to match up with previously approved sizing. Mr. Odom expressed confusion about the trench width (inches) equaling 36.00 on the table. Mr. Booher gave a convoluted explanation followed by a general agreement that the table should be made clearer. Mr. Liskey called the motion to approve with Mr. Johnson seconding the motion. The panel concurred and the issue was approved. Issue 10-10 – Site Plans, Mounds Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 5, 8, 9, 15 Mr. Briggs explained the purpose of the issue that incorporates interpretive memos and cleans-up some existing language about showing and determining MAFL and other setback features, mound size determination, and setback to shallow swales. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Franz motioned to approve. However, during discussion that followed, Mr. Odom posed a question about new language under 64E-6.015 that says, “The model of any particular non-mineral aggregate or chamber system shall be included.” He said there are a lot of variables in multi-pipe systems and spoke of the difficulty of determining the model. Lengthy discussion followed with comments and recommendations by Ms. Vause, Mr. Sirmans, Mr. Franz, and Ms. Tucker. The earlier motion to approve was withdrawn. Mr. Liskey then called a motion to table the issue, seconded by Mr. Cordova. The motion carried and the issue was tabled.

12

Issue 10-11 – Subject: PBTS Design Standards Rule Sections: 64E-6.0295 Dr. Roeder explained that the data collected from current performance based treatment systems are listed in several different ways depending on the type of test data submitted. The proposed language of this issue provides a way to compile performance data, and also requires reclassification of all performance based treatment systems. Mr. Churchill said that the language has been extensively revised and, for the most part, addresses most of his previous concerns. He referred to line 67 and spoke about a specific concern about interim approval criteria but Dr. Roeder’s response satisfied that concern. Damann Anderson voiced several concerns about the issue. He has difficulty with not allowing soil to be used as a treatment mechanism for some of the parameters because soil is what we rely on for secondary treatment for all conventional onsite wastewater systems. He also referred to the language for the advance wastewater treatment in (c.) lines 67, 68, and 69. He said he has difficulty with the 62 percent for the Keys and 90 percent for advanced wastewater treatment standards. He further stated that the Keys are probably the most sensitive area in the state for nitrogen needing the highest level of standards and said that 62 percent is not that great. He also expressed concerns about the language beginning on line 62 about fecal coliform. Mr. Hetrick commented about the importance of the issue and thinks the language is much improved. However, certain issues were isolated today and he would like to see Mr. Anderson’s consideration taken into account and maybe make some modifications to bring back to the TRAP. Mr. Harper asked, ‘how critical is the issue?’ Mr. Briggs said there has been some disconnect in how systems have been evaluated creating unfairness to people. Following more discussion, Mr. Dragoun, seconded by Mr. Melling, motioned to approve the issue providing that department staff clarifies the language in the questionable areas discussed today. The motion passed. Mr. Booher spoke briefly about conclusions he has drawn about the retesting of polyethylene tanks. The TRAP approved the issue about retesting polyethylene tanks to the 2006 Standard in August 2008. The problem remains, however, that there was no satisfactory technique for determining the deflection of the tanks. Have the deformation problems come from improper installation or improper design? Mr. Booher has been evaluating the process and has consulted with various counties finding that the counties are not seeing as many problems as previously seen. A logical conclusion is that the installation instructions are being more closely followed. He remains concerned though that a long term problem resulting from deformation of the polyethylene tanks could pose a real nightmare in the future. He does not recommend retesting with the vacuum test stating that he does not think the vacuum test is applicable to the poly tanks. He advocates using a test that directly relates to the poly tanks and recommends development of a test that better simulates the characteristics of those tanks. He also gave examples of testing methods used in Canada as well as testing methods used by IATMO. Mr. Booher, in closing, expressed the possibility of building a testing area at the training center so manufacturers could do the testing themselves at the training center with a qualified witness. Mr. Harper intervened by saying that this is the department’s call further adding that perhaps another rule needs to be developed to address those proposals. The meeting adjourned at 2:45 PM.

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

ADVISORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AUTHORITY: SECTION 381.0068. FLORIDA STArUTES

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP) MEETING

DATE: TIME: PLACE:

Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:00AM, Orlando Airport Marriott 7499 Augusta National Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 407-851-9000

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,

AGENDA

1 Introductions 2 Election of Chair and Vice Chair 3 Review minutes of last meeting 3, Passive Nitrogen Study Update 4, Senate Bill 550

10,-05 Part II (Florida Keys) SB 550, Update standards 10-12 SB 550: Five-year System Evaluation

5, Old Business 07-23 Performance-Based Systems-Standards 08-09 Innovative Systems-Test Data Required 09-10 septage logs 09,-13 septage storage tanks 09-14 Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles 09-15 Duplexes on one lot 09-16 Triple-Wide mobile home spaces; cleanup MHP sizing 09-17 Site Plans 09-18 PBTS plans 09-19 Commercial Sewage Waste Definition 09-20 Incinerating Toilets 09-21 Inspection by engineers 10-01 Lower Flow rates for Large houses

6 New Business 10-,02 Soil Replacement for Drip Systems 10-06 Existing Systems 10-09 LTAR Adjustments 10-10 Site Plans, Mounds 10-11 PBTS design standards Other items of interest

7 Public Comment

Scott Johnson, P.E lony Macaluso Derek Woodruff PROFES,SlONAl ENGINEERS REAl ESTATE INDUSTRY

Russell Melling Frank Dragoun, P E COUNn HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONSUMER

Paul Steinbrecher Robert F Harper III, Chair LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOME BUIlDING INDUS'TRY

Greg Liskey SEPIIC TANK INDUSTRY SEPI1C TANK MANUFACT'URER

Scott Franz Patti Sanzone SOlI SOENTJ.'OT ENVIRONMENTAl HEALTH

Ken Odom, Vice Chair Dale Holcomb / Shirley Kugler HOJJE BUILDING' INDUSTRY DOH STAFF SUPPORT

TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP) MEMBERS May 2010

MEMBERS:

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Scott Johnson, P.E., President S. Johnson Consultants, Inc. 8515 Baymeadows Way #401 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Tele: (904) 721-1888 Fax: (904) 721-8464 Email: scott@sjcengineers"com

REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL Tony Macaluso, Realtor ABR, CIPS, CRS, CRB, GRI, ITI Ports ide Properties, Inc. 9492 Bloomfield Drive Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tele: (561) 622-8498 Fax: (561) 626-5411 Email: nmacaluso@aol.com

SEPTIC TANK INDUSTRY Derek Woodruff Brownie's Wastewater Solutions 10445 General Drive Orlando, FL 32824 Tele: (407) 841-4321 Cell: (407) 448-6030 Fax: (407) 872-0848 Email:

SEPTIC TANK MANUFACTURER Greg Liskey Mack Concrete Industries P. O. Box 157 Astatula, FL 34705 Tele: (352) 742-2333 Email: gliskey@mackconcrete"com

COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Russell Melling Lake County Health Dept" P. O. Box 1305

Tavares, FL 32778 Tele: (352)253-6130 Fax: (352) 253-6133 Email: Russel_.Melling@doh .. state.fl..us

ALTERNATES:

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Clay M. Tappan, P.E. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1715 N" West Shore Blvd. #875 Tampa, FL 33607 Tele: (813) 281-2900 Fax: (813) 288-8787 Email: tappancm@cdm"com

REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL Pam Tucker Veteran Real Estate P. O. Box 608639 Orlando, FL 32860-8639 Tele: (407) 294-7434 Cell: (407) 341-6420 Fax: (407) 295··9387 Email: Pamtucker01@aol.com

SEPTIC TANK INDUSTRY Martin Guffey Martin Septic Service, Inc .. 2308 Tropicaire Blvd. North Port, FL 34286-9163 Tele: (941) 480-0400 Cell: Fax: Email: Martisep@aol.com

SEPTIC TANK MANUFACTURER Ellen Vause Florida Septic, Inc. P. 0" Box 545 Hawthorne, FL 32640 Tele: (352)481-3936 Email: ellen@flsepticinc"com

COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMEN~ William Sirmans Santa Rosa Co. Environmental Health p" O. Box 929 Milton, FL 32572-0929 Tele: «850) 983-5275 Fax: (850) 983-5278 Email: William._Sirmans@doh .. state .. fI.us

MEMBERS:

HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY Robert F" Harper III, (Developer) c/o Janis Baldwin Harper Realty and Development 1420 South Florida Ave .. Lakeland, FL 33803 Tele: (863) 687-8020 Fax: (863) 682-8994 Email: robert@harper-realty.com

Ken Odom c/o Beth Ethridge Homeowners Assurance, Inc .. 4382 Highway 90 Pace,FL 32571 Tele: (850) 994-8585 Fax: (850) 994-5589 Email: odomks@yahoo.com

FL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSN .. Patti Sanzone Dept. of Environmental Protection 2600 Blairstone Road, MS 3570 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Tele: (850) 245-7511 Fax: (850) 245-8434 Email: patricia.sanzone@dep.state.fl.us

CONSUMER Frank J. Dragoun, P .. E .. 230 River Village Dr .. DeBary, FL 32713 Tele: (386) 668-7110 Email: fjd1610@yahoo.com

SOIL SCIENTIST Scott M. Franz, MS, CPSS Professional Soil Scientist Central FL Soil Solutions, Inc. 411 E .. Rich Avenue Deland, FL 32724 Tele: (386) 736-8268 Fax: (386) 736-1463 Email: scott@cflsoilsolutionsinc .. com

ALTERNATES:

HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY Roy Pence c/o Donna Watkins 3115 Dixie Highway N.E .. Palm Bay, FL 32905 Tele: (321) 723-1571 Fax: (321) 723-6856 Email: roypence@att .. net

Dikran Kalaydjian, P .. E. Land & Water Engineering Science 305 S. Magnolia Ave., 2nd Floor Tampa, FL 33606 Tele: (813) 251-0148 Fax: (813) 0518 Cell: (813) 846-7075 Email: diKrank@landandwateres .. com

FL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSN. Raymond E. Collins 101 Toledo Street Royal Palm, FL 33411 Tele: (561) 795-7037 or 561/662-9595 Email: ray33478@netscape .. net

CONSUMER

SOIL SCIENTIST Oren C. Reedy, C .. P.S.S. Professional Soil Scientist O. C .. Reedy Associates, Inc. 4411 Beverly Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32210 Tele: (904) 338-7161 Fax: Email: oren@ocreedy .. net

MEMBER:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT Paul Steinbrecher, Director Environmental Permitting & Assessments Jacksonville Electric Authority 21 W. Church Street - #T-8 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tele: (904) 665-5653 Email: steipk@jea"com

DOH ONSITE SEWAGE PROGRAM CONTACTS • Gerald Briggs, Chief • Paul Booher, Professional Engineer • Dale Holcomb, Environmental Administrator • Shirley Kugler, Administrative Assistant II • Eberhard Roeder, Professional Engineer

ALTERNATE:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT Edward Cordova, P.E" Environmental Services Dept. Jacksonville Electric Authority 21 W. Church Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tele: (904) 665-7840 Email: corded@jea"com

• Elke Ursin, Environmental Health Program Consultant Onsite Sewage Programs 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin # A08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1713 Tele: (850) 245-4070 FAX: (850)922-6969

MINUTES OF MEETING TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL (TRAP)

January 28, 2010

Members present were:

Robert Harper III, Florida Home Building Industry, Chairman Frank Dragoun, Consumer Representative Scott Franz, Soil Scientist Scott Johnson, P.E., Florida Engineering Society Greg Liskey, Septic Tank Manufacturer Tony Macaluso, Real Estate Professional Russell Melling, County Health Department Ken Odom, Home Building Industry Patti Sanzone, Florida Environmental Health Association Derek Woodruff, Septic Tank Industry

Alternate members present:

Chris Brown, Septic Tank Industry Ed Cordova, Local Government Oren Reedy, Soil Scientist William Sirmans, County Health Department Clay Tappan, Florida Engineering Society Pamela Tucker, Real Estate Professional

Department of Health staff present:

Gerald Briggs, Chief, Onsite Sewage Programs Marcelo Blanco, Environmental Health Program Consultant Paul Booher, PE, Professional Engineer III Bart, Harriss, Environmental Manager Dale Holcomb, Environmental Administrator Shirley Kugler, Administrative Assistant Eberhard Roeder, Professional Engineer III

Absent members and Alternates:

Raymond Collins, Florida Environmental Health Association Dikran Kalaydjian, Home Building Industry Roy Pence, Home Building Industry Paul Steinbrecher, Local Government Ellen Vause, Septic Tank Manufacturer

Speakers:

Sam Averett, Averett Septic Tank Co Quentin (Bob) Beitel, Markham Woods Assn., Inc .. Michael Broom, for State Senator Andy Gardiner Dominic Buhot, Green's Environmental Services

1

Gary S. Duren, Code Compliance, Inc.lHighland Tank & Mfg. Co Doug Everson, Homeowner/PTI, Inc Sarah Fowler, for Orange County Commissioner Fred Brummer Keith Hetrick, Florida Home Builders Association John Higgins, Markham Woods Association, Inc. Ken Jones, Markham Woods Association, Inc. Cory Mong, Economy Septic, Inc .. Maria Pecoraro, for State Representative Bryan Nelsen Andrea Samson, Homeowner Carol Saviak, Coalition for Property Rights Nancy Smith, Orange County Health Department

Others present:

Interested persons including representatives from: County Health Departments Florida Onsite Wastewater Association Industry Representatives

2

The meeting was called to order at 9: 1 0 AM. Following welcoming remarks and introductions, Mr. Harper proceedl3d with a review of the minutes from the August 27, 2009 meeting.. Mr. Harper referred to page 2 of the minutes and asked about the inventory of onsite systems regarding the number of systems and the maintenance of those systems that was to be made available to the panel members.. He wanted to know if compilation of the inventory by the department is complete.. Mr. Briggs responded affirmatively and Mr Harper requested that a copy of the report be sent to each panel member.. Mr. Liskey asked about the various research studies listed on page 3. Dr. Roeder responded with a synopsis of each; stages of completion, draft reports, etc. Mr.. Harper requested that upon completion of these reports, instead of just posting the information to the website that the TRAP be notified by email or mail that the report is complete and can be viewed on the website. There were no further questions or comments about the remaining pages Mr. Liskey motioned, seconded by Mr. Melling, to approve the minutes as written and the panel concurred.

Dr .. Roeder, using power point graphics, presented an update of the research program focusing on the Florida Onsite Sewage Nitrogen Reduction study .. A Department of Health Interim Progress Report on the Florida Onsite Sewage Nitrogen Reduction Strategies Study was prepared pursuant to Line Item 471 Section 3, Conference Report on Senate Bill 2600, and General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year-2010. The main recommendation in the draft report is for continued funding to accomplish field testing of technologies at home sites, to continue the evaluation technology development, and to do the model development to determine nitrogen fate. The deadline for the final study report for this year is May 1 What happens afterwards depends on funding. Mr. Harper asked the status of the funding.. Dr. Roeder replied that the draft Interim Report recommends the Legislature provide funding and budget authority to the department in the amount of $2 million for the fiscal year 2010-2011 for continuation of the contract and associated tasks Mr .. Harper asked how important the funding is for the second phase and if the second phase is for the actual testing Dr.. Roeder said the technology development is somewhat in an in­between phase because there is no funding at present to get that started. Mr. Harper reflected on the $1 million allocated to do the first phase and asked who initiates the funding for the second phase.. Mr. Briggs responded that it would have to be done by the Legislature; the draft Interim Report recommends and says quite clearly that additional funding is needed to complete this study with the tasks that were originally outlined. If funding is not allocated then we will need to look at

3

where we will go from there but we do anticipate that all of the initial million dollars will be spent by the end of this year. We have a limited amount of data but not the full scope of what was antiCipated or what we would like to see. Upon further reflection Mr.. Harper asked if a letter should be composed from the TRAP stating the panel's concerns about completion of the research and appealing to the Legislature to fund the next phase of the project. Dr.. Roeder read verbatim from the draft Interim Report the summary paragraph:

The Florida Department of Health and the Research Review and Advisory Committee recommend that the Legislature provide at least $2 million to fund the next phase of the project, primarily for field monitoring over at least a one year monitoring period of performance and cost of technologies at home sites, and of nitrogen fate and transport. This funding also will continue the development and monitoring work at the test facility, and of modeling. Additional funding will be needed from the 2011 Legislative session to complete monitoring and other field activities, additional testing as deemed appropriate by the Legislature and final reporting with recommendations on onsite sewage nitrogen reduction strategies for Florida's future ..

Discussion followed with comments of agreement from panel members and audience participants that a letter be sent. Mr. Macaluso observed that the first phase appeared to be a down payment on what ultimately needs to be done arid, if that is true, then we would have to make the second request to see the actual field work that proves the theories that are in the assessment done in phase 1. Mr. Harper expressed concern about all the work that has been done by the department, the Technical Review and Advisory Panel (TRAP), industry representatives and others and now we are at the point where the next step is getting more funding to achieve the results that we seek. Ms .. Tucker talked about the Research Review and Advisory Committee's (RRAC) review, guidance and approval of some of the terminology and verbiage that went into the report due February 1 that is the tool to ask for the funds. The information is very specific to what is needed now, what will be needed in the future and how the money is to be used; and she believes the TRAP should write a letter in support of additional funding. Mr .. Liskey also agreed that the TRAP should send a letter in support of the continued funding for this research. He understands that the information that has been collected to date with the original million dollars is not enough information to make the final decision. He feels that it is imperative that additional funding is created .. Mr. Briggs reiterated that the Interim Report is the prime mechanism to request the Legislature to make a determination to provide additional funding. The Interim Report is a detailed accounting of what has been done and what is needed to finish. Mr. Macaluso motioned that the TRAP recommend to the Governor, Legislature or any of the people that would be in decision making authority for this request for funding to complete the second phase. Mr. Dragoun called the second to the motion. Mr .. Johnson added that the letter of appeal should also speak to the problems and pitfalls that will arise if the funding is not provided. Keith Hetrick spoke about Senator Constantine's recent expressions of being tired of studying the issue and the need to move on. Mr. Hetrick said this is not only a study about nitrogen but a study about solutions to the problem Mr. Brown reflected about the ongoing battle to secure funding and agrees with sending a letter.. He said there is a perception by the general public that we are just spinning our wheels and nothing ever gets done.. Mr. John Higgins, with the Markham Woods Association, talked about negative comments about the slowness of the research spoken by Senator Constantine during a recent meeting that he attended. He urged the panel to send a letter reflecting that the panel's consensus on this issue is clearly understood.. Doug Everson expressed his thoughts that the Department of Health has a responsibility to request the two million dollars whether it is granted or not Roxanne Groover noted that the Florida Onsite Wastewater Association and the Department of Health are working hand-in-hand to get the needed funding. Mr .. Macaluso stressed the urgency

4

to make very clear the need for the second phase to come up with fact based information for the decision making that needs to be done.. Mr. Harper called for a vote on the motion made earlier for a letter to be composed and sent by Mr .. Harper appealing to the Legislature for the needed funding. Ensuing conversation added to the motion to include in the letter the summary paragraph from the Interim Report plus the concern about the ramifications of what might happen if the study is not completed The panel unanimously approved the motion to send a letter

Dr .. Roeder continued his presentation with updated information about other research projects beginning with the Manatee Springs State Park Phase II Karst Study.. He also talked about Performance Based Treatment Systems (PBTS) assessment in Monroe County to develop a sampling protocol to evaluate variability of concentrations in PBTS and some A TUs in the Keys. The sampling is completed but quality control of existing data needs to be completed. Dr. Roeder briefly described the 319 Project on Performance and Management of Advanced Onsite Systems and noted that Patti Sanzone is the project manager on the Department of Environmental Protection side .. The project seeks a better sense of ATUs and PBTS' in the state by looking at data gathered from different databases, Le .. state database (EHD), any county specific databases, and Carmody records. He spoke about the challenge to make the databases compatible. Dr. Roeder talked last about the study of the Town of Suwannee to access water quality development 13 years after sewering .. Ms. Tucker asked for clarification of the DOH budget as it relates to these different studies drawing a comparison for the budget for the Nitrogen Reduction study that is dependent upon Legislative approvaL Mr .. Briggs responded that these are two different situations, the research projects that were reviewed today were funded from a administrative trust fund of monies collected from the $5 research fees; further explaining that budget authority must be granted by the Legislature to use the cash in that trust fund. However, we do not have the cash for the continuation of the nitrogen study so we need an allocation from the Legislature for that money as well as budget authority to spend it It is easier to request budget authority for cash on hand as opposed to asking the Legislature to appropriate an additional amount of cash to the department and then grant budget authority to spend it

Issue 08-15 - Bedroom Definition Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 002

Mr .. Harper described the origination of this proposed issue that was derived from the Florida Building Code Commission's desire for consistency between their definition and the Department's definition for bedrooms. For the past year and a half there has been an ongoing effort between the TRAP and the building commission to develop simplified language ..

Mr .. Holcomb explained the latest idea is to flatten out the curve of gallons per day (GPD) for larger houses. He distributed a comparison graph depicting different colored lines and symbols to explain the latest proposed language.. Mr. Holcomb referred to building code language that speaks to the 70 sq. feet room, closets, emergency escape, and types of doors and so on.. Mr Melling commented about mobile homes as defined by HUD under Federal rule. Mr .. Briggs observed that one of the issues has been that the Building Code does not deal with mobile homes in contrast to the department's requirement to not only deal with mobile homes but with older mobile homes as well as older houses .. The building code is all about current construction.. He expressed uncertainty of being able to ever acquire complete sync with the Florida Building Code Commission on the bedroom issue.. He recognized one of their concerns as being the sizing of mega homes which the department is attempting to address. Mr.. Harper said the Florida Building Code Commission is also concerned about the inconsistency among the health departments defining bedrooms reiterating that their desire is to bring about consistency in all the health departments when defining a bedroom. Discussion ensued. Ms. Sanzone said she likes this latest

5

premise except for the part of the emergency escape and rescue opening.. Mr .. Johnson expressed his concurrence except that he would like to see a modification to address the pre 1983 homes so that older homes with smaller bedrooms could be addressed. Ms. Sanzone motioned to adopt the change in Table 1 and then to table the issue giving time for thorough review Mr. Odom called the second and the panel concurred. Mr. Harper concluded by stating that a letter of explanation of today's decision should be sent to the Building Commission

Issue 09-01 - Non Transient Recreational Vehicle Space Flow Rule Sections: 64E-6.008 Table 1

Mr .. Holcomb gave a brief update of this issue that was tabled at the August 27, 2009 meeting to incorporate park model language. Language was crafted that proposes changes to provide an estimated daily sewage flow for non-transient recreational vehicle spaces that is the same as the flow for mobile home spaces. A few questions followed Mr. Macaluso, seconded by Ms .. Sanzone, motioned to approve the issue. The panel voted their approval.

Issue 09-04 - Portable Restroom Cleaning Requirements Rule Sections: 64E-60101

Mr. Holcomb explained this issue that was approved at the last meeting and then sent to the variance committee.. Mr. Holcomb said members of the variance committee were generally positive but were concerned about the graffiti language in the last sentence of (h). A brief discussion resulted in consensus of removing the last portion of that sentence.. "The exterior of the portable restroom shall be cleaned periodically aRa a €Iraffili FeFRever sAe~IEl be ~seEl eR betA IAe iRterier aRa e>aerier walls as aeeFReEl AeGeSsary .. " Mr. Odom motioned approval with Mr. Melling calling the second. The motion passed.

Issue 09-07 - Low Pressure Design Rule Sections:

Initiated by David Scharr, PE, this issue allows a drainfield between 1000 and 2000 square feet to be split into two drainfields and not have to be low-pressure dosed The issue was approved by the TRAP and then sent to the variance committee for review where it received mixed comments.. Discussion followed. Mr .. Briggs stated that the Department's preference is to see low­pressure dosed systems with the opinion that they are better systems in the long run and prolong the life of the system.. Mr. Averett agreed that larger systems between 1000 and 2000 gallons of flow could be split in drainfield, but in his opinion should still be low-pressure dosed. Low pressure dosing will insure longer life of the drainfield. Varying comments followed. Mr. Johnson and Mr Buhot expressed opposing opinions to Mr. Briggs and Mr .. Averett's statements. Others including Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Odom, and Mr. Brown said they thought the split system language in this issue is a great idea. Mr. Liskey motioned to approve, seconded by Mr .. Odom. There were five votes for approval and five votes against with Mr. Harper breaking the tie with his vote to approve the issue.. Approved. Mr .. Harper asked those who voted against for a consensus of the reason for their negative vote.. Mr. Franz stated the flow from gravity to dosing is a concern and that down the road, failures will occur quicker with gravity systems than low pressure dosing systems.

Issue 09-14 - Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 013

Mr. Gary Duren, Code Compliance Inc, and John Campbell, Highland Tanks Inc, initiated this issue that proposes changes to allow and create standards for grease interceptors made of

6

protected steel. Since the August 27,2009 TRAP meeting, Mr. Duren has worked with DOH staff on language to make sure DOH can approve the issue. He noted one small typo on line 367 where the word and should be an. The proposal addresses the minimum performance requirements for coated steel tanks. The current code allows grease interceptors to be made of concrete, fiberglass and polyethylene. Mr.. Booher spoke briefly and displayed a sample of the coated steel used in the grease interceptors. Discussion followed with questions about warranties, damages that might occur to the exterior of the tanks in shipping and handling, etc .. Questions were satisfactorily answered. Mr.. Johnson, seconded by Ms Sanzone, motioned to approve the issue A unanimous vote of approval followed.

Before continuing with the issues, Mr. Harper recognized Mr .. Ken Jones with Markham Woods Association who requested a few minutes to voice a concern. Mr Jones began by complimenting the TRAP for doing a very good job He continued by stating that Markham Woods Association recommends to the TRAP that a motion be made and approved by the TRAP membership authorizing their Chairman, Mr. Harper, to send a letter to the Governor and the Florida Legislature prior to the commencement of the 2010 Florida Legislative session stating the absolute necessity for the TRAP and RRAC organizations to remain with the Florida Department of Health in order to preserve the legislative intent of the creation of these organizations by the Florida Legislature back in 1996. Since the inception of TRAP, it is his understanding that no administrative rule approved by TRAP has been overturned in the legal process. The purpose of TRAP is to protect the tax payers of Florida by insuring that any proposed Administrative Rule by the Department of Health is properly reviewed and examined with the participation of the public and the expertise of the representatives of the TRAP. He reiterated that the folks with the Markham Woods Association do not want to have this proven, successful process be removed from the public Mr. Harper interjected that the different associations and organizations who appoint the TRAP and RRAC membership need to take it upon themselves to write the letter suggested by Mr. Jones. He feels that it would be more effective for the Septic Tank Association, the Realtors, the Engineers and the environmental groups, etc .. to write expressing their position of ensuring that the TRAP and RRAC continue to provide this valuable service Mr. Jones added that his organization represents about 20 subdivisions and about 2,800 homeowners and stated that they would be most happy to send letters.. Mr.. John Higgins, also with the Markham Woods Association, added his support stating that he wants to continue dealing with the Department of Health.

Issue 09-10 - Septage Logs Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 010

Mr Holcomb explained this new issue that is a provision to require the submission of hauling logs of septage and holding tank waste to the Department. Currently the logs are maintained by the sludge haulers. Mr. Liskey asked about the taking and monitoring of this information and wanted to know if the additional paperwork and monitoring would increase fees .. Mr. Briggs replied that there is no expectation of an increase in fees The simplest method would be to copy the logs that are produced and send those to the Department. Inputting the information into the Carmody System would also be acceptable The Department wants this information to continue building and refining that inventory and this would be an important component to do that Currently the department is not capturing this information in any way. It is produced by the haulers but it is not sent to the Department. Mr. Brown wanted to know what the department would be looking for upon receiving information from the log Mr. Briggs replied that the log would confirm location of systems and tank size.. Mr. Corey Mong spoke briefly about his reasons for agreeing with this proposed issue. Mr. Macaluso, seconded by Mr. Franz, motioned to approve the issue and the panel concurred

Issue 09-13 - Septage Storage Tanks Rule Sections: 64E-6010

7

Mr .. Holcomb briefly explained this proposed issue that eliminates the 3000-gallon minimum tank size requirement for septage storage tanks. Current language lumps septage storage tanks into stabilization tank requirements in order to require them to meet some standard However, some stabilization tank requirements are not applicable to storage tanks.. Mr. Odom motioned to approve the issue. Mr Liskey called the second and the panel followed with a unanimous vote of approval

Issue 09-15 - Duplexes on One Lot Rule Sections: 64E-6004

The purpose of this proposed issue is to clean up language regarding when lots need to be tied together, essentially multiple businesses on multiple lots or a single business on multiple lots The proposed changes clarify when a deed restriction is required for duplexes on single lots or establishments on multiple lots.. Mr. Harper questioned the verbiage about a written utility easement He did not see reference to a covenant and stated that a restricted covenant is very different from an easement and was unclear about the intentions of the language. Brief discussion continued culminating in Mr .. Sirmans motioning approvaL Mr .. Franz called the second and the panel voted approvaL

Issue 09-16 - Triple-Wide Mobile Home Spaces and Cleanup Language for MHP Space Sizing Rule Sections:

Mr Holcomb proposed this issue that was suggested by the Department's Bureau of Community Environmental Health and explained that the rule contains no sizing for triple-wide mobile home spaces. He also said the current language about multiple spaces per system versus one space per system needs revision.. Sizing criteria for triple-wide mobile home spaces in Mobile Home Parks is addressed by this issue.. Mr Harper suggested slightly changing some of the language to read . "to a shared individual ansite system". There were no further comments from the panel. Mr. Liskey, seconded by Mr. Odam, motioned to approve. The panel concurred..

Issue 09-r7 - Site Plans Rule Sections: 64E-6004

Another new issue with language more specific about what scales are appropriate and how much tolerance is allowed in that scale. Discussion ensued about scale sizing and that the standard coming off a blueprint machine is 24 X 36. Mr .. Briggs said language will be added to allow site plans to be submitted on 8.5 X 11 inch up to 24 X 36 inch paper. Mr. Dragoun, seconded by Mr .. Johnson motioned to approve the issue with that change. The panel voted approvaL

09··18 - PBTS Plans Rule Sections: 64E-6026

Mr .. Holcomb quickly explained that the current rule requires two copies of all documents and that in most cases one copy would be enough. This proposed language will cut down paperwork by requiring all plans to be signed and sealed but does not specify the number of

copies to submit Mr. Liskey motioned to approve with Mr.. Odom calling the second. The panel voted approval

09-19 - Commercial Sewage Waste Definition Rule Sections: 64E-6002

8

Mr .. Holcomb said the language in this issue modifies the definition of commercial wastewater to agree with the definition that is in use in the interagency agreement between DEP and DOH The definition in the rule is more restrictive than in the interagency agreement Following a brief discussion Mr.. Odom motioned to accept the issue.. Mr .. Liskey called the second followed with panel approval.

09-20 -Incinerating Toilets Rule Sections: 64E-6.009

This proposed language updates the reference to inCinerating toilet standards.. There were no comments.. Mr .. Odom, seconded by Mr. Liskey, motioned to accept the issue. The panel voted approval.

09-21 - Inspection by Engineers Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 003

The current rule exempts engineer-designed residential systems from being inspected by an engineer.. The proposed changes will require all systems that were designed by an engineer to be inspected by that engineer.. Mr. Brown was concerned by the wording". . to be inspected by that engineer." If that engineer goes out of business or is inaccessible for any reason then what does one do to get inspected. Mr .. Johnson suggested removing that and replace with the engineer of record. Further discussion resulted in the striking of language on lines 24 and 25 Mr. Macaluso motioned to accept the issue with the noted changes.. Mr. Odom seconded the motion that carried with a vote of approval by the panel.

Other Business and Public Comment.

Mr. Cory Mong reiterated his concerns to the panel once again about the requirement for testing of polyethylene tanks.. He recalled that the panel voted approval at a previous meeting to add to the rule the requirements for the retesting of polyethylene tanks To date he has not seen that happen.. He also talked about the premise of establishing special testing for polyethylene tanks but, again, that has not happened. He stated his opinion that polyethylene tanks are treatment receptacles along with pre-cast tanks, they all get buried at the same depths, they all have the same purpose and there should not be a different test for them. He feels the testing should be the same all across the board He said the panel is here to protect the onsite industry and reiterated that something needs to be done Mr. Briggs agreed with Mr. Mong that when the standards were changed for polyethylene tanks that there was no requirement for those tanks already approved to be retested under the new standard. He also noted in contrast that concrete tanks are always required to undergo retesting upon any changes to their standards. He stated his agreement the need to press ahead with a rule change that says polyethylene tanks must be retested under the current standard and give them a year to comply. Mr .. Harper advised bringing that forward as an issue.. Mr. Booher also expressed his agreement with Mr .. Mong and said he has gone to considerable lengths to find an appropriate test for polyethylene tanks but so far has been unsuccessfuL Mr. Brown wondered if the problem could be an installation issue Mr. Briggs

stated the bottom line is that there are updated standards for these tanks in the rule and the manufacturers need to demonstrate that they meet those standards

9

Mr .. Briggs talked to the panel about a letter that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting from Apalachee Backhoe and Septic Tank. The Apalachee Backhoe company is proposing that the rule be modified to allow them to do a partial replacement of moderately limited soil with slightly limited soil under the drainfield. Mr.. Briggs sought opinions from the soil scientists .. Department staff is concerned that the change in interface could, in some cases, cause an artificial rise in the water table .. An immediate problem is that there is no data available to study so we are seeking input on how to look at this issue and what the panel's thoughts are Mr Franz commented that this is not a simple matter and said time is needed to thoroughly digest the request Mr .. Harper asked that Department staff bring the matter forward as an issue for thorough review and consideration ..

Mr. Briggs said another problem for discussion is the maintenance entity issue with the aerobic treatment units and the performance based systems.. People are very unhappy with what is perceived as a monopoly and no options to their maintenance entity even when they are very dissatisfied with the performance The state of Texas recently modified their rule to require that the manufactures must provide parts and training to any licensed contractor who goes through a state approved training program. Department staff would like to look at doing this and feel that it would address a number of issues that would give consumers more options.. Department staff likes what they see in the Texas program that addresses a lot of concerns .. He asked Ms .. Groover to briefly speak about this issue. She spoke of a recent meeting with several FOWA members to look at some of the challenges. The first challenge being does the homeowner have options on choosing a service provider? She stressed the need for intensive training for contractors specific to the different technologies and talked about avenues of providing the appropriate training. Opening this training to all contractors who are willing to take all those intensive steps of training would provide opportunity for homeowners to have a large number of well qualified individuals to choose from versus the limited options currently available. Mr. Harper asked if this would affect Chapter 489, Contracting. Mr. Briggs feels that most of this can be done in rule without statute changes.. Ms .. Groover stressed the intent is to make sure as an association that we have responsible maintenance entities.

Mr. Sam Averett talked about homeowners' maintenance of their ATUs and performance based systems. He has had a number of homeowners wanting to become certified in order to maintain their own systems. He wanted to know if he is allowed to do that Mr. Briggs said a system owner can be approved as a maintenance entity for their owner-occupied single family residence. They must meet all requirements of the rule except for being licensed as a septic tank contractor.

Ms .. Carol Saviak introduced herself and said she serves as Executive Director for the Coalition for Property Rights for Land Owners which is an advocacy group based in Orlando. She wanted to bring to the table a concern regarding a discussion of data collection and research and the statistical Significance of results Mr.. Harper thanked her for her presentation but reminded her that despite limited time and funds the TRAP has made many accomplishments. Mr .. Johnson and Ms. Tucker spoke defensively and definitively about the TRAP's presentations of research information.

A date for the next meeting was left open to sometime following the end of the Legislative Session. The meeting adjourned at 12: 15 PM

"

2959

2960

2961

2962

2963

2964

2965

2966

2967

2968

2969

2970

2971

2972

2973

2974

2975

2976

2977

2978

2979

2980

2981

2982

2983

2984

2985

2986

2987

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

reviewed for compliance with the following:

1. Construction schedules and detailed capital financing

plans for wastewater management improvements in the annually

adopted capital improvements element, and standards for the

construction of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or

collection systems that meet or exceed the criteria in s.

403.086(10) for wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or

s. 381.0065(4) (1) for onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems.

2. Goals, objectives, and policies to protect public safety

and welfare in the event of a natural disaster by maintaining a

hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of

no more than 24 hours. The hurricane evacuation clearance time

shall be determined by a hurricane evacuation study conducted in

accordance with a professionally accepted methodology and

approved by the state land planning agency.

(b) Further, The state land planning agency, after

consult.ing with the appropriate local government., may, no more

often than once per a year, recommend to t.he Administ.ration

Commission t.he enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land

development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan ..

Within 45 days following the receipt. of such recommendation l7y

the state land planning ageney, the commission shall reject t.he

recommendation, or accept it with or without modification and

adopt it, by rule, including any changes .. Aw:t Such local

development regulation or plan must ehall be in compliance with

the principles for guiding development.,

Section 35., Subsection (1) and paragraph (1) of subsect.ion

(4) of sect ion 381.. 0065, Florida Statutes are amended, present

Page 103 of 171

CODING: Words strieken are delet.ions; words underlined are additions"

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550eI

2988 subsection (5) of that section is IenWllbeIed as subsection (6),

2989 and new subsections (5) and (7) are added to that section, to

2990 Iead:

2991 38L0065 Onsite sewage tIeatment. and disposal systems;

2992 regu1ation.,-

2993 (1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT .. -

2994 (a) It is the intent of the Legis1atuIe that proper

2995 management of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems is

2996 paIamount to the health, safety, and welfaIe of the public. It

2997 is furtheI the intent of the .Legis1atuIe that the depaItment

2998 shall administeI an evaluation program to enSUIe the operational

2999 condition of the system and identify any failure with the

3000 system.

3001 (b) It is t.he intent of the Legis1atuIe that wheIe a

3002 publicly owned OI investoI-owned seweIage system is not

3003 available, t.he depaItment shall issue peImits for the

3004 const.Iuction, installation, modification, abandonment, OI IepaiI

3005 of onsite sewage tIeatment. and disposal systems undeI conditions

3006 as descIibed in this section and Iu1es adopt.ed undeI this

3007 section .. It is fUIther the intent. of the Legislat.uIe that the

3008 installation and use of onsite sewage tIeatment and disposal

3009 systems not adveIsely affect t.he public health or significantly

3010 degIade the gIoundwateI OI SUI face wateI ..

3011 (4) PERMITS; INSTALLATION; AND CONDITIONS ,,-A person may not

3012 constIuct, IepaiI, modify, abandon, OI opeIate an onsite sewage

3013 t.Ieatment and disposal syst.em without fiIst obtaining a peImit

3014 apPIoved by the depaItment .. The depaItment may issue peImi t.S to

3015 caIry out this section, but shall not make t.he issuance of such

3016 peImits contingent upon prioI apPIoval by the DepaItment of

Page 104 of 171

CODING: WOIds strioken aIe deletions; words undeIlined aIe additions ..

3017

3018

3019

3020

3021

3022

3023

3024

3025

3026

3027

3028

3029

3030

3031

3032

3033

3034

3035

3036

3037

3038

3039

3040

3041

3042

3043

3044

3045

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for' CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

20l0550er

Environmental Protection, except that the issuance of a permit

for work seaward of the coast.al construction control line

established under s .. 161 .. 053 shall be contingent upon receipt of

any required coastal construct.ion control line permit from the

Department of Environmental Protection .. A construction permit is

valid for 18 months from the issuance date and may be ext. ended

by the department for one 90-day period under rules adopted by

the department. A repair permit is valid for 90 days from the

dat.e of issuance .. An operating permit must be obtained prior t.O

the use of any aerobic treatment unit or if the establishment

generates commercial waste .. Buildings or establishments that use

an aerobic treatment unit or generate commercial waste shall be

inspected by the department at least annually to assure

compliance with the terms of t.he operating permit .. The operating

permit for a commercial wastewater syst.em is valid for 1 year

from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually" The

operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit is valid for 2

years from the date of issuance and must be renewed every 2

years .. If all information pertaining to the siting, location,

and installation conditions or repair of an onsite sewage

treatment and disposal system remains the same, a construction

or repair permit for the onsite sewage treatment and disposal

syst.em may be transferred to another person, if the transferee

files, within 60 days after the transfer of ownership, an

amended applicat.ion providing all corrected information and

proof of ownership of the property .. There is no fee associated

with the processing of this supplemental information .. A person

may not contract. to construct, modify, alt.er, repair, service,

abandon, or maint.ain any port. ion of an onsite sewage treatment

Page 105 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

3046

3047

3048

3049

3050

3051

ENROLLED 2010 Legis1ature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

20l0550er

and disposal system without being registered under part III of

chapter 489 .. A property owner who personally performs

construct.ion, maintenance, or repairs to a system serving his or

her own owner-occupied single-family residence is exempt. from

registration requirements for performing such construction,

maintenance, or repairs on that residence, but is subject to all

3052 permi tt ing requirements .. A municipality or poli t.ical subdivision

3053 of the state may not issue a building or plumbing permit. for any

3054 building that requires the use of an onsi t.e sewage treatment and

3055 disposal system unless the owner or builder has received a

3056 construction permit for such system from the department .. A

3057 building or struct.ure may not be occupied and a municipality,

3058 polit.ical subdivision, or any state or federal agency may not

3059 authorize occupancy until the department approves the final

3060 installation of t.he onsit.e sewage treat.ment and disposal system ..

3061 A municipality or political subdivision of t.he state may not

3062 approve any change in occupancy or tenancy of a building that

3063 uses an onsi te sewage treatment and disposal system until the

3064 department has reviewed the use of the syst.em with the proposed

3065 change, approved the change, and amended the operating permit ..

3066 (1) For the Florida Keys, the department shall adopt a

3067

3068

3069

3070

30n

3072

3073

3074

special rule for the construct.ion, installation, modification,

operation, repair, maintenance, and performance of onsite sewage

treatment and disposal systems which considers the unique soil

conditions and "hieh oonoidero water table elevat.ions,

densities, and setback requirements .. On lots where a setback

distance of 75 feet from surface waters, saltmarsh, and

buttonwood association habitat areas cannot be met, an injection

well, approved and permitted by the department, may be used for

Page 106 of 1 n CODING: Words strioken are deletions; words underlined are addit.ions ..

3075

3076

3077

3078

3079

3080

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

20l0550er

disposal of effluent from onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems .. The following additional requirements apply to onsite

sewage treatment and disposal systems in Monroe County:

1. The county, each municipality, and those special

districts established for the purpose of the collection,

transmission, treatment, or disposal of sewage shall ensure, in

3081 accordance with the specific schedules adopted by the

3082 Administration Commission under s. 380.0552, the completion of

3083 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system upgrades to meet the

3084 requirements of this paragraph.

3085 2. Onsi te sewage treatment and disposal systems must cease

3086 discharge by December 31, 2015, or must comply with department

3087 rules and provide the level of treatment which, on a permitted

3088 annual average basis, produces an effluent that contains no more

3089 than the following concentrations:

3090 a. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/l.

3091 b. Suspended Solids of 10 mg/l.

3092 c. Total Nitrogen, expressed as N, of.l0 mg/I.

3093 d. Total Phosphorus, expressed as P, of 1 mg/I.

3094

3095

3096

3097

3098

3099

3100

3101

3102

3103

In addition, cinsite sewage treatment and disposal systems

discharging to an injection well must provide basic disinfection

as defined by department rule.

3. On or after July 1, 2010, all new, modified, and

repaired onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must

provide the level of treatment described in subparagraph 2.

However, in areas scheduled to be served by central sewer by

December 31, 2015, if the property owner has paid a connection

fee or assessment for connection to the central sewer system, an

Page 107 of 171

CODING: Words strioken are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

ENROLLED 2010 Legis~ature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3104 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system may be repaired to

3105 the following minimum standards:

3106 a. The existing tanks must be pumped and inspected and

3107 certified as being watertight and free of defects in accordance

3108 with department rule; and

3109 b. A sand-lined drainfield or injection well in accordance

3110 with department rule must be installed.

3111 4. Onsi te sewage treatment and disposal systems must be

3112 monitored for total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations

3113 as required by department rule.

3114 5. The department shall enforce proper installation,

3115 operation, and maintenance of onsi te sewage treatment and

3116 disposal systems pursuant to this chapter, including ensuring

3117 that the appropriate level of treatment described in

3118 subparagraph 2. is met.

3119 6. The authority of a local government, including a special

3120 district, to mandate connection of an onsite sewage treatment

3121 and disposal system is governed by section 4 of chapter 99-395,

3122 Laws of Florida.

3123 (5) EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT.-

3124 (a) Beginning January 1, 2011, the department shall

3125 administer an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

3126 evaluation program for the purpose of assessing the fundamental

3127 operational condition of systems and identifying any failures

3128 within the systems. The department shall adopt rules

3129 implementing the program standards, procedures, and

3130 requirements, including, but not limited to, a schedule for a 5-

3131

3132

year evaluation cycle, requirements for the pump-out of a system

or repair of a failing system, enforcement procedures for

Page 108 of 171

CODING: Words striekeR are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

ENROLLED 2010 Legis1ature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3133 failure of a system owner to obtain an evaluation of the system,

3134 and failure of a contractor to timely submit evaluation results

3135 to the department and the system owner. The department shall

3136 ensure statewide implementation of the evaluation and assessment

3137 program by January 1, 2016.

3138 (b) Owners of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal

3139 system, excluding a system that is required to obtain an

3140 operating permit, shall have the system evaluated at least once

3141 every 5 years to assess the fundamental operational condition of

3142 the system, and identify any failure within the system.

3143 (c) All evaluation procedures must be documented and

3144 nothing in this subsection limits the amount of detail an

3145 evaluator may provide at his or her professional discretion. The

3146 evaluation must include a tank and drainfield evaluation, a

3147 written assessment of the condition of the system, and, if

3148

3149

3150

3151

3152

3153

3154

3155

3156

3157

3158

3159

3160

3161

necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to the department's

procedure.

(d)l. Systems being evaluated that were installed prior to

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 6-inch separation from the

bottom of the drainfie1d to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule. All drainfield repairs,

replacements or modifications to systems installed prior to

,January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 12-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule.

2. Systems being evaluated that were installed on or after

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 12-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation as defined by department rule. All drainfield repairs,

Page 109 of 171

CODING: Words strielcen are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

3162

3163

3164

3165

3166

3167

3168

3169

3170

3171

3172

3173

3174

3175

3176

3177

3178

3179

3180

3181

3182

3183

3184

3185

3186

3187

3188

3189

3190

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

replacements or modification to systems developed on or after

January 1, 1983, shall meet a minimum 24-inch separation from

the bottom of the drainfield to the wettest season water table

elevation.

(e) If documentation of a tank pump-out or a permitted new

installation, repair, or modification of the system within the

previous 5 years is provided, and states the capacity of the

tank and indicates that the condition of the tank is not a

sanitary or public health nuisance pursuant to department. rule,

a pump-out of the system is not required.

(f) Owners are responsible for paying the cost of any

required pump-out, repair, or replacement pursuant to department

rule, and may not request partial evaluation or the omission of

portions of the evaluation.

(g) Each evaluation or pump-out required under this

subsection must be performed by a septic tank contractor or

master septic tank contractor registered under part III of

chapter 489, a professional engineer with wastewater treatmeht

system experience licensed pursuant to chapter 471, or an

environmental health professional certified under chapter 381 in

the area of onsite sewage treatment and disposal system

evaluation.

(h) The evaluation report fee collected pursuant to s.

381.0066(2) (b) shall be remitted to the department by the

evaluator at the time the report is submitted.

(i) Frior to any evaluation deadline, the department must

provide a minimum of 60 days' notice to owners that their

systems must be evaluated by that deadline. The department may

include a copy of any homeowner educational materials developed

Page 110 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

3191

3192

3193

3194

3195

3196

3197

3198

3199

3200

3201

3202

3203

3204

3205

3206

3207

3208

3209

3210

3211

3212

3213

3214

3215

3216

3217

3218

3219

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

pursuant to this section which provides information on the

proper maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal

systems.

Ji_L+ii+ ENFORCEMENT; RIGHT OF ENTRY; CITATIONS .. -

(a) Department personnel who have r'eason t.O believe

noncompliance exists, may at any reasonable time, enter t.he

premises permitted under ss .. 381 .. 0065-381 .. 0066, or the business

premises of any septic tank contractor or master septic tank

contractor registered under part III of chapter 489, or any

premises t.hat the depart.ment has reason to believe is being

operated or maintained not in compliance, to determine

compliance with the provisions of this section, part I of

chapter 386, or part III of chapter 489 or rules or standards

adopted under ss .. 381..0065-381..0067, part I of chapter 386, or

part III of chapter 489 .. As used in this paragraph, the term

"premises" does not include a residence or private building .. To

gain entry t.O a residence or private building, t.he department

must obtain permission from the owner or occupant. or secure an

inspection warrant from a court of compet.ent jurisdiction ..

(b) 1 .. The department may issue citations that may cont.ain

an order of correction or an order to pay a fine, or both, for

violations of ss .. 381 .. 0065-381 .. 0067, part I of chapter 386, or

part III of chapt.er 489 or the rules adopted by the department,

when a violation of these sections or rules is enforceable by an

administrative or civil remedy, or when a violation of these

sections or rules is a misdemeanor of the second degree .. A

citation issued under ss .. 381 .. 0065-381 .. 0067, part I of chapter

386, or part III of chapter 489 constitutes a notice of proposed

agency act.ion ..

Page 111 of 171

CODING: Words s-t-rieloen are deletions; words underlined are additions.,

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

3220 2, A citation must be in writing and must describe t.he

3221 particular nat.ure of t.he violation, including specific refer.ence

3222 to the provisions of law or rule allegedly violated.

3223 3. The fines imposed by a citation issued by the department

3224 may not exceed $500 for each violat.ion., Each day the violation

3225 exists constitutes a separat.e violation for which a citation may

3226 be issued.

3227 4. The department shall inform the recipient, by written

3228 notice pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57, of the right to an

3229 administrative hearing to contest the citat.ion within 21 days

3230 after the date the citation is received. The citation must

3231 contain a conspicuous statement that if the recipient fails to

3232 pay the fine wi t.hin the time allowed, or fails to appear to

3233 contest the citation after having requested a hearing, the

3234 recipient has waived the recipient's right to contest the

3235 citation and must pay an amount up to the maximum fine.

3236 5. The department may reduce or waive the fine imposed by

3237 the ci t.ation. In determining whether to reduce or waive the

3238 fine, the department must consider the gravity of the violation,

3239 the person's attempts at correcting the violation, and the

3240 person's history of previous violations including violations for

3241 which enforcement actions were taken undet ss. 381.0065-

3242

3243

3244

3245

3246

3247

3248

381..0067, part. I of chapter 386, part. III of chapter 489, or

other provisions of law or rule.

6, Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a

citation issued by the department commits a misdemeanor of the

second degree, punishable as provided in s, 77 5.,082 or s,

775.083"

7, The department, pursuant t.O ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part

Page 112 of 171

CODING: Words strielcen are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3249

3250

3251

3252

3253

3254

3255

3256

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

I of chapter 386, or part III of chapter 489, shall deposit any

fines it collects in the county health department trust fund for

use in providing services specified in those sections.

8. This section provides an alternative means of enforcing

ss. 381..0065-381..0067, part I of chapter 386, and part III of

chapter 489., This section does not prohibit the department from

enforcing ss. 381.0065-381.0067, part I of chapter 386, or part

III of chapter 489, or its rules, by any other means. However,

3257 t.he department must elect. t.o use only a single method of

3258 enforcement for each violation.

3259 (7) LAND APPLICATION OF SEPTAGE PROHIBITED.-Effective

3260 January 1, 2016, the land application of septage from onsite

3261 sewage treatment and disposal systems is prohibited. By February

3262 1, 2011, the department, in consultation with the Department of

3263 Environmental Protection, shall provide a report to the

3264 Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the

3265 House of Representatives, recommending alternative methods to

3266 establish enhanced treatment levels for the land application of

3267 septage from onsite sewage and disposal systems. The report

3268 shall include, but is not limited to, a schedule for the

3269 reduction in land application, appropriate treatment levels,

3270 alternative methods for treatment and disposal, enhanced

3271 application site permitting reguirements including any

3272 .requirements for nutrient management plans, and the range of

3273 costs to local governments, affected businesses and individuals

3274 for alternative treatment and disposal methods. The report shall

3275 also include any recommendations for legislation or rule

3276 authori ty needed to reduce land application of septage.

3277 Section 36. Section 381.00656, Florida Statutes, is created

Page 113 of 171

CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.,

3278

3279

3280

3281

3282

3283

3284

3285

3286

3287

3288

3289

3290

3291

3292

3293

3294

3295

3296

3297

3298

3299

3300

3301

3302

3303

3304

3305

3306

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

to read:

381.00656 Grant program for repair of onsite sewage

treatment disposal systems.-Effective January 1, 2012, the

department shall administer a grant program to assist owners of

onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems identified pursuant

to. s. 381.0065 or the rules adopted thereunder. A grant under

the program may be awarded to an owner only for the.purpose of

inspecting, pumping, repairing, or replacing a system serving a

single-family residence occupied by an owner with a family

income of less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal

poverty level at the time of application. The department may

prioritize applications for an award of grant funds based upon

the severity of a system's failure, its relative environmental

impact, the income of the family, or any combination thereof.

The department shall adopt rules establishing the grant

application and award process, including an application form.

The department shall seek to make grants in each fiscal year

equal to the total amount of grant funds available, with any

excess funds used for grant awards in subsequent fiscal years.

Section 37 .. Subsection (2) of section 381.. 0066, Florida

Statutes, is amended to read:

381. 0066 Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems;

fees .. -

(2) The minimum fees in the following fee schedule apply

until changed by rule by the department within the following

limits:

(a) Application review, permit issuance, or system

inspection, including repair of a subsurface, mound, filled, or

ot.her al ternati ve system or permitting of an abandoned syst.em: a

Page 114 of 171

CODING: Words striolcen are deletions; words underlined are additions ..

3307

3308

3309

3310

3311

3312

3313

3314

3315

3316

3317

3318

3319

3320

3321

3322

3323

3324

3325

3326

3327

3328

3329

3330

3331

3332

3333

3334

3335

ENROLLED 2010 Legislature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

fee of not less than $25, or more than $125.

(b) A 5-year evaluation report submitted pursuant to s.

381.0065(5): a fee not less than $15, or more than $30. At least

$1 and no more than $5 collected pursuant to this paragraph

shall be used to fund a grant program established under s.

381. 00656.

Jc)-ffrl- Site evaluation, site reevaluation, evaluation of a

system previously in use, or a per annum sept.age disposal site

evaluation: a fee of not less than $40, or more than $115.

(d)+e-)- Biennial Operat.ing permit for aerobic treatment

units or performance-based treatment systems: a fee of not more

than $100 ..

M-(-€l-l- Annual operating permit for systems located in areas

zoned for industrial manufacturing or equivalent uses or where

the syst.em is expected to receive wastewater which is not

domest.ic in nature: a fee of not less than $150, or more than

$ 300.

ill+e+ Innovative technology: a fee not t.o exceed $25,000.

ill~ Sept age disposal service, sept age stabilization

facility, portable or temporary toilet service, tan1<c

manufacturer inspection: a fee of not less t.han $25, or more

than $200, per year.

. (h) +g+ Application for variance: a fee of not less than

$150, or more than $300.

(i)+B+ Annual operat.ing permit for waterless, incinerating,

or organic waste compost.ing toilets: a fee of not less t.han $50,

or more than $150.

ill~ Aerobic treatment unit or performance-based

treatment system maintenance ent.ity permit: a fee of not less

Page 115 of 171

CODING: Words strieken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

3336

3337

3338

3339

3340

3341

3342

3343

3344

3345

3346

3347

3348

3349

3350

3351

3352

3353

3354

3355

3356

3357

3358

3359

3360

3361

3362

3363

3364

ENROLLED 2010 Legis1ature CS for CS for CS for SB 550, 2nd Engrossed

2010550er

than $25, or more than $150, per year ..

ill+i+ Reinspection fee per visit for site inspection after

syst.em construction approval or for noncompliant system

installation per site visit: a fee of not less than $25, or more

than $100 ..

ill-f*l- Research: An addit.ional $5 fee shall be added to

each new system construction permit issued to be used to fund

onsite sewage treatment and disposal system research,

demonstration, and training projects .. Five dollars from any

repair permit fee collected under this section shall be u~ed for

funding the hands-on t.raining cent.ers described in s ..

381. 0065 (3) (j) ..

(m)+±+- Annual operating permit, including annual inspection

and any required sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent,

for an engineer-designed performance-based system: a fee of not

less than $150, or more than $300 ..

On or before January 1, 2011, the Surgeon General, after

consultation with the Revenue Estimating Conference, shall

determine a revenue neutral fee schedule for services provided

pursuant to s. 381.0065(5) within the parameters set in

paragraph (b). Such determination is not subject to the

provisions of chapter 120. The funds collected pursuant to this

sUbsection must. be deposit.ed in a trust fund administered by the

department, t.O be used for the purposes stated in t.his section

and ss .. 381 .. 0065 and 381.00655 ..

Section 38 .. Subsect.ion (9) of section 403 .. 086, Florida

Statutes, is amended, and sUbsection (10) is added to that

section, to read:

Page 116 of 171

CODING: Words stricken are delet.ions; words underlined are additions ..

# 10-12 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7/1/2010 3:13:50 PM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: S8 550: Five-year System Evaluation

Rule Sections: S4E-S .. ONEW

Issue: S8-550 (2010-205 LOF) requires all systems not under operating permit to be evaluated every 5 years. Also requires a grant program for evaluation and repair for low­income home-owners

Issue Originated By: Gerald Briggs, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes incorporate the requirements of 2010-205, LOF

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

1 0-12--64E-6 new-Evaluation_and_Assessment doc (See Attached)

Implements SB 550 (2010-205 LOF) requiring evaluation of all systems every five years and a grant program for low-income homeowners.

none for homeowners who have been maintaining their system Otherwise, property owners will be required to pay for an evaluation, possible pump-out, and possible system repair. Grant program available for low-income home-owners 6/30/2010

1 Evaluation and Assessment

2 (I) Except for systems required to obtain an operating permit, all systems shall be

3 evaluated everllyears to assess their fundamental operational condition and identifr...illly

4 failures. The following standards shall apply;,

5 (a) The department shall notifY owners ofthe requirement to have their system

6 evaluated at least 60 days prior to the deadline for their system evaluation. If the

7 evaluation cannot be scheduled by the deadline, the owner must submit to the department

8 not later than the deadline, a copy of the signed contract to have the evaluation

9 performed, with the expected completion date noted in the contract. In addition to any

10 other administrative action authorized by law, the department may impose a fine of up to

II $500 for failure to comply with these provisions. Each day the violation continues may

12 constitute a separate violation.

13 1. Initial notification shall begin in 2011 with notification to owners of systems with

14 permit records in the Department database.

15 2. Subsequent notifications shall be to owners of developed property for which the

16 Department has no recor d of central sewer connection.

17 (Q) Evaluations shall be conducted by licensed septic tank contractors, environmental

18 health professionals certified onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, or licensed

19 professional engineers. Persons conducting evaluations shall have completed a minimum

20 of 6 hours of department approved training on the evaluation process and requirements.

21 (c) The evaluation report shall be made on Form DH ####, System Evaluation

22 Report. ##/2010, herein incorporated by reference. The evaluator is responsible for

23 submitting the report and required report fee to the department within 5 business days of

I

24 completion ofthe evaluation. Electronic submission of the repOlt to a department-

25 approved data system is allowed. The evaluator. with the written approval ofthe owner,

26 may conduct a more in-depth and complete evaluation of the system. Nothing in this

27 section limits the amount of detail an evaluator may provide.

28 fd) The evaluator shall measure the scum and sludge layer in treatment tanks to

29 detelmine if a pump out is lequired. Tanks shall be pumped out if either layer is within 8

30 inches of the bottom of the outlet filter. If an outlet filter is not present, one shall be

31 installed and the evaluatOl shall make the pump out detelmination based on the installed

32 device or filter. Where an external outlet filtel is used, measUiements shall be made from

33 the outlet device leading to the outlet filter. A pump out is not required when

34 documentation of a pump out in the previous five years providing the capacity and

35 condition ofthe tank is plOvided.

36 GD Any broken or damaged lids or manholes shall be replaced with like products

37 from an approved septic tank manufactUiel and document the replacement on the

38 evaluation fOlm. If the ownel lefuses pelmission to replace the damaged lid 01 manhole,

39 the evaluatOl shall document this on the evaluation fOlm. The department will issue a

40 notice to COli ect and, if I equired, take enforcement action.

41 (3) The department shall review the system evaluation and, if required, issue a notice

42 to obtain a construction pelmit to repail the system or to install a new system ...

43 fa) A repair pelmit shall be lequired when:

44 1. The tank is not wateltight, has visible defects that prevent satisfactolY operation of

45 the system; 01

46 2. Where there is sewage on the glOund or a visible failure of the drainfield; 01

2

47 3. where the bottom of the drainfield does not meet minimum 381.0065, FS,

48 sepatation from the wettest season water table; or

49 4. Where the system is within 25 feet of a potable well; or

50 5. Where the system is within 25 feet of surface water.

51 (b) A permit to construct a new system shall be reguired when:

52 I. There is no treatment receptacle; or

53 2. The treatment receptacle is not constructed of an approved material (concrete

54 block, monolithic concrete, fiberglass, or polyethylenet..m.

55 3. The system includes a cesspool; or

56 4. The treatment receptacle cannot be accessed because it is beneath a building or

57 obstruction that CatIllot be removed for the evaluation; or

58 5. The drainfield is beneath a building or obstruction that CatIllot be removed for the

59 evaluation; or

60 6. There is a direct discharge to surface water; or

61 (4) If a repair permit is reguired, the drainfield shall meet the following minimum

62 sepatations from the wettest season water table:

63 (a) 12 inches for systems installed before Januaty 1, 1983, or

64 (b) 24 inches for systems installed on or after Januaty, 1, 1983.

65 Installation date shall be based on the most recent construction permit for a new

66 system and final approval issued by the depattment. If a department record is not

67 available the installation date shall be based on property appraiser or building depattment

68 records.

3

69 (5)Ihe owner shall submit an application for a construction permit within 60 days of

70 the notice to obtain a construction permit.

71 (6) The owner may request an exemption from the evaluation requirement or an

72 extension ofthe time to obtain an evaluation under the following conditions:

73 {a) A notice of availability of sewer has been received and written arrangement for

74 Pllyment of any utility assessments or connection fees have been made. A letter from the

75 sewer utility must be submitted to the department with the request.

76 {b) The owner of a single family owner occupied residence meets the income level for

77 grant assistance under 381.0066, F.S., may request a one time, one year extension.

78 Written documentation of cuuent income level, such as the previous year federal tax

79 return or a written determination, provided by a government agency, ofthe family

80 income level as a percentage ofthe federal poverty level, must be submitted with the

81 request.

82 (7) Evaluators are responsible for compliance with the standards of section 381.0065,

83 F .S., and this chapter in conducting and submitting evaluations. The following actions

84 shall be subject to the following penalties:

85 {a) Failure to conduct the evaluation in accordance with this section. First violation,

86 Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and

87 suspension or revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

88 {b) Failure to submit reports within timeframes. First violation, Letter of Warning;

89 repeat violation, fine up to $500; additional violation, $500 fine and suspension or

90 revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

4

91 (£) False payment statements. First violation, Letter of Warning and fine up to $500;

92 repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and suspension or revocation of approval to

93 conduct evaluations.

94 liD Failure to complete wOlk within timeframes of contract 01 abandoning a contract.

95 Letter ofWaming and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation and

96 suspension or revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

97 (e) Conducting evaluations without being licensed 01 certified and completing

98 training. First violation, Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500

99 fine per violation of protocol. Conducting evaluations without department approval shall

100 be grounds for denial of approval.

101 (fl Practicing fraud 01 deceit, making misleading 01 untrue representations. First

102 violation, Letter of Warning and fine up to $500; repeat violation, $500 fine per violation

103 and suspension or revocation of approval to conduct evaluations.

104 (g) Absence of any violation from this section shall not be construed as an indication

105 that no penalty is to be assessed.

106 (8) In addition to the penalties of this section, complaints may be issued and

107 disciplinary action may be taken under the provisions of law and rule under which an

108 evaluator is licensed or certified.

109 (2) Any septage disposal service 01 person who illegally disposes of septage pumped

110 ii'om a system shall be subject to an administrative fine, cOITective action, and suspension

III 01 revocation of their license 01 operating permit.

112 (10) Owners who do not comply with provisions of this section shall be subject to

113 citations, administrative fines, and other legal remedies.

5

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM EVALUATION

I PROPERTY ID: II

OWNER MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS ONSITE SYSTEM INSTALLATION DATE 1

CHD TRACKING #: ___ _ DATE PAID: AMOUNTPA~I~D-:-----

TANK EVALUATION: Pumpout Required [ 1 Document determination in comments on reverse. Record legend (if available) and volume .. Mark any items in violation with X. Damaged lids must be replaced with a department approved lid. An a JProved outlet filter must be installed. Date Pumoed: Bv: Disposal F acilitv: Tank Leaend Vol. WatertiahtGl Visible Defects (3) Lid Damage (1) Material (3)

Pumas and alarms are connected and workina (3): rYES I NO I NA DRAINFIELD EVALUATION: Mark anv items in violation with an X. Drainfield Sewage Area Liquid> 50% outlet Separation from

Surfacina (5) Saturated (3) WSWT(5) 1 2 3 4 MINIMUM SETBACKS I FAILURE EVALUATION Feature Setback Remarks Potable Well r 1<25'(5) r 1 <50' (3) r 1 <75' (1) Surface Water [1<25'(5) r 1 <50' (3) r 1 <75' (1) Stormwater Feature r 1<15'(3) Severitv of Failure Relative Environmental Imaact I certify that I have conducted an evaluation of the onsite system(s) at the above listed location on this date and that this report is a true and accurate description of the condition of the system. Based on this evaluation a repair of this system [ is I is not 1 required at this time. This inspection is designed to assess the condition of the system at this moment and

II

does not demonstrate precise code compliance or demonstrate that the system will adequately serve the use placed upon it bv this or any subseauent owner. (Additional remarks on back.)

1 1 1

Evaluator Name (Print) 1 Siqnature 1 License Number 1 Date

REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION (Attach documentation) 1 Propertv connected to sewer or notice to connection received and connection fee paid.

-I I quaTIfV forerant assistance from department and reauest a one-time 1 vear extension. 1 T

Owner Name(Print) 1 Siqnature 1 Date

PROPERlY ID: I ax Appraiser Parcel ID Number - complete without dashes or spaces OWNER: First, MI, and Last name of current property owner. MAILING ADDRESS: Mailing address for owner PROPERTY ADDRESS: Property address: Street, City, State, Zip Code .. INSTALLATION DATE: MMlDDNYYY of original system installation. lANK EVALUATION: Evaluator must measure sludge and scum layers to determine if tank requires pumping and document reason in remarks below: If a pumpout is required: Date Pumped: MMIDDNYYY. By: Name of permitted septage disposal company pumping tank. Facility: Name of disposal facility Tank Legend: State approval number on inlet of tank or NA. Vol: Estimated capacity of tank below outlet invert Watertight: Mark violation with an X Visible Defects: Mark violation with an X. Defects must impact functioning of system. T id Damage: Mark violation with an X Material: Mark violation with an X. I ank must be concrete block, monolithic concrete, fiberglass or polyethylene. Pumps and alarms are connected and working: Yes or No. DRAINFIELD EVALUATION: Sewage Surfacing: Mark violation with an X. Sewage must be visible on ground snrface. Area Saturated: Mark violation with an X Liquid> outlet: Liquid is at or above top ofoutle! Mark violation with an X Separation from WSWI: Document soil profile and wet season water table determination below. Record separation to bottom of drainfield .. MINIMUM SETBACKS / FAILURE EVALUATION: Potable Well: Check the setback to a potable well within 75 feet of any portion of the system or NA. Snrface Water: Check the setback to a surface water boundary within 75 feet of any portion of the system or NA Storm water Feature Type: Record the setback to a storm water featme - swale, ditch, retention area within 15 feet of any portion of the system or NA. Severity ofFailme: Sum points for tank and drainfield issues. Relative Envir·onmental Impact: Sum points for setback issues. CERTIFICATION: Printed name, signature, and license number of qualified evaluator. Date of certification .. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION: Check the appropriate item and attached written documentation of sewer connection, notice and payment, or previous year tax return, Please mark out / redact private infonnation such as social security numbers, Documentation must show owner name and property address noticed, Print owner name, sign and date,

R d '1 fl k d' k h b I ecor SOl pro I e, lemar S an site S etc e ow: Soil Profile: Additional Remarks / Comments:

Munsell # Texture Depth To To To To To To To To To Site Sketch:

To USDA Soil Series: Remarks:

# 10-05 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7/112010 9:54:32 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Part II (Florida Keys) S8 550, Update standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,017, 018, 0181, 0182

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

SB 550 (Ch .. 2010-205, Laws of Florida) amended repair standards for the Florida Keys.. Many provisions are being relocated within the rules to eliminate duplication Additionally, several provisions of Part II need updating to address evolving technology ..

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes incorporate repair standards for systems in areas where sewer will be available by the end of 2015 and clarify options for onsite systems in the Florida Keys ..

10-04--64E-6 017 -ParUI_changes_for_550 .doc (See Attached)

The changes clarify standards for performance-based systems in the Florida Keys and provide repair standards in areas to be served by sewer by 2015

Savings include septic tanks in areas where aerobic treatment would have been required in prior rule. New costs include annual screening (field test kit) samples to verify nutrient reduction. 6/22/2010

Comments: 7/2110 Language was noticed in FAW to provide standards for repairs required by 2010-205 LOF effective 7-1-10

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

r:J o

1 PARI II

2

3 64E-6.0l7 Definitions ..

4 Definitions in Chapter 64E-6, Parts I and III, F A C., are also applicable to Chapter 64E-6, Part II, F A.C

5 (1) Basic disinfection - treatment process designed to meet secondary treatment standards for fecal coliform providing an

6 arithmetic annual mean not to exceed 200 fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml sample.

7 (I) through (3) renumber as (2) through (4) No change

8 m (4) Minimum level of waste treatment - a treatment which will provide a recovered water product that contains not

9 more, on a permitted annual average basis, than the following concentrations from a sampling point located following the final

10 design treatment step ofthe onsite sewage treatment and disposal system:

11

(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBODs)

(b) Suspended Solids

(c) Iotal Nitrogen, expressed as N

(d) Iotal PhospholUS, expressed as P

10 mgll+

10 mglH

10 mglH

I mg/H

12 (5) through (7) renumbered as (6) through (8) No change

13 Rulemakmg Authot ity 381 0011 (4), (13), 38I-!](}6;-,81 0065(J)(a), (4)[lJikj FS, Ch 99-395, LOF Law Implemented ·/-54JJ1,

14 38IAI()-l{;)');-3gJ_o{)U(lj;-38I.-D()6(1-)~"8!_006J;- ,81 0065, -38!-DQM5;-386.04-/- FS, Ch 99-395, LO F His tory-New 7-15-86,

15 Amended3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly JOD-6 062, Amended3-3-98, 3-22-00~

16 64E-6.01S System Location, Design and Maintenance Criteria ..

17 (liT able III of Chapter 64E-6, Part I, F A C, and other subsections of Part I pertaining to soil textute, soil depth, and

18 maximum sewage loading rates for specific soils shall not apply to areas subject to the provisions ofthis Part except for Iable

19 Ill, Footnote 2, as it relates to the falling head percolation test procedure However, approved system design criteria, system

20 location, operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements ofthis section subse€tiOIl"'_rB4-E-6.-0I8(-l-),f1-),(;};.qnd-(4t-

21 ·F.A_G-,-shall apply. A minimum of one soil profile and one percolation test per application shall be required for site evaluations

22 performed in the F lorida Keys. However, a soil profile and percolation test is not required when Ilw-systCfH Ele,;ign engrn-

23 €he".;",; IAe uso-0f-an injection well is used for effiuent disposal

24 (2) Effluent loading rates for various onsite sewage treatment and disposal system components installed under this part

25 shall not exceed the followina ' ~.

{a) Nutrient material-lined drainfield receiving effluent from a 12erformance-based treatment 1 .7 gallons Ref day

system. per sguare foot

(Q) Sand-lined drain field receiving effluent from a performance-based treatment system 1.3 e:allons Rer day

per sguare foot

{c) Sand-lined drainfield receiving effluent from an aerobic treatment unit 1.1 gall ons per day

:Qer sQuare foot

isn Sand-lined drainfield receiving effiuent from a seQtic tank 0.9 gallons ger day

per sguare foot

{e) Mineral aggregate filter receiving effluent from an aerobic treatment unit or 12erformance 5.5 gallons Qer day

based treatment sYstem I gel' sguare foot

26 QlAll new, modified and repaired onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall be perfoImance-based treatment

27 systems designed by an engineer licensed in the State off lorida, pennitted in accordance with Part IV orthis chapter and shall

28 meet the minimum level of waste treatment as defined in sectionR1±!e 64E-6 017, F A.C All receptacles subject to a positive

29 buoyancy exposure shall be anchored or otherwise weighted to prevent flotation during flooding periods The engineer's design

30 shall evaluate the receptacles 5-Hflll-oc---t;,,,,\"-a+u-atcd-for buoyancy while in their normal operating condition

31 illF) An onsite sewage treatment and disposal system which meets the location, consttuction, maintenance and

32 operational requirements of this section i"aI'a'5Fai"lts-64E-&,O-I··8(+)(*l-er-+,,}-·-r~\_~shall be approved, provided that if an

33 aerobic treatment unit is a component of the system design, the certification, construction, operational and maintenance

34 requirements of Rule 64E-6 012, FA C, shall also be met: however. the design engineer may specify an aerobic treatment unit

35 with a minimum treatment capacity equal to the estimated sewage flow in T able I in lieu of using the values in T able IV when

36 the aerobic treatment unit is part of a performance-based treatment system.

37 (a) When final effluent disposal is into a nutrient reducing mateIial-lined drainfield system, the following general

38 requirements shall apply:

3 9 ~rhe € 0 t.ll1ty hea-l-"t+}-ElepaFf-fft€-fH-s-ha-i-J:-..reqttt I e tfW ill staUe-f-H f a f1 Uti i e Ht-r-e d UE i f1 g rna te-H-a-t---+i-R(;.'{:!-tlmffifi.B-l..tk-y&tem---t-e-pf(}-V+Efe

40 e0fti.fi€H~ion fl'Gln tA-t"'-tn~;t:-:llel' [; nutrient-reEluciRs FflaKffi.-al-s-t.lpplier ~hat:-the--mate-R-akl:lft~}f-s-~e--&r:.-~tif.m-5

41 meet:; the requifeR'H.'fl-ts ofthi:; Gub-se€-8+)-fI-c-

42 Lb--No part of the system shall be within 25 feet ofthe boundaries of surface water bodies or salt marsh and Buttonwood

43 Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt marsh communities

44 ;L~·The bottom orthe d.ainfield shall be at least 24 inches above mean high water. The nutrient reducing material layer

45 shall be a minimum of 12 inches thick and the 'I'll.· bottom surface of the nutrient reducing matetial layer shall be at least 12

46 inches above mean high water The nutrient reducinQ material shall overlie a 12 inch thick layer of quartz sand meeting the

47 particle size requirements for sand liners under drain'fields The bottom surface of the sand liner shall be at or above the

48 elevation of mean high water

49 3_ 4,-Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial

50 effects of evapotranspiration

51 ~7Nutri 611t redHGi I:g -material i:las a---fin-ite 1 i fe span ''Ille-fH+1':R-€-H:-t--fC--4\:lciH-g--mati~Fift·i-s-4a+l---l:J0-fet»at-e-ti--a5-f1~Fy-t<+-e-R-5-\:lH~

52 that--thB-s-ystem GOntiFHJB-s4H-meet the m il:~mufl.) 16\ e1 of ',liaste-treatm£nt.

53 4. Even effluent distribution over the nutrient reducing mateliallaver shall be assured bv utilizing low-ptessure dosing. or

54 drip irrigation.

55 Cbl When final disposal is into a sand-lined drainfield, the following general requirements applx;

56 1, For a sand-lined drainfield, a minimum 12 inch thick laver ofguartz sand shall be placed beneath the bottom of the

57 drain-field absorption surface and a minimum 12 inch wide.and minimum 24 inch thick Jayel of quartz sand shall be placed

58 contiguous to the drain'field sidewall absorption surfaces in order to provide an additional level of effluent treatment prior to

59 effluent passing into the surrounding natural limestone rock Sand material shall have either an effective grain size in the range

60 of 025 millimeter to 1.00 millimeter and shall have a uniformity coefficient of less than 3 5, or the material shall be of such

61 size whereby at least 90 percent of the sand particles pass a U.S. Standard Number 18 sieve and less than 10 percent pass a

62 number 60 sieve, These materials are in the USDA soil texture classes known as medium sand and coarse sand The county

63 health department shall require the installel of a sand-lined draintield sYstem to provide certification from the installer's sand

64 supplier that the sand supplied for such type of installation meets the requiIements of this subsection.

65 2_ No part of the system shall be within 25 feet olthe mean high water line of tidallv influenced surface water bodies or

2

66 within 25 feet onhe mean annual flood line of permanent nontidal surface water bodies or salt marsh and Buttonwood

67 Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt marsh communities.

68 3. The bottom ofthe drainfield shall be at least 24 inches above mean high water. At least 12 inches olthe sand laver shall

69 be at least 12 inches above mean high water.

70 4. Appropriate shallow lOot vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial effects

71 of evapotranspiration.

72 GJtb) An injection well shall be approved for final effluent disposal provided setbacks from salt marshlbuttonwood

73 habitats and other surface water bodies cannot be met by another approved effluent disposal system or when the percolation

74 rate exceeds 30 minutes per inch or where the soil profile shows caprock underlies the site.,·nete-Ei-abe-v-e-,-aJ-lli-prev-i-ciee-the-

75i»sta.J.latiou··is-in·lnstallation of injection wells shall be in compliance with the following:

76 I An injection well shall not be permitted or installed under the provisions ofthis part in any area designated by the

77 United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as having a single or

78 sole source aquifer Single source aquifer is defined in subsection 62-520 200(14), F A C

79 2 In areas where injection wells are approved for use, the DOH Monroe County Health Department shall be the permitting

80 authority for the engineer designed onsite sewage treatment unit and the injection well, where the estimated daily domestic

81 sewage flow will not exceed 2000 gallons per day. For establishments having a total daily sewage flow greater than 2000

82 gallons per day but not greater than 10,000 gallons per day, the Momoe County Health Department shall be the permitting

83 authority for the engineer designed treatment unit and DEP is the permitting authority for the injection well and any additional

84 associated effluent treatment device

85 3 The ground surface within a distance of at least 10 feet in all directions around the injection well and any portion of the

86 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall not be subject frequent t-B----&Uf-Fa-ee-ol-gmuBtt-watef flooding In addition, the

87 invert of the effluent inlet pipe to the injection well shall be a minimum 18 inches above the estimated seasonal high water

88 level

89 4 Ifthete is adequate vertical and horizontal clearance to allow for proper maintenance, repair or replacement ofthe

90 treatment unit and injection well, such components olthe onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be allowed to be

91 placed beneath an elevated building

92 5. Prior to discharge into an injection well, effluent shall pass through an unsaturated mineral aggregate filter unit as

93 described in this patagraph, or where effluent is passed through a filter unit of another design which has been determined by

94 the State Health Office to be at least equal to the mineral aggregate filter unit with regard to sewage treatment capability. The

95 unsaturated mineral aggregate filte! shall be designed in accordance with the following:

96 a. Effluent application to the unsaturated mineral aggregate filter unit shall be by gravity or pressure distribution to a

97 perforated pipe disrribution system as specified in Part I. Rule 64E-6.014, F .A.C. Such distribution system shall be placed

98 within the walls ofthe mineral aggregate filter and shall be placed above a minelal aggregate filter layel' which shall be at least

99 24 inches thick. Mineral aggregate filter material shall have either an effective size in the range of 1.18 millimeters to 4.75

'00 millimeters and shall have a uniformity coefficient of less than 3.5 or the material shall be equivalent in size to Florida

01 Department of Transportation aggtegate classification number eight or nine. The system designer may specify additional layers

,02 of filter material above or below the required 24-inch layer of filter material. The DOH Monroe County Health Department

03 shall reguire the installer of mineral aggregate filter systems to provide certification from the installer's mineral aggregate

04 supplier that the aggregate supplied meets requirements of this sub-paragraph If the filter is not sealed with a lid meeting the

05 requirements for septic tank lids in 64E-6.013. F.A C., the filter shall be capped with a laver of slight Iv limited soil no less than

3

06 6 nor mOre than 12 inches thick. The design engineer may choose to use 24 inches of phosphOlOUS absorbing material in lieu

07 of the 24-inch layer of filter material pl'Ovided the phosphorous absorbing material meets the palticle size distIibution required

08 for unsatUl'ated mineral aggregate filters,

09 b. The maximum sewage loading rate to an approved filter unit other than an unsaturated minelal aggregate filter as

10 described in this section shal1 be evaluated by the State Health Office based on unit design, size, filter media characteristics and

11 expected functional Ii!" of the unit.

12 c. Effluent having passed through an unsaturated mineral agglegate filter shall collect in an underdrain fOI gravity or

13 mechanical discharge into an injection well The undeldrain shall consist of minimum 4 inch diameter pel forated drainpipe

'14 which is encased within a minimum 8 inch depth of 112 to 2 inch diameter washed and dUiable mineral aggregate. The walls

i 15 and bottom of the tilter unit shall be reinforced concrete or other material of adequate strength and durability to withstand

16 hydrostatic and earth stresses to which the unit will be subiected. The wa!ls and bottom of the unit shall be made waterproof so

i 17 that the total volume of effluent passed through the mineral aggregate filter will be collected in the filter under drain flll

18 discharge into the injection well.

: 19 6. Prior to discharge into an injection welL effluent fi'om the filter unit shall be disinfected bv chlorination or othel

20 disinfection method approved by the State Health Office to meet the basic disinfection requirements of this rule. Where

i 21 chlorination is used, a free chlorine residual of 0.5 milligram per liter measured at the point of effluent discharge after a

i 22 minimum chlorine contact time of 15 minutes into the injection well, shall be maintained in the effluent at all times.

! 23 Disinfection shall occur in a tteatment chamber dedicated to that purpose.

i 24 "'"·"PFiel'-t.,"di5€haFg€'-int0-atH"j.€tieH~wc'n,"efnH"n,,"&hall""1oe",lisinf"&ted"bY'GhlHFinatiolH)r·otheH\.binfec+iolHnethod

; 25 ap:?f+we-d"·b)-t-l·l€-.s·H:lte--HeHlth-.. O·t-ll.·E€ .. :-A.-H"ti+l~m·HfB-di-stFl·fB-&!-i(}n·-t&V~~q'l:li-valeHt··to-·a--f'l .. ee·'·Ghj·o·riHe··r0S.ffh,laj···o-j::·(}··§ ·+n i-HtgfHHlS-p0·F

! 2 6 Jitcl-FFI:€·as'H:fcti--at-the--pe-lftt-e4fHuBHt .. -di·s·ehaFb·<e-afte-r·-a-ff1-~f\-~Hl-Um-Ghl9riHe-6{-}FH;a€t--t=-ttHe-Df -l--§....f-n.j·nut-B·s-tH:t{}··-rhe-tnj-e€ l;-i (-Hi .... WIG,} i,

:' 2 7 shaj.j..·bc· .. m-a-i-Hta·j.ne-cl-tll-the···e..f.tluent..at"·8JI-t1rn·es·;

28 1.,:6, An injection well to receive an estimated daily domestic sewage flow not exceeding 2000 gallons per day shall meet

29 minimum construction criteria a, band c of this sub"paragraph. The Monroe County Health Department shall be notified by

i 30 the well driller regarding the time when the well will be drilled so the county health department can schedule observation of

,31 well constlllction The DOH Monroe County Health Department shall not approve an injection well for use until the well

'32 driller has certified, in writing to the DOH Monroe County Health Department, that the well has been installed in compliance

33 with the provisions ofthis sub"paragraph The inspection fee for the constlllction of an injection well shall be $125 00

34 a An injection well as defined in subsection 64E"6 017(3), F A C , shall be constlllcted, in part, utilizing a casing of

'35 polyvinyl chloride, commonly refelled to as PVC The minimum PVC casing weight and strength classification shall be

; 36 schedule 40 and the minimum outside diameter of the casing shall be 4 inches Other casing materials having strength and

37 corrosion resistance properties equal to or greater than PVC schedule 40 pipe shall also be approved

'38 b. An open hole having a minimum diameter of 6 inches shal1 extend to a depth of not less than 30 feet below the bottom

.39 ofthe casing

40 c The annular space between the casing and the natural lOck wal1 of the borehole shall be grouted the full length ofthe

'41 casing

42 ~:f""~ A minimum of one maintenance visit every four months shall be made to those systems using injection wells for

43 effluent disposal The visit shall include an inspection ofthe chlorination unit and any filter units When an aerobic treatment

44 unit is a component of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system, documents and reports required in Rule 64E"6 .012,

45 F A C , shall also include the results of aerobic treatment unit inspections and shall include information on chlorine residuals to

4

46 assess compliance with the disinfection requirements of this rule

47 2.,& Ifan injection well is discontinued for effluent disposal the injection well shall be properly abandoned and plugged by

48 filling the injection well fiom bottom to top with cement grout, or by filling the open hole from the bottom olthe hole to one

49 foot below the bottom of the casing with gravel that meets the size requirements for drainfteld aggregate in paragraph 64E-

50 6.014(4)(c\ and filling the remainder of the injection well with cement grout. The Monroe County Health Department shall be

51 notified by the well driller, septic tank contmctOl, 01' state-licensed plumber about the time when the well will be abandoned so

52 the county health department can schedule observation of the entire well abandonment procedure. The DOH Monroe Countv

'53 Health Department shall not approve an injection well abandonment until the well driller, septic tank contractor, or state-

54 licensed plumber has certified, in writing to the DOH Mailloe County Health Department.Jhat the well has been abandoned in

'55 compliance with the provisions olthis sub-paragraph. Ilthe abandonment of the well is not ready to be inspected at the time of

! 56 the inspection of the abandonment olthe treatment receptacles, the inspection fee for the abandonment of an injection well

57 shall be $75,00 and shall be paid to the department prior to the inspection,

i 58 EJ1-14}f nfl aerobic treatment I;mit treating domestic sewage fle\\ [j iH excess of 15~l~-f--dG) btlt n~effi.R.g

59 ~sallons pe, G&)'-wMf<HlfflueHt !f-'Hl-1-\ItB-lreatment nHit wiil-i3e-tlts€I~·te-alt-1ffig-ifl0Bt-{4esi-gooEkoi-l-a85"f!'lieR

i60 ffiaiRfield 'iO'sl""" (he following reqniremeR~'i sRall be mee:

.61 (a) The soil aill,Grptisn 8rainfie-!d syr;tern shall be "", ha~~~H",-gfWle;;t-tlistaflw-attaffiahle,bHl

162 shall meet aHeaA minimum ,wtbaek a,,,l eievatioA reqlfif<JrneAts :;pecilied in "nbsee!i"n 64F G-4-1-8f1-}-f'-A,G,

; 63 W+h<Hlwncr or ie~1 comply with IAe general ma-~peratiom:l reqoirementJ of

1 64 slli>!;eG1'ions-M-E-&,.()·~+tl!l-fl.-(3-),-~,-an9-an-y-a<l(litietml-op"Fa!ieJHlf}El-maiHffiOOnGe--f€truir-elllef\ts'5pe€i-fieEl-l3y-the--s-ptem

i 65 de-s-i-gn-BH·gineet:,

166 ld) Nutrient-reducing materials have a finite life-span. Nutrient-reducing material shall be used in accordance with the

: 67 following requirements:

168 1, The installer shall pIOvide certification ff'om the nutrient reducing material supplier that the material supplied meets the

; 69 requirements of this section. The certification shal! include the capacity of the material to absorb nutrient stated in units of

70 mass of nutrient absorbed per mass of absorbing material at the design e'ffluent nutrient concentration.

171 2. The nutrient reducing material shall be replaced as necessary to enSUle that the system continues to meet the minimum

72 level of waste treatment. The design engineer shal! specify the capacity of the nutrient reducing material to absorb nutdent

! 73 stated in units of mass ofnuttient absOIbed per mass of absorbing material at the design effluent nutrient concentration. The

i 74 design engineer shall provide an estimate of the life span for the system using the absorption capacitv and estimated sewage

75 flow.

i 76 Ll}(-J) The owner or lessee of a performance-based treatment system shal! obtain and maintain a maintenance contract with

i 77 an approved maintenance entity

78 (a) All new onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall be inspected by an approved maintenance entity at least

179 two times each year

i 80 (b) A maintenance report shall be kept by the maintenance entity A copy of all maintenance reports shall be provided to

81 the county health department The report shall include the following information:

'82 The address of the system

.83 2 Date and time of inspection

84 3 Sample collection time and date, and person who collected sample

'85 4 Results of all sampling

5

86 5 Volume of effluent treated, to include total monthly and daily average

87 6 Maintenance periormed

88 7 Problems noted with the treatment system and actions taken or proposed to overcome them

89 (6) The maintenance entity of a performance-based treatment system shall cause the sYstem to be screening tested for

'90 nitlOgen and phosphorous at least once every year. The screening test shall be one of the tests approved by the Monroe County

91 Health Department. lithe health depar1ment is requested to conduct the screening test. an inspection fee of$75 shall be paid to

'92 the health department prior to requesting the test. Upon the results of a sceening test that shows a violation for phosphorous OI

'93 nitrogen. the owner shall have the system sampled and tested by a laboratorv certified by the Department. Ihe Monroe County

94 Health Department shalLrequire the property owner or maintenance entity to have the system sampled for nitrogen or

i 95 phosphorous or both and to have the samples tested by a laboratory cetrtified by the department when there is reason to believe

'96 that the system is not meeting applicable per formance standards.

i 97 (al If any individuallabOl'atory-certified test shows a total phosphorous concentration in excess of 4,0 mg/I. the system

! 98 may be resamp\ed at the owner's discretion. If the system is not resampled within 30 days of the original sampling date or the

199 tesample shows a phosphorous concentration in excess of 4.0 or shows less than a 50% reduction of phosphorous between the

~OO influent and effluent samples. the the phosphorous absorbing material shall be replaced as a system tepair or the the system

~01 shall be re-engineered by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. The system shall be brought into compliance with

~02 treatment standards required at the time of system permitting,

~03 (bl lfallY individual laboratory certified test shows a total nitrogen concentration in excess 0140.0 mgll, the system may

~04 be resampled at the owner's discretion. If the system is not resampled within 30 days of the original sampling date or the

~05 resample shows a nitrogn concentration in excess of40.0 or shows less than a 50% reduction of nitrogen between the influent

~06 and effluent samples, the system shall be re-engineered by an engineer registered in the State of Florida. The system shall be

~07 brought into compliance with treatment standards reguired at the time of system permitting.

~08 (1}(4.) In conjunction with the systems specified in this sectionsuhsection5·,64F,-6·018{lj·anG-\2};,·LAcGc, an applicant

~09 may use the alternative systems described in subsection 64E-6 009(1), (3), (4), (5) or (6), FA C An alternative system shall

~1 0 meet the general intent of Part I and Part II ofthis rule.

~11 Rulemaking Authority 381 0011 (4), (13), ;8.1-11116,381 0065(Wa)J1J1IJ'pS, Ch. 99-395, LOF Law Implemented 381 0065,

~12 381 00655 FS, Ch 99-395, LOF History-New 7-15-86, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6 063, Amended 3-3-98, 3-

~13 22-00,4-21-02,11-26-06_._

~ 14 64E-6.,0181 System RepairGe5&f>;lcand-lJnOOet>m"n!e'!-&Y";em-I~f>la·e"men!-a'nd+nleH",·S)'Stem-Hse,

'15 (1) Where a property is determined to have a cesspit or an undocumented system, the cesspit or undocumented system

~ 16 shall be required to be replaced with an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system complying with Rule 64E-6.0 18, F A c, ~17 ")lee!>! as proviaed fer in .mhseetien (2)

~18 (2) In areas that are scheduled to be served by a central sewer by December 31, 2015, where there is documentation from

~ 19 the sewer utility that the property is scheduled to be served by December 31, 20 IS and there is documentation from the sewer

~20 utility or from the county tax collector's office that the property owner has paid or has signed an agreement to pay for

~21 connection to the central sewet system. an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system requiring repair shall be repaired to the

~22 standards in this section. &€Wag€-fu~.fure July 1. 20-1.().ffi\erfm-€<>l'l5\!'WtiBfHAAMaFG;;-5I'eafie<l-ffi-5,rh<;"dl&!Hi4g. ..

~23 6-;-(}"l-.g.l-E-3-~A--;~~~·;--for-·fte-\V-,H-lGEiifiBd,B-~panded·"0r-·B-:>E-i-st-}Fl-g--ons-ik}-se-wago+Fc-atment-an4--d-ispB-S-a1--s-ystenl&·-e-F-to-re-pl·GGt'-G€-S5-Fl-its

~24 er-'",HG,*Hment€d .. &ys!effi&-Slla~~bhlH&we4

6

!25 (a) [nterim sjscem requirements shallae allowea througA July!, "001, fer onsile sowage treatment ana aisposal sjstems in

!26 areas that are sGRoaulea to he serYea, aeGording to an aaoptealoGal comprehensive plan determineEl to ee in €omplianee ay the

'27 Department-&/CG<>FHtffiffiit)' Aftairs, by a central sewage facility before July 1,20+4,

'28 (8) Aftel~Julr~1, interim s)stem-mqllirem<;nts shall be allewed in an area sehcEluleEl-te-Be-&€wHl-bY-'HeRtral sewag<>

!29 4'a€'li1y-<>nly-wHen all ofthe following conaitions are mel"

~30 -h-An--enfe-H~-e~e-l*'E)-v-iEk<-tl-~ge-an&€-&~I-B€ti-&~ttHH--AaS beef} :;jg;J-}ed~

~31 ~e-eeH-t-fa€t-€e-Hh'l-i-n-s-a--b-ind·i·B:g--s€he4He-fef--€-erute-€-ttoR--0:f..#H.l...6-A-5-tte--&e:\¥age-tf:B-atl-nen-t-and",d-i·s-pesaky-s-te-Hl:5-t-e-the

~32 €-eHH-'a-l-se-w·age-fa€i~ity~a-Hd

,33 :h-'l'here··i.g-al1-€·nfef€<lac>le-r~q"irem"nt-f<Of-aeallil0nm"nt-{)f·H,e-eR%;to-5ewagc~t'Featment--anEl·-d·ispBsal-s-yslems,

~34 (-€-}--0f1:5tte-se·wage4f€at-me-l:1-t-Hne·-El-i-5F>e-5-r'1-k-yste:lH-s-that-ar,e-fle-t:-s-e-l-1-eEl-uled·-te-ee-se-r-veEl--iR--aGe·erdafl€-e-wi-tlrth-is-5-esti-eB-·s·hall-

!35 prov-ide IAe level of-treatment re~"ireB iFl-fu,!e-44¥.-·6.0 I 8, F .fIr.&.

!36 Ed) /\l! eA,;ite sewage treatment and dispDsal sy';tems-m'-&I"'Fatien en luI), l,c2g.l-O, shall prov-ide the le\ el"ftreatment

!37 require" in R"le Hli-4.0 I 8, " . .'\.C

!38 (c1-)-lnterim ,;) .;tc-!l-15-5tallilanb shall-8e~

!39 Ca) No system shall be repaired to meet a lower standard of t] eatment than the treatment standard permitted or requi] ed to

!40 be met prior to the repail .

!41 {Q) The following general requirements apply for the use of a septic tank and sand-lined drainfield system:

!42 I. A tank need not be replaced as part of the repair ifthe health unit determines the tank to be liee 01 observable defects.

~43 constructed of approved materials, and if such tank has an effective capacity within two tank sizes of the capacities required by

!44 Table II. In addition. the tank shall be pumped and a solids deflection device shall be installed as a part olthe outlet olthe tank

~45 if one is not cunclltly in place. If the tank needs to be replaced as part of the repair, it shall be replaced with a tank meeting the

!46 requirements of Table IT and 64E-6 013, FAC.

!47 2. Effluent from the septic tank shall discharge to a drain field over a sand liner meeting the standards in subparagraph 64E-

!48 6.018C±lililL

!49 3. No part of a septic tank and sand-lined drainfield system shall be located within 50 feet olthe mean high water line of

~50 tidally influenced surface water bodies or within 50 feet of the mean annual flood line of permanent nontidal sUlface water

!51 bodies.

!52 4. The drainfield component of the system must be located a minimum distance of 50 feet from salt marsh and

~53 Buttonwood Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species are those typical of salt malsh communities.

!54 5. The bottom ofthe drainfield shall be at least 30 inches above mean high water. At least 12 inches olthe sand layel shall

!55 be at least 18 inches above mean high water.

!56 6. Amljopriateshallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield svstems to maximize the beneficial effects

~57 of evapotranspiration.

~58 (c) The following general requirements apply for the use of an aerobic treatment unit and a sand-lined drainfield system:

!59 1. The A Class I aerobic treatment unit shall meet the whie!t-meets-the-I""a1ciBR,€erl£tHl&tioo-;-mainte--naR€€-!ffid-Bp<!ratioLal

!60 re"llt;rerner-1ts-e+'5"aparagtaplHi4Il-4.0+8-1{'l')(a) L or 2 .. L'-'r.Q , aRB tRe certification, construction, operational and

~61 maintenance requirements 01 Rule 64E-6 012, F A.C

~62 -1--:-Whe1:e-a-G.-la-s-s-i-ae-F0hi€-treat-lwiHlt-U-n-it-i-&-HtHi·z€·d,anEl--\v~1ere·-fiHat-e+f-1-uen-t--di5p0s.a-l-1:5-i-nt&·,a-5afl..Q...-HHed-dt'ai'n:fielf~-s)-s-te-n1:,

~ 6 3 th~·.fe-He'''''r'-ing-ge-H-e-l-a{--r-e-q uit'en1-e-nt'}-s-ha-I-l-a-:pp-I-)~

7

~64 2. Eftluent nom the aerobic treatment unit shall discharge to a drainfield over a sand liner meeting the standards in

~65 subparagraph 64E-6.0 IS( 4)(b) 1.

~66 a. Fer a saHa..Jffi€d draiRtield. a-lHffii_m 12 il1elHhi€k layer efqeaH'~klttJj.l-bei>kJGed beaeffih~rn-ef4e

)67 araHHte14-aoo0rp(isH serlae. aHfi-a-rniffim:IIR 12 iAGh-wi<l€~rKl minimum 2'1 iAGlHhi€lc-layel ef quat4;;;..saHd shall be-~Ja€OO

~68 roffiigooHs-te ~w araiRfield siEic'1Yall aeserptiea sur4a€ffi-ffi-Brdef te preyide aa OOdi,i&H&l-k-ve1-Gt:€·mu_atm'*lt-pFi01'-te

~ 6 9 Gffffioot-j:}a5s-ing i Ate th e saffSHAffiHg Hat Hf'al 1 ime&teHe--Fe€-k, ~ and lna~cl:ta I sh all h a-v~-e-tthe-~ffeffiv-e-gffil+H,.~z-e----ffi..the-faR-g0

'7 0 of-(}'2""-m+llim"lff-te-h-OO-mil-limet"1'-&OO-shal·l-ha,,,,-a-eHifEHmit)~€e"f:fI£feHt-ef-less-thaflcJ"",,-sHlw-materiHl-4all-be-of-sHffi

~71 -s-Ee-w!l8-H3b-y-a:We-ast-9-O--j3-8-1'eent··&f·Hm-sane--F'an-·id·es-pas-&.:Hh-S-;-£tanda~~Hffibe.f-f..&--S-i-e·v-e-anE48-s-s-tha-Fl-·H)..·p01-'G€cl-lf-.pas.g-r1

~ 7 2 -1:1-um.-be-F-60-&}eve.:-+-he--s-e-matef-ia-1s-are-JR4ne··VS9A-s-e-i-l--t-eo>E-t·me-das-s05-kAffi¥R-a5··meEi·i-Hm·-s·atl8-an4-e-ea-rs~:l-safl:Eh-"fhe·£-eu-H-ty

~73 J.1-eakh-d-epar-tB·leBt-sha-l--l--re-qUtl~e-the-iHS-h'l-I--l-ef----Gt::"a-5anJ.-l.i»ed.--d.fai-n·fi.e·ld-sys-t-Gf11-t.e·previ.fie-e-eI4i-Heat·iEH:-l-fFom·the-i-fl-sh.'tUer2s-saad

~7 4 wf'p1ier that the san4-sepplied fer soell type of iHstallatioa-rneets the requirements efthis sHsseeti",,,

!75 ;Llr. No part ofthe system shall be within 25 feet olthe mean high water line of tidally influenced suriace water bodies 01

~76 within 25 feet of the mean high water line e-ffik.ar) RigA wateF-~ffie of penn anent nontidal surface water bodies I-akes, pom1-s-e-f-

~77 other non-tid:.:1 "Hrfase wa-tef-s-or salt marsh and Buttonwood Association habitat areas where the dominant vegetation species

!78 are those typical of salt marsh communities

~79 'l,€c The bottom surface of the sand layer shall be at least 12 inches above mean high water

~80 d TAe maximum sewage loe,ding rate ~o an GeFehie trealmeHI ufl-it--ahs"'i*ien--eed-dmmfwld v, illl underlying san4+mBf

!81 shall be I I gallaHa-per sqeare fo,~~

)82 ~c,""Appropriate shallow root vegetative cover shall be established over drainfield systems to maximize the beneficial

~83 effects of evapotranspiration

~84 {d) The following general requirements apply for the use of an aerobic treatment unit and an injection well as defined in

~85 64E-6.017, FAC.

!86 1. The Class 1 aerobic treatment unit shall meet the certification, construction, operational and maintenance requirements

!87 of Rule 64E-6012, F.A.C.

~88 2. Effluent from the aerobic treatment unit shall discharge to filter, disinfection chamber and injection well located,

!89 designed, installed, operated and maintained in accOldance with paragraph 64E-6.01S(4l.C£h

~90 ;J-'Jlrovil\etl-a*h:sS I ".robie-treatment l!Ait :s-utilized aHa jffiwided effl.,"'HHffim-the (reGtment eAit, pri(}f-te--<liscIJaf'~

~91 an injeetion welL is ~Gsscd through a mineral aggregate filter llH,t-as-desffibe4-in .mbpc,mgrnph "'iE-6.0181 (3)Ea)2., f :\.G.,of

!92 where CmUe"t is passca threegha filter lInit nfanether design v,hiGh ha,; Been de(erlRiH£~e-hlate Health Of-fiee to be-at

~93 :eGst 8qH\:ll to the mineral aggrega-tc"--fIlter unit wi:h-t:t:.."'gard to sG\\age :rcatment cJ--}*lbility. ?~efl-\',GI13hai++}l~Hvea---i--R

)94 compliance with the fellowi",;:

~95 a An injectioH weE shall not be-f7€-rmitte(! or in-sta-J.ied HFlder the 131"0\ isioFl3 &~1fHf1 any area ~

~96 t!nited Stc.tes Environmental Pl'otoctien Agency or the--Fforida Depal-1:m.ent of Env-tffi-A--ffiB-flta~tfe.H a::; Havb¥.! a siAgle-ftF

~97 &e-le-&oHf6€-ilquiferc-&ing,e-5HBr-se-aquifer is de~i-Hed-in-'mbeetlisH-62·~OE+'I-),+.-A"G,

~98 lr.--In-Rreas-where in.tc'€tierl-w;,lls-are-apl'feVea-+l>H;se;-the-QGl-o)-Menfoo-f'<mHl')"Ho-a,ltfr-j)e·l'<",tmool-5hall-be-+he-p"fHlimeg

~99 ~he--aeffibie treatfHe.f!HHtit,tHe-+i-lteH1n+t-aRMha--ir-rj<>etien-w'*l,-wl1er~tirnatOO-EJai>y-ElelRes~ie se-wag€-#ew-w-m

~OO Hf}t-c-:'€e-ee~HoHs--pB~'-ef-e.&Hl-bHShmeHts ha--ving-a--tf}ta-+--B-at~v-se-\.v-a;ge f1ow-gr'eat8-f'-t.l1a!·l~GGQ--ga.noHs--pBF--da~y-but--n-et

10 1 great"r--than-+G-,l)0().galloHs-·~eHIey,-tl;e--M0Jtl'Oe-Go'mty+!"a1ih-j)€l'ar{fl'l€flci-e',nai·I·-ee--tll e-peHl1ciH-iHg-aHthorit-y--feHn e~\e-1'&&iG

m2 t+eatm·eH-t-B-l-1it-a-R-d-·the···f~he·F-·HJ1-it-a-!--1-Et-D·E:·.P··i-s-··the··j?-e·HB1-1::t-i-n-g-ag--ent·t01'-th-c-i-nj-e-et-i·E)}l---\\-,€,U-a-nd··an·y-aEldi-t-iG-nal-a-s5-8-G-i·ate-d···effl-u0fH

\03 tH~-at--me-n-t--d-e.y·ic..e-;---"11·1€--{'-f--fl-He·Rt-ffBnl·-t·h€-tfeat-m-e-fl:t--HRi-t-·p·e·r-m·itteEl----B~he-.[}Gi,,~----1\48-nf-8-e··Ge-HH-t-y-[O=Le-ahh..g~par-tm~·Ht··-s·hal·I-Fl:icTt:

S

~04 eKc8ed 20 illg.'l CBOD$-er 20 rug.'] suspended solids on a permitted GAI1Hal average basis ana-s-Rall have disinJeetiol1 in

lOS """"fdanee with sill) s"b~aragTaph 64·10 6.0181(3)(a)2.11., Ie A.C, prior te diseharge iAte aR)' injeelion welL

106 e. TAe inte·FiT" oflhe aerebie Ireatment uAiHhe top sBrfaee-ofthe minefal-uggregale-WTff-5<>i-\-eB¥e'fo-anEl-the-gJ'Olffi€!

107 ouFfae6 ".il"in a distuRee of .. le"'t 10 feet il>-al~direetions aroltn<l-4e-iRj-ection well, filhlF-HRit-and-uerobie trealmont anit shall

108 OOt-B£--S~e-sHrta€e OF gfo,,,,d-water flo 8 dingo-ln adaiti on, til€--ffiveFt--8-f-\h~eflt--inle+j>ij>e-Ie--t~~iRjee+i8-n-we-lkltttIH,e

109 a ill;n;m UrrH·S-ffiel;e;;-ae8-V~~"5li-ffi!lted-5eas<mal-ltighwa!:e~

J 1 0 Eh-1+thGFt-~Ef~lH-aEe-¥e-ft.i-€-&l-ftna-he-l'-~o-Rta·l-e·leaFa-a6€-te-aU0-w-fef-p-FOpcH-aaJHt..emHlc·e,---t'€·pair-or-f€p·!·a-€e-ment:-BHhe

~ 11 a-ef!fl~)i&-tre-at-lflGRt-tl£:it;-ftiter-m1-it-aHd-tAjeetiGR--\veU,su&h-€-o~e-H8tlt-s-eHHe-OR-site--sewage-tffi·atme-at-an4-Ei·is-j3-osal-·g.ystm·H-5-J..1a-H

11 2 b€-a-llow"d-·to-lJ0-j>laeed-bcneath-an--e-l<>v-ateEl--OOilding,

113 e~Ih-miFleffil-aggfegate-f+lle-f-as-refel'feG-to-in-,sHbl*'r-agFaph·64·E-&G+8H3i(a}J-"--F-,AcG~is--Htili~eth-em,,eJlt--dis6harge

114 Jffim4M-aerebi&-mlit shall eo by gravit)' 81 pF6ssme di';trib,~iHH to a perfom~ distribati<>n 'J)·"tem a~eH!ic'tl-io Part 1,

115 R±rte-64-1i- e.g 11, ".A.C. SHeH distribotier: sy st_ SHall bo plHeed within-the II dis HHiw--m-inefl'.1 ag,;regate Riter afl~

116 jOlaeed abeve a mffieral c:ggrogate-fi-lt€F-lay,,,'-whioH shall be-at leasl 2'1 ioeHes thiek. Mineral aggregc:te t'i-A'6f·-ffiat€Fiakhall-ilB¥e

~ 17 eitheH",-e·ff~i'l-e-ie--the-'Fa»ge-ef 23 6 "'; II irnetes-te-4----=&-mi-llimetel-&-aed-sltal-l-Mw-a-Hfl-ifimlli!;, eoefR6R,*-"f4e55-t11aH

118 3.5 or tM Foator;al shall be e'lHiva-leot in [ii"o lo-Jl-itwida DOl*'f~"'OAt on:f-aRS!'&Ftati<>n-uggrugate elassilf&atiBn-Hambor eight-e!-

119 eiRO. The s)'slem-des-igner ma), spoelt) aeditionallaYeIs ofJiltet-fHHterial aeove [~w-the-H"tHifeJ-;M.·*"'h-k:)·or ol'fl-itef

120 _!:eriaL Illo DGl-i MOAroo Coanl), Health-Qs~ife-iJ'lB--ffi&talior 01 miHerc:i aggfeg<:':o filter systems to provide

~21 G0ftif1ea~iOI~ f!=l.-)ffl the irutaller's miFu.:wal aggrega~e 5Ullf)liel that ti1e Gggregaro sl;lPF'liea meet, re-qH:rement, ofthL; sub

122 l'aFagffi!'~lICth€-fHt&HS-n&t--sealed-w-ith--a-liEl--m€ettRg-tl1<.'-f<'{juirGTHel't5-oti>affigml'Mi4-E-·6A)H(-l-Xe-), P. ". C,the-fi-lt"l'·shalc~o

123 sawed--witlh'l--laY"F-Bf-slightly-limi t-ed-s"i-\-fle-less4haA--<H1Bi'-ffiore--tMn---l-;J--itl€ he£-lhi€ k

l2 4 f....+he--H·l&~ff}H+H--se .. \Vag-e--1ea.a·iHg-nlte-fe...the-rn .. itH~ffil.-aggH}gatB--:j;·i-~te¥-£hall-be 5. 5 gal·I-oHs"·j3e-r-&ql:liiH3-f'oot-·-f!"eF-Eia-y-basBfI--l:+pon

J25 the-top·-sluthee···m-B-a--of-the··fi.-lter-·-1ayer-·-·T·he-+ftax-i-mlHH·-&iJ\-\I,..':>rge·-·load-J.Rg-·rate·--1o-·an-a-r:>prow·d-fj.heF·untt;··e-t-he-F-t-ltan·-a· In·iRe-rat.

J26 aggf€-gate··±'iher-·-a-s·-dgsC:i-ibed-·i·n-H~is--se€t--io·!·l--&ha-H-ne-··e·valuat-ei.l·-hy·--th-e--State··-l...f·e-a-J.th-·GfHc-e-bas-ed··EH1-Hnit·des-igR;-5·i'l':e·;--~l.-lte1::···lH-ed·ia

J27 ehara-ete-F·i-st-i€5-·and-&N:pe·eted·-fHfle-denal--l-i-fo··of-the-·unit;

128 g;--E-ftluiHlt-·havtng-pas-see.-thr-0ugh ... -a-m-inBr-8-1--aggl-'<a-gat-e-·:fi-lteF-E'rRal·l-·&oHe·ot-·in-an-uadofB·min-for-·-gravi:ty··ol!..·nlBchani·c-a-l

129 lliseMrge iAto p.n injeetioA wa-1L The eRdefdrain ;;ha1l--eet1siGt of minin:eHl 'I i!l£h-diaJ1-1-etff-peffi)mted-tin:inpipe whiBlt-E;

130 e+1€f\sed withi" a minimo", 8 inet' depth of 1.'2 te 2 iRell diameter wa4ed-aBEl-thuabi<H1ggregate. THe walls and bettom l1fthe

131 Hlter uHit shalcl--be reio ferGed-conerete or other m .. erial of adeqaat<l-5treHg!ll aod clUJ ai>i-I-ity-te--witlu!<',AG h) drolJtGti~'--aRfi--£arth

132 stre&ses to "hi€h-the HHil will be sahjected. The walls a-nd-bottom oHhe-un-it--shalj-l"Hnade-watef~th-at-the-1etal \ olBm"

133 "",,-mucnt pa,;,;ed ti1rougi' lAe-mineral aggf0gate filter will be colleel€d-ffi-tl1o filter HllE10rElH±in--fer disoharge inlo the .i<>~

134 w<>ll--

135 &.--P-rior to eilJc"arge iHte an inje€tit)o well, efl1ucnllrom thB f1Iter ooit-sha-i+be-di5infet-ted-lly-thlorioalion-or-ffiller

136 disiAl'oeli"H metllee approved b) the Sta!o Hoalth Office A m-i~)n-4e-vel--e'l'!ivaloAt te-~hlBfine ro]ideal

13 7 e+-(j",'4llill-igmm-pe·r-litel--ffiC"",",Ul'<}d-aHhe-j>eiHt·ol'e--l'I'f'leflt-disGHafga-aft€Hl-fHin·imuffi-€hle-RH€-ooota€t-liHw-Bf:-B--minHfe&-iHto

138 the-ini ee,; on w~aiH!affied--ffi-th0--eft'luer>lcatall-timB&,

139 i.--An--injc~_II-tB Fecci v e aH-{)5tim-atad-(ja~ti0-5ewage-11B-w·note-X-€€BfHfrg-2-GG{}-ge-no""f"Hlay--s"all-me€1

~40 rniHimuR1-t'eHw'uWf>n-€t-it€Ha-(l};-{ll) aA d (Ill) -ef-ti1 is SHll paFa~Ti1wO-ll-+\4"l'lf<Kl-(;oHnty-geal'h-9"l"'H:me·"t-shall-;;el

141 ·3frfH'e.ye·-aH-inj-e·e-Ben-'\:v-e+J....fo-F-w3€-HBt-l~l-thc-W€~1-dFi·l"k"l.1.:..has-eertj.fted,tf} .... w·r-it.j,ng-te-the-·-P·f)H-·M-enr-ot.~~uHty ... l.f-eaUh....f:)<0-paftfR€-Rt;

~42 that--t-h·e-\l,·e-J..J....has-becn .... iR&t-al-led·-in-l.' .. omp.J-iau€·e·-w-i·i;h-t=he-j)"Fov·.j·s-i-ons--e-f-thi-s·-&uh·paragraf!l,.-lhe-·i·ns-fH~·€tj·e·H-·f€-e--f.o·f"-the··oeH-s-r+ucti(ln

14 3 "Hn1-iff}&61ien-·",,,e-I{--slla-1l-be-$-I·::l-§"oG~

9

\44 (I) An iejee:io" well as defilled in sHbsee:i"" Ii 1E il GI7(3},-F.A.C . sHall be e"est,"etel~. ill ~ar:. elilizing a ("si"g of

145 polyvinyl GAioriae, €OlHlllOflly referred to as PVC. The miniR1I;Hf/ PVC easiHg u-eigHt and strength elassHieation sha-l-l--be-

\46 5€'-1lli~1\€ minimum oUlside-diameter oftlle ea&ing shall be 1 iashes. Other eas~ng-;;tfeAgtll-affd

\47 ceFreoion resislanGe-J*"'l'ertiss eqeal !E>-eF-greatertHan PVC 3chetlule-4llfiJ>e-&hall-also be apf"l'&vcd-

148 (-J.H An opee H ele-havitlg-a-m i n irw.!'" di-am€ler-eJ'-~hall-ex4€flf1-to-fl-de~tl>-eHteHess-thafHG-l£B-helow- II,e b otlom

\49 ffi'the-Ba&i;;g,

\50 01l-l-)-+He-annul"',-"pac&-I>e+weefl-the-cas·i"'o'-fH"J-the-tl-Rtu·ral-fOC-l"",\,.-Il-ofthe-bmeloBle-shal·j.-he-gf8Ht"MI,,e-fuU-I€·ngth-of+l,e

\51 easing,

~52 }; ..... A_~-nl~ninll:l-ffi-f}f..efle-ma-ifl:teflanee-v"}.s.i-t:--e-vef-y-fHHf-mOH-t-h-s-sh-a"ll-be-maa-He-tI-lose·-syste-ms-us-ing··injeG-HoB-weHs-fe-}!.--e-ft-1ueHt

~53 rli-sposal-;--lH-aEidiHEH1-le.-tl-l-e--sta-I-HJ.ard-aefoe-i€-treatrnent-Hnit-fH-a-i:n-tenancIC-vts-it;-the··vi.g·it-s.n-all-i-Rclude-an--t.AsreE:-tie-n.-·a.f-t-he

\54 ehlerina:ion ,mel filler nAil" Documenls ,mel re~OftS-required in RHI. 6HHi.GI2, '·.A.C., sA;:I1 ;:Iso iHelHde the ,esHlt, eftiless

~55 ifLJpeetions and shaH iR€lude i-Hformatiofl on €hloFifle resisu:.'..l .. to asses" eompliaB€-C vw"it£:! tHG disinfeetiofl requir0meflts oftffis

\56 rttJe.,

\ 5 7 _ &-.l-f.aR-iHje€t-i<>n wc 11 i.; di scrmli n He d I' OJ cfl1nenl-EI is~ 0 ,;;:I us e -5UC h i Aj C et i on--we-J.khaI'I-~~Lf>rol'erlTai"mtdOflefi-"Htd

158 plngged by-Filling the injection well from bottom-te :01' with eemen: greHt.

~59 ~eF-fe-FfA-aB€-e--~fcat111eHt tiyst0m-€.e~;igHed p.fui Ge·!!tified by a prote~;sional e-ngtnsel', lieense8 in the state--;--as

~60 prodH€iflg afHlftlusnt meeti»g-at a minirfHHft-tfls treatmeAt 3iandards for ,;'. Gj"31em desigHed-in GGCOrdaA€C wit£:! paraglap"h 64E-

\61 6.Gl gj(J)(a), F.A.C. amll'errnitted, conSlrneted-and monilored-in ;:ceorde.Hee-witH Parl-J.¥.o

\62 Rulemaking Authonty 3810011(4), (13), ,81 00650)(a)JJlflJ. FS , Ch 99-395, LOF Law Implemented 381 0065, 381 00655

,63 FS, Chs 99-395,2001-337, LOF H/Stmy-New ,-3-98, Amended ,-22-00,4-21-02, 5-24-04, 11-26-06~

\64 64E-6,,0182 Coordinated Permitting"

\65 Chapter 28-20, F A C " and the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between Monroe County, the Department of

\66 Community Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Health, including the Monroe County

167 Health Department, dated July 25, 1997, are herein incorporated by reference, and is available by contacting the department

\68 Chapter 28-20, F A C ,and the MOU establish a permit allocation system for development and a coordinated permit review

\69 process Chapter 28-20, FA C " and the MOU prohibit new system construction permits to serve new residential development

\70 that would allow development in excess ofthe number ofpermits that Monroe County may issue under its policy

\71 Rulemaking Authm ity 381 0011 (4), (13), 38-I-I!{)6,381 0065(3}(a), (4)[Jlflij FS, Ch 99-,95, LOF Law Implemented 154 01,

\72 ,810011(4),381006(7),3810065,38100655, ,8601,38603,386041 FS, Ch 99-395, LOF History-New 3-3-98, Amended

\73 3-22-00

10

# 07-23 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 712/2010 2:00:25 PM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Performance-Based Systems-Standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,025

Replaces current 7 -day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal

Issue Originated By: Eb Roeder, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes replace current 7 -day and 30-day average discharge limits with a percent removal, summarizes the performance requirements into a table format

Proposed Rule Change: 07-23--64E-6025-PBTS_revised_standards_er06_30_2010 doc

(See Attached)

Summary: Rewrites the definition and standards for Performance Based Treatment Systems

Possible Financial Impacts: should not be any for systems that meet the existing standards

Date New: 8/3/2007 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 8/21/2007 Tabled by Trap: 8/27/2009 Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 8/21/07 TRAP tabled for Damann Anderson's comments to be considered

2/8/08 Eberhard discussed with Damann and made appropriate changes to definition 025(3) 2/3/09 Eberhard made several changes to the proposal, Gerald reviewed and did clean-up 2/19/09 TRAP Tabled Address grammar in (10) and make edits to table (differentiate between informational versus requirements in baseline standards and differentiate between bottom of the drainfield and soil versus treatment tank effluent readings.) 8/12/09 Eb made changes requested by TRAP 8/27/09 Tabled to reword Paragraph 3 and to meet with industry and look at research. 6/30/10 Eb revised for TRAP meeting

1 Issue: lreatment Standard Definitions for Performance Based I reatment Systems" 2 3 • The pmposalreplaces treatment standards for 7-day and 30-day averages with a percent removal 4 performance standard" 7-day and 30-day averages are not meaningful in CUHent practice" Percent 5 removal allows some consideration of variability in influent concentrations" 6 • The standards are reformatted in a table for ease of reading" 7 • Baseline standards are provided for all pollutants .. Domestic sewage strength and septic tank effluent 8 standards are now consistent with 64E-6 .. 002(15)(c) (domestic sewage strength).. 9 • AIU standards are defined to clarify PBTS standards in locations where AIUs are required ..

10 • Florida Keys standards are amended by grah sample and percent removal standards 11 • Advanced secondary treatment grab sample standards for' nitrogen is loosened t'O make a distinction 12 fmm Florida Keys standard .. 13 • Effluent is defined and treatment standards are adjusted for soil-based treatment. 14 • Disposal and treatment component are defined 15 16 17 64E-6 .. 025 Definitions 18 Due to extensive revision, slIike entile section and add the following: 19 20 Defmitions in Chapter 64E-6, Parts I and II, are also applicable to Cbapter 64E-6, Part IV. 21 (I) Bottom infiltrative surface - the vertical projection ofthe bottom surface of the drainfield that is no lower in 22 elevation than 30 inches below grade. 23 Q) Composite sample -a defmed mixture of grab samples of wastewater or effluent taken in proportion to either 24 time or flow, to minimize the effect of the variability of the individual sample. 25 Q) Disposal component - arrangement of equipment and/or materials that distributes effluent within a 26 drainfield 27 (4) Effluent - treated sewage at the point of discharge to the drainfield or disposal system. Where the site 28 specific application proposes to use soil as component ofthe treatment system, effluent refers to the mixture of soil 29 water, effluent and shallow groundwater recovered from the monitoring points and treatment concentration 30 standards shall be decreased by 50% for cBOD5,TSS, TN, and TP, and by 90% for fecal coliform, and percent 31 removal standards of table IX shall be correspondingly adjusted. For systems designed to meet the standards of 32 64E-6.017(4), effluent refers to the recovered water product from a sampling point following the final design 33 treatment step. 34 (5) Failure - in addition to 64E-6.002(23), exceedance by an individual sample olthe applicable performance 35 standards, unless the maintenance entity performs and documents maintenance, and a second individual sample is 36 taken within 30 days ofthe frrst individual sample and meets the applicable individual performance standard. 37 (6) Grab sample - a sample which is taken from wastewater or effluent over a period oftime not to exceed 38 fifteen minutes. 39 (7) Effective drainfield depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the invert ofthe 40 distribution pipe. 41 (8) Innovative System - as defined by s. 381.0065(2)(g), F .s. 42 en Performance-based treatment system - a specialized onsite sewage treatment and disposal system designed 43 by a professional engineer with a background in wastewater engineering, licensed in the state of Florida, using 44 appropriate application of sound engineering principles to achieve specified levels of CBOD,i carbonaceous 45 biochemical oxygen demandUSSitotal suspended solids), TN (total nittogen:LTI'itotal phosphoru.u. and fecal 46 coliform found in domestic sewage waste, to a specific and measurable established performance standard. This term 47 also includes innovative systems. 48 flQ) Performance-based treatment system maintenance entity - any person or business entity which has obtained 49 an annual written permit issued on form DH4013 from the DOH county health department in the county where the 50 maintenance entity is located ana has aeen aHtherizea te "erform Hlaffiteaan€e av the aesigH engine ... '" 51 mllffilfasmrer ef all treaffile1lt sSffiilene1lts HSea if> the eerformanse aasea treaffilent system ana previaes speratien 52 ana maiatenanse se""ises .ssesialea with that perforrsanse bases treaffile1lt system. 53 (1 I) Sidewall infiltrative surfaces - the horizontal projection of the drainfield measured from the invert ofthe 54 drainfield distribution pipe to the bottom infiltrative surface, or to 30 inches below finished grade, whichever is less. 55 (12) Total drainfield depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the top ofthe drainfield.

56 CI 3) Treatment component - any arrangement of equipment and/or material that treats sewage in preparation for 57 further treatment and/or disposal. Treatment components may incorporate a disposal component. 58 Cl4) Treatment performance standards-59 Ca) Performance standards for effluent from performance-based treatment systems consist oftbree criteria: 60 1. Annual average concentration is the arithmetic mean ofthe results of all effluent samples taken within the 61 previous 365 days. expressed as a concentration. 62 2. Individual sample - result of analysis of one effluent sample, whether grab sample or composite sample, 63 expressed as a concentration, 64 3. Percent removal- annual average removal of a pollutant from the discharge of the treatment system 65 compared to the influent from the establishment. The influent stems from a septic tank or similar treatment 66 compartment; percent removal~ CI - effluent concentration/influent concentration)' 1 00 67 Cb) Treatment performance standards are established for five pollutants. 68 l. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand after five days CCBOD,), measured in mg oxygen per liter 69 2. Total suspended solids CTSSl, measured in mg per liter 70 3. Total nitrogen CTN), the sum of nitrite, nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. measured in mg nitrogen per liter 71 4. Total phosphorus CTPl, measured in mg phosphorus per liter 72 5. Fecal coliform, measured in colony forming units ccru) or most probable number CMPN) per 100 mL 73 (c) Numerical values for several levels of common treatment performance standards for the five pollutants are 74 defined in Table IX. Compliance during monitoring shall consist of meeting at least one of the three criteria. To 75 achieve compliance the values determined from samples ofthe system shall be equal to or better than the treatment 76 standards listed. For concentrations. better means lower, for percent removal. better means higher. 77 Cl5) Wastewater strength - the sum ofthe CBOD, and TSS concentrations. 78 79 PUT TABLE IX HERE 80 81 82 Rulemaking Authority 3810011(4), (13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS.law Implemented 3810065, 3810067, 386041, 83 FS. History-New 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00,06-18-03, 11-26-06, 84

85 86 87

88

POLLUTANT

CBOD, -annual average -individual sample -percent removal TSS -annual average -mdividual sample -percent removal TN -annual average -mdividual sample -percent removal TP -annual average -individual sample -percent removal Fecal coliform -annual average

-individual sample

-percent removal

Domestic Sewage Waste Range

300 mgIL 500 mgIL not applicable

200mgIL 500 mg/L not applicable

100 mgIL 150 mg/L not applicable

18 mg/L 25 mgIL not applicable

2.0E+6 cfui 100ml 2.0E+7 cful 100ml not applicable

Baseline Septic Tank Effluent Standards

150 mg/L 300mgIL not applicable

100mgIL 200mg/L not applicable

100 mg/L 150 mgIL not applicable

18 mgIL 25 mgIL not applicable

2.0E+6 cful 100ml 2.0E+7 cfu/ 100ml not applicable

TABLE IX PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Baseline Treatment Standard 24" below bottom mfiltratIve surface

10 mg/I 20mgl 95

30 mg/l 100mg/ 85

70mgIL 100mg/L 30

12 mgIL 18 mgIL 30

20 cful 100ml 200 cfu/ 100ml 99.999

Aerobic Treatment UTIlt Effluent Standards

20mg/1 60mg/1 90

20mg/1 60mg/1 90

no requirement

no requirement

no requirement

Secondary Treatment Effluent Standards

20 mg/I 60mg/1 90

20 mg/I 60 mg/I 90

no requirement

no reqUIrement

200 cfu/ 100mi 800 cfu/ 100ml 99.99

Advanced Florida Keys Advanced Secondary Nutrient Wastewater Treatment ReductIOn Treatment Effluent Effluent Effluent Standards Standards Standards

10 mg/I 10 mg/I 5 mg/I 30 mg/I 30 mg/ 10 mg/I 95 95 97

10 mg/I IOmg/1 5 mg/I 30 mg/I 30 mg/I 10 mg/I 95 95 97

20 mg/I 10 mg/I 3 mg/I 50 mg/I 40 mg/I 6mg/1 50 62 90

10 mg/I I mg/I I mg/I 20 mg/I 4mg/1 2 mg/I 25 50 90

200 cful no reqUIrement i cful 100ml 100ml 800 cful 25 cfU/ 100ml 100ml 99.99 99.9999

89 Footnote 1. Where chlorine IS used for dismfection in a system designed to meet advanced wastewater treatment standard for fecal coliform the deSIgn shall 90 mclude prOVISIOns for rapid and nniform mlxmg; and the total chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/I shall be mamtamed at all times. The minimum acceptable 91 contact tIme shall be 15 minutes at the peak hourly flow. No mdividual sample shall exceed 5 mgiL TSS after the last treatment step before applicatIon of the 92 disinfectant. 93 Footnote 2. Where chlorine is used for dismfection m a system deSIgned to meet either the secondary treatment standard or the advanced secondary treatment 94 standard for fecal coliform, the deSign shall include provISIons for rapid and nniform mlxmg and a total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 mg/I shall be maintamed 95 after at least 15 mmutes contact time at the peak hourly flow. 96

# 08-09 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7f112010 11:10:44AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Innovative Systems-Test Data Required

Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 004, 64E-6 .. 026

Two differing rule sections exist for innovative system applications. Submission requirements differ. Entrance requirements are so stringent that they discourage innovation

Issue Originated By: Eberhard Roeder, DOH

Justification: The proposed changes provide a single point in the rule where innovative system permitting procedures are spelled-out, and broaden the sources of data that can be used as evidence that a proposed technology should receive innovative approval Allow installation of 1 system

Proposed Rule Change: 08~09_64E-6 026_lnnovative-system­permitting_,June2010 doc

(See Attached)

Summary: Eliminate duplication between 64E-6 004 (8) and 64E-6026(1); move County Health Department tracking part of 64E-6.004 (8) to 64E-6 026(2); Broaden data sources that can be used to provide compelling evidence to allow access to innovative testing

Possible Financial Impacts: Should reduce costs since it provides numerous alternatives to ETV testing and allows single system to be installed under restrictive development conditions 4/21/2008 Date New:

Initially Reviewed by Trap: 8/27/2009

Tabled by Trap: 8/27/2009

Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 5/27/08 Gerald asked to remove from TRAP agenda to study the language

2/3109 Eberhard edited and Gerald reviewed 2/19/09 TRAP did not consider due to time constraints. Put on next TRAP agenda 8/12/09 added NSF 245 provision. 8/27/09 TRAP Tabled along with issue 07-23 6/29/10 extensively revised To include innovative development permit for one relatively untested system and innovative demonstration permit for numerous systems

1 2 Issue 08-09 Innovative System Permitting

3 4 Summary: 5 • Amends section 64E-6 0295 to provide details on in novative systems 6 • Establishes two categories of innovative system permits: development permit (up to 10 7 systems) and demonstration permit (one system), with different data requirements and fees 8 • Establishes minimum standards for monitoring protocol 9 • Expands documentation required for an innovative system

10 • Puts all innovative system language in one location 11 • Clarifies coordination between applicant, county health department and Bureau of Onsite 12 Sewage Program 13 14 64E-6 004 Application for System Construction Permit 15 (1) through (7) No change 16 (8) Innovative Systems shall be permitted in accordance with Part IV of this Chapter.--BF-fH'w-j}Feffi!Bj 17 appFevai-fof-oAsile-sewage-lreatmeffi-aFld--gjspesaf-&\,slems-sflall-beiniliatBQ-by-soomittal-ol-afl 1 8 applioati€n-for-pe~mit-tlsin§-r;:oFffi-g~94;-Aereby-iAGOrpoFateEi-b)'-ferefeFlG&c-OON-GOuAt}' 1 9 lleaIm-Gepaflmeffts-are-atltfHm~SStle-iAStaUatiOf\-permits'HPGf\-feGeipl-Bf-tlle-lempofary-permih 20 r;:ofm-Q.Fh>-144,-Jan-94;-a~oFffi-G~;-dan-94,hefeby·iAcorpoFaleEl-by-refereRoe,shall-be-useEl-te 21 FeGefEi-iHfE}frnatiE}fl-lllat-GesGfiges-ootifiGatioo-ffiEtHiromeHts-between-the-tempof'af)'-f>efmil-appliGant,--\f1e 22 QGl4-t;GuHty-health-GepaFlment,aREi-\Ae--State-l=lea~h-GffiGe-,-~hese~E}fmS-af8-\&-be-pHlGeSsed-bythe

QOH .. ·cQunty. .. health .. departm·ents,·, 23 Specific Authority 381 0011 (4),(13), 381 .0065(3)(a), 489.553(3) FS. Law Implemented 381 0065, 24 489.553, FS. History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 100-6..44, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, 5-25 14-96,2-13-97, Formerly 100-6 044, Amended 11-19-97, 3-22-00, 11-26-06~ 26 27 64E-6 026 Applications for InRovalive "yslem Permits aRd System Construction Permits 28 (1) ApplicalioRs fer iRRo',alive syslem peFmils ApplicalioRs fer inRovative syslem permils shall be 29 made ~sin§ ferm D~ ~14~. The applicalioR and all s~pportin§ iRfermalioR shall be si§Red, daled aRd 30 seated by aR en§ineer, liceRsed iR Ihe "Iale of "lorida. Excepl as pmvided fer in s~bseclioR 64E 31 6.028(~), FAC., allernative drainfield mateFials aRd desi§ns shall not be appmved ' .... hich wo~ld F8s~11 iR 32 a F8d~GlioR in dmiRfield size ~siR§ Ihe mineral a§§F8§ale drainfield syslem as desGribed iR R~le 64E 33 6.014, F.AC., and Ihe lolal s~rface aF8a of soil allhe boltom of Ihe drainfield as Ihe GFileria for drainfield 34 siziR§ comparisons. Applicalions shall inGl~de: 35 (a) A monitoFin§ pmtocol desi§ned to validale Ihat the syslem will perfoFm 10 Ihe en§iReeF's desi§R 36 specifications. 37 (b) CompelliR§ evidenGe Ihallhe syslem vlill f~RclioR pmpeFly and F8liably to meellhe F8q~iF8meRts 38 of Ihis chapleF aRd "eclioR ~81.0065, r;:.". ,,~ch compellin§ evidence shall incl~de ORe OF more of the 39 follo'l/in§ fmm a IhiFd party tesliR§ of§anizatioR appmved Ihmu§h Ihe ~m" ERviroRmenlal TechRolo§y 40 VerificatioR PFo§ram: 41 1. "ide stream tesliR§, where effl~ent is dischaF§ed into a system F8§ulated p~rs~ant to ChapteF 40~, 42 ~ 43 2. TesliR§ of systems in other states with similar soils aRd climates. 44 ~. laborator,' testiR§. 45 (2) through (3) renumber as (1) through (2) No change 46 Rulemaking Authority 3810011(4), (13), 381 0065(3)(a) FS. Law Implemented 381 0065, 381.0067, 47 Part 1386 FS. History-New 2-3-98, Amended 6-18-03, 11-26-06,4-28-10 48 49 64E-6 027 Permits 50 (1) Innovative System Permits shall be issued in accordance with 64E-6.0295, FAC An applicatioR 51 fer system conslFuction peFmit fOF an iRRovative system GaRnot be F8viewed ~ntil the iRnovative syslem 52 peFmit has beeR approved specilyiR§ the numbeF of systems and time limits. The departmeRt's decisioR 53 to §Fant OF deny the iRRovative system permit shall be based OR the pF8sence OF absence of compelliR§ 54 evicieRGe that the iRRovalive syslems will f~nclioR properly aRd F8liably 10 meellhe F8q~irements of this 55 chapter aRd "eGtion ~81.0065, r;:". 56 (2) through (7) No change

1

57 §§ 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

83 84 85 86 87 88 §@ 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

64E-6,,0295 Innovative Systems ReclassificatieR .. (1) No construction permit for an innovative system shall be issued until the owners of a proprietary

technology or their authorized agent. or a person desiring the permitting of a public domain technology makes application for and receives either an innovative system demonstration permit or an innovative system development permit from the Department Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs.

(2) Innovative system demonstration permits shall allow the installation of a limited number of innovative systems for a limited period of time when there is compelling evidence that the system will function properly and reliably to meet the reguirements of this chapter and section 381.0065. FS. Such compelling evidence shall include results on performance and reliability from successful testing meeting all of the following conditions:

(a) Full-scale testing with an average measured daily sewage flow of at least 200 gallons per day. (b) The test results include all influent and performance conditions. for at least ten separate weeks

over at least five months. (c) The testing of the system was performed by a third party testing organization independent of the

designer. engineer and technology owner. such as a testing facility accredited by ANSI for testing to NSF­protocols. the United States Environmental Protection Agency's national onsite demonstration projects. or reguired by state agencies. outside of Florida. tasked with on site sewage system evaluation.

(3) Innovative system development permits shall allow the installation of a single innovative system for a limited period of time when the system has not been successfully tested in accordance with paragraphs (2)(a) through (c) above but where testing has been performed that includes at least five monitoring events over three months under and meeting one or more of the following conditions:

(a) Testing in Florida where the innovative system is part of a treatment system regulated and monitored pursuant to Chapter 403. FS. and the flow is within a factor of 10 of the estimated sewage flow for which the innovative system is proposed.

(b) Testing in Florida as part of department-supervised research. (c) Testing in Florida of systems permitted and installed as a non-innovative onsite sewage treatment

system that demonstrate performance at a higher standard than that for which the system was originally permitted.

(d) Testing in Florida of the innovative system installed and permitted as part of the building plumbing and not part of the onsite sewage treatment system.

(e) Testing in Florida of the innovative system in an experimental setting where the effluent is discharged to a collection or transmission system regulated pursuant to Chapter 403. FS.

(f) Testing in Florida that demonstrates the performance and reliability of the component without involving sewage.

(g) Full-scale testing with an average measured daily sewage flow of at least 200 gallons per day. (h) The test results include all influent and performance conditions. for at least ten separate weeks

over at least five months. (4) Application for either an innovative system development or demonstration permit shall be made to

the Department Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs accompanied the all reguired exhibits and fees and shall include the following:

(a) Form DH 3143. 06/2010. [REFERENCE] herein incorporated by reference. signed. dated and sealed by an engineer. licensed in the State of Florida

(b) Results from testing on performance and reliability. For treatment components reported results shall include average. median. 75th-percentile and 90th percentile concentrations. For disposal components. reported results shall include ponding and surfacing observations. For innovative system demonstration permit applications. the results shall be reported by the third party. For innovative system evaluation permits. the results shall have been reviewed and certified by an engineer licensed in Florida.

(c) An affidavit by the applicant certifying that the technology submitted for approval is the same as the technology for which testing data are provided.

(d) A description of the system. including specification of materials used in construction. and its proposed use. The applicant needs to address any differences between the previous test conditions and anticipated conditions in Florida. Such differences may include but are not limited to climate. soils. sewage characteristics. and scaling.

(e) A design and installation manual. including system design criteria design performance levels. and transferability of obtained results to different flows and conditions. The manual shall address applicability

2

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 1~8

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

of the technology to estimated sewage flows ranging from 200 to 5000 gallons per day and to different wastewater strengths and characteristics.

(I) An operation and maintenance manual, including a replacement part list, for use by a maintenance entity and a system owner, including instructions on how to detect, maintain, and repair a malfunctioning system. The applicant shall address in the manual or a separate document operating extremes such as flooding, loss of power, over-use and under-use, peak use, high organic or grease loading, and as well as operation of the system receiving household cleaners.

(g) Inspection instructions for construction and operating permit inspections by the county health department.

(h) Recommended qualifications for maintenance entities. (i) A monitoring protocol designed to validate the performance and reliability of the innovative system

in Florida. The monitoring protocol shall meet the following criteria: 1. For innovative system demonstration permits, monitoring for treatment effectiveness shall extend

over a minimum of one year after installation of the first system and with data from a minimum of 30 monitoring events gathered from a minimum of five systems. Multiple site visits during one 30-day period shall count as one monitoring event. Each site installation may provide not more than half of all monitoring events. Monitoring for disposal technologies shall have the objective to provide an estimate for the rates at which onsite systems with this technology will experience surfacing and ponding to the effective drainfield depth, or similar measures over the first two years after installation.

2. For innovative system development permits, monitoring for treatment effectiveness, surfacing and ponding shall occur at a minimum monthly over a minimum of one year after installation of the system. Testing shall conform to the requirements in paragraphs (2)(a) through (c) above.

(j) Information on the proposed testing organization, showing that it has knowledge and experience relevant to the proposed testing, and disclosing conflicts of interests and potential gains from sale of the proposed system. If the testing organization is not a third-party organization, the applicant shall provide for third-party monitoring in the extent of at least 10% of monitoring events.

(k) A five-year warranty by the applicant to the innovative system owner for engineering services, contractor equipment. material and labor necessary to secure permits and modify the system or repair the system with a department-approved non-innovative system in case of failure that is not due to owner-non­compliance with operating and maintenance instructions.

(I) Procedures to address system malfunction and replacement, premature termination of the monitoring protocol and innovative system evaluation, and criteria for removal of the system at the end of the evaluation or warranty period.

(m) For innovative system demonstration permits, the number of systems proposed to be installed, the criteria for site selection and using systems permitted under lesser standards for monitoring.

(n) The required fee per section 64E-6.030 FAC. (5) Innovative System Demonstration or Development Permit - An application for system construction

permit for an innovative system cannot be reviewed until either innovative system demonstration or development permit has been approved specifying the number of systems and time limits and other permit conditions. For innovative system demonstration permits, the maximum number of systems initially allowed shall be ten for treatment components and seventy for disposal components. For innovative system development permits, the maximum number of systems allowed shall be one. The department's decision to grant or deny the innovative system permit shall be based on the completeness of the application, a reasonable likelihood of meeting the objectives of the monitoring protocol and the presence or absence of compelling evidence that the innovative systems will function properly and reliably to meet the requirements of this chapter and Section 381.0065, F.S. An innovative system permit shall expire five years after having been issued. The applicant or successor can request an extension for a second five year period at least 90 days before the expiration date. After approval, the applicant shall provide annual reports to the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs on the progress of the innovative system evaluation, including a tabular summary of installations and monitoring results.

(6) After the innovative system demonstration permit or the innovative system development permit has been issued, DOH county health departments are authorized to issue system construction permits for individual innovative systems when the following conditions are met:

(a) The county health department has received a complete application for a performance-based treatment system construction permit and a copy of the innovative system demonstration or development permit. has reviewed it in accordance with 64E-6.027, and has included the monitoring requirements in

3

169 the operating permit conditions. The design and installation shall comply with the conditions of the 170 innovative permit and the following additional criteria: 171 1. For a construction permit issued under an innovative system demonstration permit, the design 172 engineer shall provide to the county health department, in addition to the construction application for the 173 innovative system. a complete DH 4015 and a draft permit DH 4016 for a non-innovative system, meeting 174 the requirements of this chapter, that will replace the innovative system should it fail. 175 2. For a construction permit issued under an innovative system development permit: 176 a. The innovative system shall be installed only in a location where a baseline treatment system in 177 accordance with part I of this chapter is allowed. 178 b. For innovative systems serving an establishment there shall be an existing and functioning onsite 179 sewage treatment and disposal system permitted under chapter 381.0065, FS, that is available for 180 immediate use. 181 (b) The county health department has received completed form DH 3144, [REFERENCE]. 182 (c) The county health department has filed completed form DH 3145 [REFERENCE] with the Bureau 183 of Onsite Sewage Programs. 184 (d) The Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs has reviewed and approved form DH 3145. 185 (7) Following successful testing of the single system installed under the innovative system 186 development permit and subsequent construction permit, the owners of a proprietary technology or their 187 authorized agent, or a person desiring the permitting of a public domain technology may apply for an 188 innovative system demonstration permit per subsection (3) above. 189 iID (-B-Following the installation and monitoring of the number of systems allowed by the innovative 190 system demonstration permit, the owners of a proprietary technology or their authorized agent, or a 191 person desiring the permitting of a public domain technology appliGant may request reclassification of 192 their innovative system by the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs. Requests for reclassification as an 193 alternative system component and design shall be made in accordance with subsection 64E-6 009(7), 194 FA C Requests for reclassification as a performance-based treatment system shall include the following: 195 (a) Results and analysis of monitoring of the systems installed 196 (b) Observations of system performance 197 (c) Maintenance, repairs or modifications performed on any systems 198 (d) Comments from the system operators or users. 199 (e) Comments from the design engineers who designed the individual system designs 200 (f) Comments from the county health departments in the counties where the systems were installed 201 (g) Specification of the proposed classification as performance-based 202 (h) Rationale for the proposed type of classification desired 203 (i) Proposed monitoring protocol 204 (j) A sample manual addressing the siting, design, installation, inspection, operation, maintenance 205 and abandonment procedures 206 fill ~ The Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs shall process the reclassification request in 207 accordance with Chapter 120, F S. The department shall approve the request only if the department is 208 satisfied that the system will reliably perform to the standards desired under normal operating conditions 209 as demonstrated by the information provided

210 Rulemaking Authonty 3810011(13),381006, 381.0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 3810065,3810067, 211 386041 FS History-New 6-18-03

212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

64E-6 030 Fees (1) The following fees are required for services provided by the department (a) Application and plan review for construction permit for new system (b) Application and approval for existing system, if system inspection is not required (c) Application and Existing System Evaluation (d) Application for permitting of a new performance-based treatment system (e) Site evaluation (f) Site re-evaluation (g) Permit or permit amendment for new system, modification or repair to system (h) ResearchlTraining surcharge, new and repair permits

4

$100 $35 $50

$125 $115

$50 $55 $5

223 (i) Initial system inspection $75 224 UJ System reinspection (stabilization, non-compliance or other inspection after the initial inspection) 225 $50 226 (k) Application for system abandonment permit, includes permit issuance and inspection $50 227 (I) Annual operating permit industrial/manufacturing zoning or commercial sewage waste $150 228 (m) Biennial operating permit for aerobic treatment unit or performance-based treatment system $100 229 (n) Amendment to operating permit $50 230 (0) Tank Manufacturer's Inspection per annum $100 231 (p) Septage Disposal Service permit per annum $75 232 (q) Portable or Temporary Toilet Service permit per annum $75 233 (r) Additional charge per pumpout vehicle, septage disposal service or portable toilet service $35 234 (s) Septage stabilization facility inspection fee per annum per facility $150 235 (t) Septage disposal site evaluation fee per annum $200 236 (u) Aerobic treatment unit maintenance entity permit per annum $25 237 (v) Variance Application for a single family residence per each lot or $200 238 building site 239 (w) Variance Application for a multi-family or commercial building per $300 240 each building site 241 (x) Application for innovative systemproEl~Gt approval ~ 242 1. technology development permit $500 243 2. technology demonstration permit $2500 244 (2) The following fees are required to accompany applications for registration of individuals for septic 245 tank contractor or master septic tank contractor or for a certificate of authorization for partnerships and 246 corporations 247 (a) Application for registration including examination $75 248 (b) Initial registration $100 249 (c) Renewal of registration $100 250 (d) Certificate of authorization each two-year period. $250 251 Rulemaking Authority 154.06(1), 381 0066, 489.557(1) FS Law Implemented 381 0065, 381 0066, 252 489557 FS. History-New 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 5-24-04, 11-26-06, 9-24-07

5

# 09-10 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: septage logs

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,010

Printed 71112010 9:53:34 AM

current rule requires a quarterly log submission for the land application of septage but does not require a similar log from the cleaning company or the septage treatment facility .. Thus the cradle-to-grave tracking cannot be performed

Gerald Briggs, DOH

The proposed changes the reporting requirements for septage handlers to require them to provide quarterly logs of the material they pump, treat and dispose of..

09-10--64E-6 010_Hauling_Logs doc (See Attached)

requires service providers to provide quarterly summaries of septage and holding tank waste pumped, treated, and land applied

Will require the preparation and provision of activity summaries from service providers .. 3/26/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

8/27/09 Not heard. TRAP ran out of time .. 1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee .. 3/4110 Variance Comments: CHD-No issues, needs to happen; REI-adds cost to pump company and public; STI-don't we have enough paperwork now? Ewe have to give name of customer or manufacturer at lime station would be double paperwork; ENG-No, just more paperwork.. No one is going to file this; DEP-I don't have any issues with this; HBI-Lines 7 and 8: Some treatment plants are small and unmanned

D D

I 64E-6,,010 Septage and Food Establishment Sludge 2 (I) through (6) No change 3 (7) lhe food establishment sludge and contents from onsite waste disposal systems shall be disposed of at a site approved 4 by the DOH county health department and by an approved disposal method. Untreated domestic septage or food establishment 5 sludges shall not be applied to the land. Criteria for approved stabilization methods and the subsequent land application of 6 domestic septage or other domestic onsite wastewater sludges shall be in accordance with the following criteria for land 7 application and disposal of domestic septage 8 (a) through (d) No change 9 (e) All septage and food establishment sludge haulers regulated by Chapter 64E-6, F A.C. ar'e to maintain a collection and

\0 hauling log at the treatment site or at the main business location which provides the information listed below. A copy olthe log II shall be submitted to the DOH county health departtnent quarterly. Records shall be retained for five (5) year's 12 I. date of septage or waste collection 13 2 addre.s of collection 14 3 indicate whether the point of collection is a residence or business and if a business, the type of business 15 4 .. estimated volume, in gallons, of septage or waste transported 16 5 receipts for lime or other materials used for treatment I 7 6. location of the approved treatment facility 18 7 date and time of discharge to the tteatment facility 19 8. Acknowledgement from treatment facility of receipt of septage or waste 20 (I) through (v) No change 21 (8) through (10) No change 22 Rulemaking Speeifie Authority: 3810011(4), (13), 3810065(3)(a), 489.553(3), FS. law Implemented: 3810012, 23 3810061,381.0065,386041, FS History: New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-652, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, 5-24 14-96, Formerly I OD-6 .052, Amended 3-22-00, 05-24-04, 11-26-06~ 25

1

# 09-13 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7/1/2010 9:53:40 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/20.10.

Subject: septage storage tanks

Rule Sections: 64E-6 .. 010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

current language lumped septage storage tanks into stabilization tank requirements in order to require them to meet some standard... Some stabilization tank requirements are not applicable to storage tanks

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes eliminate the 3o.o.D-galion minimum requirement for septage storage tanks.

09-13--64E6010_S1orage_Tanks.doc (See Attached)

Eliminates the 3o.o.o.-gallon minimum tank size requirement for septage storage tanks.

Provides a cheaper alternative to large storage tanks .. 5/27/20.0.9 1/28/20.10.

1/28/20.10. 3/4120.10.

Comments: 8/27/0.9 Not heard. TRAP ran out of time 1/28/10. TRAP approved to go to Variance committee. 3/4/10. Variance Comments: ENG-ok; REI-ok; STI-I agree smaller tanks should be allowed; CHD-No issue; DEP-as long as the tank meets construction standard, I think this is fine .. ; HBI-Sounds good

Ready for Rule u In Rule r]

Rule Date:

1 64E-6 .. 0l0 Septage and Food Establishment Sludge 2 (I) No septic tank, grease interceptor, privy, tank or other receptacle associated with an onsite sewage treatment 3 and disposal system shall be cleaned or have its contents removed until the service person has obtained an annual 4 written permit (Form DH 4013,01/92, Operating Permit, herein incorporated by reference) fi-om the DOH county 5 health department in the county in which the service company is located .. Permits issued under this section authorize 6 the disposal service to handle liquid waste associated with food operations, domestic waste, or domestic septage .. 7 Such authorization applies to all septage produced in the State off lorida, and food establishment sludge which is 8 collected for disposal fiom onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems 9 (2) Application for a service permit shall be made to the DOH county health department on Form DH 4012,

10 01192, "Application for Septage Disposal Service Permit, Iemporary System Service Permit, Septage Ireatment and 11 Disposal Facility, Septic lank Manufacturing Approval" herein incorporated by reference .. The following must be 12 provided for the evaluation prior to issuance of a service permit: 13 (a) Evidence that the applicant possesses adeqnate equipment such as a tank truck with a liquid capacity of at 14 least 1500 gallons, pumps, off truck stabilization tanks and pH testing equipment where lime stabilization and land 15 application are proposed, as well as other appurtenances and tools necessary to perform the work intended 16 Equipment may be placed into service only after it has been inspected and approved by the DOH county health 17 department. Tanks used for the stabilization and storage of septage and food service sludges shall be constructed, 18 sized, and operated in accordance with the following provisions: 19 I Stabilization tanks and septage storage tanks shall be constructed of concrete, fiberglass, corrosion-resistant 20 steel, or other equally durable material. I anks shall be watertight and shall be water tested for leaks prior to placing 21 into service Ihe stabilization tank shall have a liquid capacity of at least 3000 gallons 22 2, Construction of concrete tanks shall be at a minimum equal to that required of concrete septic tanks in Rule 23 64E-6.0I3. Fiberglass tanks and tanks of similar materials shall be constructed in accordance with standards found 24 in Rule 64E-6,.013, 25 3, Stabilization tanks shall contain aeration or mixing devices which will ensure thorough agitation or mixing of 26 lime with the waste as specified in Chapter 6, EPA 625/1-79-011, Process Design Manual for Septage Ireatment 27 and Disposal, herein incorporated by reference,

# 09-14 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 712f2010 10:50:49 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Protected Steel Treatment Receptacles

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,013

The current rule allows grease interceptors made of Concrete, Fiberglass and Polyethylene There are grease interceptors available made of Protected Steel

Issue Originated By: Gary Duren, Code Compliance; John Campbell, Highland Tanks, Inc

Justification: The proposed changes allow and create standards for grease interceptors made of protected steel

Proposed Rule Change: 09-14--64E6 013_Protected_Steel_Tanks-1-8-10 doc (See Attached)

Summary: This proposal will allow protected steel grease interceptors, providing testing standards for such and create standards for protected steel grease interceptors.

Possible Financial Impacts: Allows more options and more innovative designs for grease interceptors

Date New: 7/29/2009 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 8/27/2009 Tabled by Trap: 8/27/2009 Trap Review Finished: 1/28/2010 Variance Committee Reviewed: 3/412010 Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 8/27/09 TRAP Tabled so that DOH could work with industry on language to

make sure DOH can approve issue 12/09 Paul met with Highland Tank representatives to work on language 1/28/10 TRAP approved for variance 3/4/10 Variance Comments: CHD-No issue but not practical; STI-if they meet standards steel is fine but the code says 1250 maximum size.; REI-why?; ENG-would rather not Too hard to inspect welds, etc. Would require much manufacturing inspection.; DEP-I don't see the need to do this.; HBI-Why? This should never be made mandatory. Way too expensive 5/19/10 Eliminated some undefined terminology. 5/25/10 Eliminated some undefined terminology Need referenced standards. Need to reference per 120

1 64E-6.013 Construction Materials and Standards for 1 reatment Receptacles" 2 (I) Onsite wastewater treatment receptacle design, Ihe following requirements shall apply to all onsite 3 wastewater treatment receptacles manufactured for use in Florida unless specifically exempted by other provisions 4 of these IUles: 5 (a) Onsite wastewater treatment receptacles include: septic tanks, graywater tanks, laundry tanks, grease 6 interceptors, pump tanks, aerobic treatment unit tanks, tanks containing treatment media and stationary holding 7 tanks not described in paragraph 64E-6 .. 010l(7)(P), FAC. Ireatment receptacles shall be constructed of concrete, 8 fiberglass or polyethylene. Grease interceptors shall be permitted to be constIUcted of protected steel. 9 (b) Design and testing of concrete treatment receptacles:

10 1 Strucrural design of receptacles shall be by calculation or by performance 11 2. Structural design shall be verified by actual vacuum load or hydrostatic test in accordance with the 12 department's policy for lest Requirements for Structural Proofing, August 16, 2005, herein incorporated by 13 reference. Ihe vacuum test shall be followed by a water tightness test 14 3 .. Ireatment receptacles shall be watertight as defined in ASIM CI227 98, Standard Specification for Precast 15 Concrete Septic Ianks, paragraph 9.2., herein incorporated by reference .. ASIM CI227 98, paragraph 922, herein 16 incorporated by reference, shall be modified to read as follows: Water tightness testing - Fill the receptacle with 17 water to the invert of the outlet and let stand for 24 hours Refill the receptacle Ihe receptacle is approved as water 18 tight if the water level is held for one hour. 19 4 .. Manufactur'ers may use calculations provided by the design engineer in lieu of proof testing for receptacles 20 using reinforcement bars for structural strength and having a wall thickness of 5 inches or gr·eate!.. Design by 21 calculation shall be completed using the Strengtb Design Method (ultimate strength theory) or the Alternate Design 22 Method (working str'ess theory) outlined in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication ACT 318-99, Building 23 Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), herein incorporated by reference. 24 Ihe Str'ength Design Method is outlined in Chapter 9 and the Alternate Design Method is in Appendix A. Equation 25 (9-1), herein incorporated by reference, shall be modified to read as follows: U~14L + I.4D When the Strengtb 26 Design Method is used to verifY satisfaction of the required strength a strength reduction factor of 0 . .90 shall be 27 applied per ACT 318-99 paragraph 932.1 28 (c) Design and testing of fiberglass, protected steel and polyethylene tr'eatment receptacles: 29 1 Vacuum testing shall be conducted in accordance with the department's policy for lest Requirements for 30 Structural Proofmg .. The vacuum test shall be followed by a water-tightness test 31 2. Vacuum testing shall demonstrate a distortion of volume of no more than I % at a safety factor of I .0 and 2% 32 at a safety value of 1.4 followed by passing a water-tightness test to be considered satisfactory. 10 determine the 33 vacuum at a 1.0 safety factor, divide the required total vacuum values by 1.4. Ihere shall be no distortion of the 34 access hatch perimeters at the full vacuum load and the access hatch must be able to be removed and reinstalled at 35 the conclusion ofthe test 36 3 .. Water-tightness testing shall be performed as follows: Fill the receptacle with water to the invert of the outlet 37 Ihe receptacle is approved as water tight if the water level is held for one hour 38 (d) lesting shall be conducted in the presence of an engineer licensed in the state of Florida, or by an employee 39 ofthe department that has been authorized by the State Health Office to perform or witness receptacle testing. I est 40 results shall be certified by the witnessing engineer or department employee 41 (e) Receptacle lids for non-traffic residential installations shall be designed for a dead load of 12 inch earth 42 cover with a dry soil density of 100 pounds per cubic foot or a live load of two concentrated loads of 1750 pounds at 43 a 60 inch spacing or a concentrated load of 1750 pounds located at the center of the lid, whichever provides the 44 gr'eater shear and moment stresses to the lid .. lhe required strength shall be per ACI 318-99, equation (9-1) as 45 follows: U~IAD + 17L. Structural integrity prooftest or calculations for the 12 inch overburden earth load and the 46 1750 pound concentrated loading shall be provided Designs sealed by an engineer licensed in the state of Florida 47 shall be acceptable for design proof of receptacle lid designs. 48 (f) Receptacles and receptacle lids for traffic installations shall be designed, signed and sealed by an engineer 49 licensed in the state of Florida. Whenever vehicular traffic is anticipated to cross over the receptacle, traffic lids

50 shall be installed with manhole covers to fInished grade. Traffic receptacles and lids shall be designed in accordance 51 with ASTM C 890-91 (Reapproved 1999), Standard Practice for Minimum Structtual Design Loading for 52 Monolithic or Sectional Precast Concrete Water and Wastewater Structtu·es, herein incorporated by reference, for 53 the appropriate loading. Application of pmagraph 52.4 of ASTM C 890-91 (Reapproved 1999), shall be at the 54 discretion ofthe design engineer 55 (2) Onsite wastewater treatment receptacle design requirements. The following details shall be incorporated into 56 the design: 57 (a) Septic tanks and graywater tanks shall have multiple compartments, or single compmtment tanks shall be 58 placed in series to achieve the required effective capacity. Grease interceptors, laundry tanks, pump tanks, aerobic 59 treatment unit tanks and retention tanks shall be either multi-compartment or single compartment tanks. All 60 receptacle stiffening members such as ribs shall be a homogeneous integral pmt of the structtu'e, When slide-in type 61 compmtment walls me proposed, the structural testing for such tanks shall be conducted without the slide-in wall in 62 place, There shall be a maximum oftwo horizontal seruns between the topside of the botrom ofthe receptacle and 63 the underside ofthe lid There shall be no vertical seruns Except as noted in this paragraph, the fIrst chrunber of a 64 dual compmtment septic Or graywater tank or the fIrst tank of single compmtment tanks in series shall have a 65 minimum effective capacity of at least 2/3 of the total required effective capacity .. The second single compartment 66 tank or chrunber of a multi-compmtment tank shall have a minimum effective capacity of at least 115 of the total 67 required effective capacity, The combined effective capacities of the fIrst and second chambers or the fIrst and 68 second single-compmtment tanks shall equal or exceed the total required effective capacity .. Systems with daily 69 flows in excess of 3500 gallons per day may utilize two tanks to achieve the total required effective capacity, 70 provided that the fIrst tank shall provide no less than 112 of the total required effective capacity .. The second tank 71 shall provide no less than liS of the total required effective capacity and the total effective capacities of the two 72 tanks combined shall be no less than the total required effective capacity 73 (b) The liquid depth of compmtments for septic tanks and grease interceptors shall be at least 40 inches, The 74 liquid depth of compartments for graywater tanks, laundry interceptors and pump tanks shall be at least 30 inches 75 Liquid depths gr'eater than 84 inches shall not be considered in determining the effective capacity 76 (c) A minimum free bomd or airspace of 15 percent by volume of the effective capacity of all blackwater, 77 graywater and laundry tanks shall be provided .. The volume of risers above the liquid level line cast as an integral 78 pmt of the tank may be included as free board or airspace., 79 (d) The inlet invert of septic tanks, graywater tanks and laundry tanks shall enter the tank I to 3 inches above 80 the liquid level of the tank .. A vented inlet tee, vented sweep or a bame may be provided at the discretion of the 81 manufactmer to divert the incoming sewage, The inlet device, if utilized, shall have a minimum diameter of 4 inches 82 and shall not extend below the liquid smface more than 33 percent of the liquid depth, 83 ( e) In septic tanks, graywater tanks and laundry tanks, a minimum 4 inch diameter vented outlet tee, sweep or 84 bame shall extend below the liquid level of the tank so that the invert level of the outlet device is a distance not less 85 than 30 percent nor greater than 40 percent of the liquid depth The outlet device shall extend at least 4 inches above 86 the liquid level. Ihe submerged intake otifice of any outlet fIxture not incorporating an approved outlet fIlter device 87 shall be provided with an approved solids deflection device to reduce, by a minimum of 90 percent, the intake area 88 ofthe outlet mtme exposed to the vertical rise and fall of solid pmticles within the tank T uming the intake orifIce 89 of an outlet tee or sweep 90 degr'ees fiom the vertical will satisfy the solids deflection device requirement 90 (f) Ihe inlet and outlet devices shall be located at opposite ends of the receptacle so as to be separated by the 91 maximum distance practical and shall be in accordance with ASTM C 923-98, Standard SpecifIcation for Resilient 92 Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structmes, Pipes, and Laterals, herein incorporated by 93 reference, The head pressme noted in pmagraph 7 1 .. 1 of AS 1M C 923-98 shall be reduced fiom 23 feet to 10 feet 94 Inlets and outlets on the sides of any tr'eatment receptacle must be located no more than 12 inches fiom the end of 95 the receptacle, 96 (g) Compartment walls shall be designed to withstand the stresses induced by pumping out either of the 97 compmtments. Ihere shall be no relief holes,. However, the compmtment walls may be inserted in grooves without 98 grouting, fIberglassing or otherwise permanently atraching in place, unless such attachment is required for proving

99 structural integrity of either the receptacle or compartmeut wall 100 (h) Sewage flow between the first and second chamber of a multi-chamber receptacle shall interconnect 101 utilizing either a minimum 4 inch diameter hole or equivalent size slot in the wall or with a minimum 4 inch 102 diameter vented and inverted V-fitting or a tee .. Receptacles in series shall interconnect utilizing a minimum 4 inch 103 diameter vented, inveJted V-fitting or a tee. The outlet device or slot shall extend below the liquid level of the 104 receptacle so that the invert level is located not less than 30 percent nor gr·eater than 40 percent ofthe liquid depth 105 (i) Joints of receptacles, including mid-seams, risers, and lids shall be sealed using a bonding compound that 106 meets ASTM C 990-96, Standard Specification for Joints for Concrete Pipe, Manholes, and Precast Box Sections 107 using Preformed Flexible Joint Sealants, herein incorporated by reference. 108 (j) The State Health Office's designated approval number for the receptacle, and the effective capacity ofthe 109 receptacle in gallons shall be cast or stamped into the wall or permanently stenciled or decaled onto the wall at the 110 inlet end, to begin within 6 inches of the top of the wall. All identifying marks shall be inscribed or affixed at the 111 point of manufactur·e only All information supplied in the legend shall be provided with a minimum of two inch 112 high lettering. 113 (k) Each compartment shall have access using manholes, with each manhole having a minimum area of 225 114 squar·e inches .. Manholes shall be located so as to allow access to the inlet and outlet devices .. A minimum 6-inch 115 diameter opening shall be placed at the inlet and outlet ends of tbe lid if a minimum 225 square inch access port is 116 placed in the middle of the lid .. The access manhole OVer the inlet and outlet shall extend to within 8 inches of 117 finished grade If a riser is used, and if the riser access lid opens directly to the receptacle interior, joints around the 118 riser and receptacle shall be sealed and made watertight as specified in paragraph 64E-6 .. 013(2)(i), F AC, to 119 prohibit intrusion of ground water into the receptacle For multi-compartment receptacles or receptacles in series, 120 manholes shall extend to within 8 inches of finished grade over the first compartment inlet and the last compartment 121 outlet An appropriate mechanism shall be provided to make access manholes vandal, tamper, and child resistant 122 Acceptable protection of openings shall consist of one or more of the following methods as specified by the 123 manufacturer: 124 1. A padlock 125 2 A twist lock cover requiring special tools for removal 126 3. Covers weighing 58 pounds or more, net weight 127 4 A hinge and hasp mechanism which uses stainless steel or other corrosion resistant fasteners to fasten the 128 hinge and hasp to the lid and receptacle for fiberglass, metal or plastic lids 129 (I) Receptacle designs that specify a monolithic compartment wall from the bottom of the receptacle up to the 130 invert ofthe pass-tluough orifice and a drop-in section for the upper portion of the wall shall be approved for both 131 single and mUlti-compartment use 132 (m) Treatment receptacles shall have a one-piece lid or a lid with a maximum of tlu·ee sections. All lids shall be 133 designed by Licensed Engineers in accordance with paragraphs 64E-6 013(1)(e) and (f), FAC, and approved by 134 the Department 135 (3) Onsite wastewater treatment receptacle design approval All onsite wastewater treatment receptacles 136 distributed in the state shall be approved for use by the department prior to being offered for sale or installed. Such 137 approval shall not be obtained until the manufactm·er of a specific receptacle model has submitted the following: 138 (a) Detailed design drawings of the receptacle and lid showing: 139 L Design calculations or prooftesting results in accordance with subsection 64E-6013(1), F AC 140 2. Dimensions, including location and size of all inlets, outlets, access hatches, manholes and pass through 141 orifices. 142 3. Effective capacity in gallons. 143 4 .. Freeboard or air space in gallons. 144 5. Production materials. For concrete receptacles include 28 day compressive strength, in pounds per squar·e 145 inch (psi) 146 6 .. Reinforcing materials. For concrete receptacles, include size and location of all rebar, if any; and fiber 147 reinforcing material size and quantity (in pounds) per cubic yard, if any

148 (b) For concrete receptacles-see subsection 64E-6 013(5), FAC 149 (c) For fiberglass and polyethylene receptacles-see subsection 64E-6.0 13(6), F A.C 150 (d) Certification that the receptacle has undergone flow testing to confum the effective capacity, airspace, and 151 water tightness. Flow testing shall be conducted by an engineer licensed in the state ofFlotida, a third-party certified 152 testing labotatory or a Department employee Test results shall be certifted by the engineer, laboratoty or state 153 employee. 154 (e) Designs shall be submitted to the State of Flotida Department of Health, Bureau of Onsite Sewage 155 Programs.

156 (f) There shall be two receptacle design classifications. The following criteria shall be used for each categoty: 157 1. CategOlY 3 receptacles shall be designed for satmated soil with the saturation at finished grade The design 158 shall provide for a maximum of 18 inches of satmated soil cover over the top of the receptacle Soil density shall be 159 100 pounds per cubic foot The lateral earth pressure coefficient (K) shall be no less than 0.33 160 2 .. Categoty 4 receptacles shall be designed for satmated soil with the saturation at finished grade .. The design 161 shall provide for a maximum of 48 inches of satmated soil cover over the top of the receptacle Soil density shall be 162 100 pounds pel cubic foot The lateral earth pressure coefficient (K) shall be no less than 0.33 Where a receptacle 163 will be placed with greater than 48 inches of soil over the top of the receptacle, an engineer licensed in the state of 164 F lorida shall design the receptacle for the specific conditions anticipated at the site. 165 (g) A series of receptacles may be approved by successful demonstration ofthe largest in a series of receptacles . 166 Approval for inclusion of the receptacles to be considered in a series must be obtained from the state health office 167 plior to testing the receptacles. A series is either where only one dimension, this being height, length, or width, is 168 changed or where two dimensions change in the same propottion to offer a different capacity of treatment 169 receptacle. 170 (b) The manufactmer shall notify the state health office in writing, stipulating the date, time and location of the 171 test, no less than ten wotking days prior to the receptacle prooftesting. The notice shall include the receptacles to be 172 tested. Approval shall not be granted until after successfully passing the required tests, and submitting the testing 173 results 174 (i) The department will issue an approval number to the manufactuter .. Fmm DH 4012, 01/92, "Application fm 175 Septage Disposal Service Permit, Tempmary System Service Permit, Septage Treatment and Disposal Facility, 176 Septic Tank Manufactnring Approval" herein incmpmated by reference, shall be used to apply for manufactming 177 approvaL The form can be obtained fiom the department 178 (4) Onsite wastewater tteatment manufactmer's yearly inspection - Yearly inspection of the manufactm·er's 179 facility shall consist ofthe following: 180 (a) Verify that the manufactmer has the design mix recorded and in a readily accessible location for the plant 181 operators 182 (b) Verify that the production process is recorded and that the operators ar·e following the process. 183 (c) Verify that the necessary tests are being conducted by a certified testing lab or by a technician certified by 184 the ACt The preparation of the test specimens shall be perfmmed by certified third party testing laboratmy 185 personnel; or manufacturers, m their employees, that have successfully passed the ACI certification program. Each 186 manufacturer shall submit a minimum ofthree cylinders per year. The specimens shall be taken fiom a production 187 mix 188 (d) Verify that the manurnctUler has the proper number of tests fOI the year and that the results are recorded. 189 Review the results fm compliance with the design. 190 (e) Examine the material stockpiles to ensure that the materials are fiee fiom deleterious materials 191 (f) Examine the measUling equipment to ensme that the equipment has been calibrated within the last year. 192 (g) Examine conveyors to insure that material is transpmted as measured 193 (h) Inspect a minimum of five receptacles in the manufactmers' inventory. For different series, a minimum of 194 one receptacle shall be inspected fiom each series. Report the following unacceptable defects: 195 I. Cracks in all interim and exterior sUlfaces of the receptacles .. 196 2. Coldjoint lines This is an indication of non-monolithic paUls Examine both the interior and exterior of the

197 receptacle for confumation of a coldjoint that extends across the thickness of the wall 198 3, Evidence of improper steel cover" Rebar and wire mesh shall not be exposed 199 4 Watertight inlets and outlets shall be provided per rule 200 (i) Where cold-joint lines that appear to extend through the wall, or cracks in any smface of the receptacle exist, 201 conduct a watertightness test on a maximum of two receptacles per ASTM C 1227-98, Standard Specification for 202 Plecast Concrete Septic Tanks, paragraph 9.2 Ihe receptacles shall not be tested until they have cured for 28 days 203 If there are no indications of cold,joint lines that appear to extend through the wall, or cracking of receptacle 204 smfaces, two receptacles shall be tested at random. Record all data and submit results to the department 205 (j) VerifY that the manufactmer is not relocating the receptacles prior to the receptacle achieving 7S% of the 206 design compressive strength, Record how this is accomplished, 207 (k) Conduct impact hammer tests-record data 208 (I) Examination of the manufactm'er's receipts for material used during the previous year Receptacle 209 manufactm'ers shall retain all receipts from the previous year for material used in the manufacture of treatment 210 receptacles and make them available for inspection, 211 (S) Concrete onsite wastewater receptacles shall be built of precast or poured in place concrete in accordance 212 with ACI 318-99, Building Code Requirements for Structmal Concrete (1999) or ASTM C 1227-98, Standard 213 Specification for Precast Concrete Septic Tanks (1998), except as revised herein" 214 (a) For design and analysis of concrete septic tanks, the publication "Rectangular Concrete Ianks" revised Sth 215 edition (1998), as published by the Portland Cement Association may be used at the designer's discretion, herein 216 incorporated by reference. When computing length to height and width to height ratios the designer may interpolate 217 between tables for intermediate ratios and values or may use the table and values for the higher ratios 218 (b) I emperatnre and sluinkage crack control in concrete receptacles shall be accomplished by use of steel 219 reinforcing in accordance with ACI 318-99 Chapter 16, or by use of fiberreinforcement Minimum ratio of vertical 220 and horizontal reinforcement area to gross concrete area shall be 00010 for deformed bars or welded wire fabric 221 Fiber reinforcing materials may be used by the manufactm'er to achieve crack control equivalent to the use of 222 deformed bars or welded wire fabric .. lobe considered equivalent, acceptable fibers shall at least meet or exceed 223 AC[ recommendations regarding materials, fiber sizing, and required fiber quantities, Any cmrent or futm'e revisions 224 to the ACI recommendations may be used by the manufacturer, at their option. Materials other than materials 225 recognized by ACI for crack control use will not be acceptable Minimmn reinforcement shall be as outlined in the 226 docmnent entitled Reinforcement Required to Meet paragraph 64E-6 013(S)(b), F.AC, dated April IS, 200S, herein 227 incorporated by reference, 228 (c) Concrete mixes shall be in accordance with the Portland Cement Association (PCA) publication entitled 229 PCA Design and Control of Concrete Mixtmes, Thirteenth Editiou (1994), herein incorporated by reference, 230 (d) Terminology relating to concrete and concrete aggr'egates shall be in accordance with ASTM C 12S-98, 231 Standard I erminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates (1998), herein incorporated by reference, 232 (e) Concrete aggr'egates used in the manufactming of all precast or pomed-in-place concrete receptacles for use 233 in onsite sewage tr'eatment and disposal systems shall conform to ASIM C 33-99, Standard Specification for 234 Concrete Aggr'egates (1999), herein incorporated by reference, 235 (f) Minimmn concrete cover over structural steel reinforcing shall be 3/4 inches, Ihe minimum bend radius for 236 structmal reinforcing shall be three times the reinforcing bar diameter, 237 (g) I emperatme and shrinkage crack control steel shall not be exposed Exposme of fiber reinforcing is 238 acceptable 239 (h) Minimum 28-day compressive strength shall be 4000 psi 240 (i) Ihree compressive test cylinders shall be prepared, cmed, and tested in accordance with ASTM C 31-98, 241 Standard Practice for Making and Cming Concrete Test Specimens in the Field (1998), herein incorporated by 242 reference, and AS T M C 39-96, Standard rest Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 243 (1996), herein incorporated by reference, at least one time every year, or whenever the manufacturer changes the 244 design mix or the manufactming process 245 (j) Ihe bottoms of concrete receptacles shall be monolithic and shall either be an integral part of the walls or

246 shall be sealed to the walls using water-stops cast into the wall and bottom. Receptacle bottoms shall not contain 247 openings for any purpose, for example, to facilitate the removal of rainwater.. 248 (Ie) Approval of new designs shall not be granted until the following has been completed and submitted as part 249 ofthe application: 250 1 Establish a design mix and production process. Record the aggregate material, size and gradation; type and 251 strength of cement; cement to aggregate ratios; water to cement ratio; and any other pertinent design data. Record 252 the production process, for example; measming equipment, batch sizes, mixing sequence, transportation techniques 253 ii-om mixer to mold, poming techniques with consolidation of concrete methods detailed 254 2 Construct three receptacles using the design mix 255 3 .. lest two sets of cylinders from the design mix at 7 days and 28 days 256 4 .. Structural prooftest three receptacles to the design strength in accordance with paragraph 64E-6 .. 013(I)(b), 257 FAG., foneceptacles having an effective capacity of 1350 gallons or less 258 5. Structural proof test one receptacle to the design strength in accordance with paragraph 64E-6.013(1)(b), 259 F A.C., for receptacles having an effective capacity greater than 1350 gallons but not more than 1500 gallons. 260 6. Structural proof test one receptacle or provide receptacle strength calculations in accordance with paragraph 261 64E-6 013(1 )(b), F.A c., for receptacles having an effective capacity exceeding 1500 gallons 262 7 .. VerifY that the manufacturer is not removing receptacles from the producer's facility prior to the receptacle 263 achieving 75% of the design compressive strmgth .. Record how this is accomplished 264 (6) The following structural requirements are applicable to fiberglass and polyethylene receptacles: 265 (a) Materials and sealants used in the receptacle manufacturing process shall be capable of effectively resisting 266 the corrosive influences of the liquid components of sewage, sewage gases and soil bmial. Materials used shall be 267 formulated to withstand shock, vibration, normal household chemicals, deterioration from sunlight and other 268 environmental factors 269 (b) Fiberglass receptacles shall be constructed so that all parts of the receptacle meet the following mechanical 270 requirements. A test report from an independent testing laboratory is required to substantiate that individual 271 receptacle designs and material formulations meet these requirements. 272 L Ultimate tensile strength - minimum 12,000 psi when tested in accordance with AS 1M D 638-98, Standard 273 I est Method for I ensile Properties of Plastics (1998), herein incOIpOIated by reference .. 274 2. Flexmal strength - minimum 19,000 psi when tested in accordance with ASIM D 790-98, Standard lest 275 Methods for Flexural PlOperties of Unrein forced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials (1998), 2 76 herein incorporated by reference. 277 3. Flexural modulus of elasticity - minimum 800,000 psi when tested in accordance with ASIM D 790-98 278 Standard I est Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating 279 Materials (1998), herein incOIporated by reference 280 4. Not less than 30 percent of the total weight olthe fiberglass receptacle shall be fiberglass reinforcement 281 5 .. Internal surfaces shall be coated with an appropriate gel coating 01 resin to provide a smooth, pore-fiee, 282 watertight surface 283 (c) Polyethylene receptacles shall meet the requirements of International Association of Plumbing and 284 Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) PS 1-93, Paragraph 5.4 "Polyethylene", herein incorporated by reference. Where the 285 requirements of IAPMO PS 1-93 Paragraph 54 "Polyethylene" conflict with the standards in this section, the 286 standards in this section shall apply. A test report from an independent testing laboratory is required to substantiate 287 that individual receptacle designs and material formulations meet these requir'ements 288 (d) Approval olnew designs shall not be granted until the following has been completed and submitted as part 289 ofthe application: 290 L Establish a design mix and production process Record the material specifications and other pertinent design 291 data. Record the production process, for example; measuring equipment, batch sizes, mixing sequence, 292 transportation techniques from mixer to mold, and spraying techniques 293 2 Construct three receptacles using the design mix 294 3. I est two sets of test strips from the design mix

295 4. Structmal proof test three receptacles to the design strength per paragraph 64E-6.013(l)(c), F.AC, for 296 receptacles having an effective capacity of 1350 gallons or less 297 5 Structural proof test one receptacle to the design strength in accordance with paragraph 64E-6 .. 013(l)(c), 298 F AC, for receptacles having an effective capacity greater than 1350 gallons. 299 6. Verify that the manufactmer is not planning to relocate the receptacles prior to the receptacle achieving 75% 300 of the design compressive str·ength. Record how this is accomplished. 301 (7) Orease interceptors are not required for a residence. However, one or more grease interceptors ar·e required 302 where grease waste is produced in quantities that could otherwise cause line stoppage or hinder sewage disposal 303 The design of gr·ease interceptors shall be based on standards found in paragraph (a) below. In addition, the 304 following general requirements found in paragraphs (h), (c), and (d), apply when determining the proper use and 305 installation of a grease interceptor used as a component of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system. 306 (a) Ihe inlet invert shall discharge a minimum 2 112 inches above the liquid level line and the outlet pipe shall 307 have a tee with a minimum diameter of 4 inches that extends to within 8 inches ofthe bottom ofthe tank 308 (h) Interceptors must be located so as to provide easy access for routine inspection, cleaning and maintenance. 309 Manholes shall be provided over the inlet and outlet of each interceptor and be brought to finished grade 310 (c) Where a grease interceptor is required or used, only kitchen wastewater shall first pass through the 311 interceptor and then be discharged into the fIrst compartment ofa septic tank or other approved system 312 (d) Sizing of grease interceptors shall be based on the equations below. The minimum volume of any gr·ease 313 interceptor shall be 750 gallons and the maximum volume of an individual single grease interceptor chamber shall 314 be 1250 gallons .. When the required effective capacity of the grease interceptor is gr·eater than 1250 gallons, 315 installation of multi-chambered gr·ease interceptors or grease interceptors in series is required .. 316 1. Restaurants: (S) X (OS) X (HR/12) X (IF) ~ effective capacity of grease interceptor in gallons 317 S ~ number of seats in the dining ar·ea. 318 OS ~ gallons of wastewater per seat; use 25 gallons for ordinary restaurant, use 10 gallons for single service 319 article restamants 320 HR ~ number ofhoms establishment is open 321 iF ~ loading factor: use 2 .. 0 interstate highways, 1 5 other fieeways, L25 recreational areas, 322 LO main highways, and 0.75 other roads .. 323 2. Other type establishments with commercial kitchens: (M) X (OM) X (LF) ~ effective capacity of grease 324 interceptor in gallons. 325 M ~ meals prepar·ed per day. 326 OM ~ gallons of wastewater per meal: use 5 gallons 327 LF ~ loading f'lCtor: use 1.00 with dishwashing and 0.75 without dishwashing. 328 (7) [New] Protected steel gr·ease interceptors The following requirement are applicabel to protected steel 329 grease interceptors: 330 fa) Steel used in the construction shall be carbon structural, hot-rolled sheet or strip steel plate having a 331 minimum wall thickness of USS 7 Ouage, conforming to either ASTM A36-91, ASIM A569.1A569a, andlor 332 ASIM A653/653M-92. 333 (b) All welds shall be made in accordance with AWS D 1.1 334 (cJIhe exterior and interior surfaces of the receptacle shall be prepared by steel grit blasting to a SSPC blast 335 profIle based on the coating manufacturer specifIcation. Prior to coating, steel shall be dry and free of dust oiL 336 oxidation and grease. Ihe substrate surfaces shall be a minimum of 5°F (-15F°C) above the dewpoint of ambient 337 air. 338 uD Protection: All protective coatings for steel treatment receptacles shall be solvent and tar-free, two-339 component polyurethane andlor two-compoment high temperature epoxy specifIcally designed for direct application 340 to properly prepared steel surfaces as evidenced by conformance to AWWA C222-99, DI02-03 and OS II for VOC 341 and chemical content. Coating minimum DF I thickness shall be verified utilizing a National Institute of Standards 342 (NISI) calibrated electronic magnetic guage using the NISI thickness standards. 343 1. Exterior coating materials used in the receptacle manufacturing process shall be capable of effectively

344 resisting the corrosive influences of the liquid components of ground water and chemical conditions typically for in 345 native soils. Materials used shall be formulated to withstand shock. vibration. normal household chemicals. 346 deterioration from sunlight and other environmental factors. Exterior coatings shall be independent-!hird-party listed 347 as conforming to UL-1746. 348 a. Exterior coating shalI be at least 75 MILS !hick after curing. 349 b. Exterior coatings shall provide a minimum impact strength of forty (40) inch-pounds when evaluated in 350 accordance with ASTM D256. 351 2. Interior coating materials used in !he receptacle manufacturing process shall be capable of effectively 352 resisting the corrosive influences of the liquid components of sewage, sewage gases. organic fats. oils and grease. 353 Materials used shall be formulated to withstand shock, vibration, normal household chemicals, deterioration from 354 sunlight and o!her environmental factors. 355 a. Interior coating shall be at least 15 MILS thick after curing. 356 b. Interior coating shall provide a minimum impact strength of thirty (30) inch-pounds when evaluated in 357 accordance with ASTM Gl4. 358 (e) The manufacturer shall establish a design mix and production process for protective coatings. The 359 manufacturer shall maintain permanent records that are to be available to the Department that includes the material 360 specifications. pertinent design data and production processes. For example: measuring equipment. batch sizes, 361 mixing sequence. transportation techniques from mixer and spraying techniques. 362 (f) Structnral proof test three receptacles to !he design strength per paragraph 64E-6.0130}(c). F.A.C" for 363 receptacles having an effective capacity of 1350 gallons or less. The strnctrual integrity of a protected steel 364 receptacle shall be verified by an engineer. laboratory or state employee in accordance with UL58. 365 (g) Structnral proof test one receptacle to !he design strength in accordance with paragraph 64E-6.013(l}(c;}, 366 F .A.C" for receptacles having an effective capacity greater than 1350 gallons. The structrual integrity of a protected 367 steel receptacle shall be verified by and engineer. laboratory or state employee in accordance with UL58. 368 (h) Protected steel, three-compartment (basin). passive treatment receptacles utilized as grease interceptors shall 369 be permitted as an alternate design to that specified in 64E-6.013(7). Such receptacles shall be shall be cylindrical, 370 horizontal, atmospheric-type protected steel vessel designed to intercept and collect liquid greasy waste and/or 371 garbage from the discharge piping originating from the (food service facilities/large commercial/institntional 372 kitchen). The protected steel treatment receptacle shall remove the free-floating floating and settleable wastes and 373 prevent !heir interference with the proper drainage and treatment of municipal wastewater. Free fats. oil, and grease 374 [!<OG) concentration in the effluent from the interceptor shalI not exceed 100 mg/I 000 PPM}, 375 I. Field fabrication of protected steel treatment receptacles shall be prohibited. 376 2. Protected steel, three compartment (basin) treatment receptacles shall be fabricated. inspected and tested for 377 leakage before shipment from the factory by the manufactnrer as a completely assembled. single vessel ready for 378 installation. 379 3. Protected steel, three compartment (basin) treatment receptacles shall consist of inlet and outlet 380 diffusion/indirect baffle connections with internal cleanout and observation port, fore-basin with heavy duty sludge 381 baffle, fore-basin grease darn positioned to prevent discharge of FOG that has been separated from !he water, large 382 sludge and FOG pump-out access, mid-basin wi!h heaVY duty sludge baffle, mid-basin grease dam positioned to 383 prevent discharge of FOG that has been separated from !he water, large sludge and FOG pump-out access, after-384 basin. after-basin effluent downcomer. large sludge and FOG pump-out access and fittings for vent. sampling 385 gauging, and lifting lugs, as detailed below: 386 a. A minimum 4 inch influent connection Plain End f!'ID 387 b. An internal influent nozzle at !he inlet end ofthe separator, with discharge to inlet diffusion baffle located 388 below the liquid level to prevent re-suspension of separated FOG. 389 c. A large internal fore-basin to disperse flow and collect separated FOG and sludge. 390 d. A heavy-dulY sludge baffle to retain sludge and prevent it from entering the effluent downcomer. A 391 cylindrical bottom shall concentrate solids for easy removal. 392 e. One 0) grease dam to allow for discharge from the bottom of !he fore-basin only and positioned so that 393 there cannot be a straight-line flow between the inlet and the outlet. "Switchback Baffling" shall be incorporated 394 to retain wastewater long enough to allow liquefied grease to cool down, separate, and congeal.

395 f. One 24 inch diameter manhole, UL approved, complete with cylindrical manway extension, cover, gasket. 396 and bolts. Manhole shall be placed to facilitate access into fore-basin for FOG and sludge removal. Heavv-397 dulY striker plates shall be placed under the manbole to protect the tank shell during pump-out operations. 398 g. A large internal mid-basin to further disperse flow and collect separated FOG and sludge. 399 h. A heaVY-duty sludge baffle to retain sludge and prevent it from entering the effluent downcomer. 400 i. One OJ grease dam to allow for discharge from the bottom of the mid-basin only and positioned so that 401 there cannot be a straight-line flow between the inlet and the outlet. "Switchback Baffling" shall be incomorated 402 to retain wastewater long enough to allow liquefied grease to cool down separate. and congeal. 403 j. One 24 inch diameter manhole, UL approved, complete with cylindrical manway extension, cover, gasket. 404 and bolts. Manhole shall be placed to facilitate access into mid-basin for FOG and sludge removal. Heavv-405 dulY striker plates shall be placed under the manhole to protect the tank shell during pump-out operations. 406 k. A large internal after-basin to collect separated grease. 407 1. An internal effluent downcomer to allow for discharge from the bottom olthe after-basin only. 408 m. One 24 inch diameter manhole, UL approved, complete with cylindrical manway extension, cover, gasket, 409 and bolts. Manbole shall be placed to facilitate access into after-basin for grease removal. Heavy-duty 410 striker plates shall be placed under the manbole to protect the tank shell during pump-out operations. 411 n. A minimum 4 inch effluent connection Plain End (PE) 412 o. Fittings for vent. sampling, and gauge. 413 p. Lifting lugs at balancing points for handling and installation. 414 q. Identification plates: Plates to be affixed in prominent location and be durable and legible throughout 415 equipment life that indicate manufacturer name, address and Departtnent's approval number. 416 417 (i) QUALITY ASSURANCE 418 I. Submittals required: 419 a. Shop Drawings: shop drawings for grease interceptors shall show principal dimensions and location of 420 all fittings. 421 b. Instructions: provide three complete sets of installation, operation, and maintenance instructions with 422 interceptor. 423 c. Quality Control: Quality control and inspection procedures and reports shall be part olthe submittal 424 package. 425 426 (j) QPTIONS: Protected steel treatment receptacles shall be furnished with the following: All options below shall 427 be noted and specified accordingly. 428 I. Protected steel treatment receptacles shall be supplied with Polyester Hold-down straps, complete with 429 turnbuckles, wire rope and clamps, 430 2. Protected steel treatment receptacles shall be supplied with prefabricated Concrete Deadman Anchors. 431 3. Protected steel treatment receptacles shall be sUl'l'lied with cylindrical and/or rectangular steel Grade 432 Level Manways designed for H-20 traffic rating or aircraft loading. 433 4 Protected steel treatment receptacles shall be supplied with a Grease Level Alarm System. fEND] 434 435 64E-6 013 (7) to l:nd Remains Unchanged 436 437 [NOTE: When NEW language above is approved it will become necessary to renumber subsequent sub- sections as 438 follows] 439 440 441

442 443

,,-I

pm VIEW

ELiYADOH

QEi~1 A . . S

444 (&2) Laundry waste interceptor - when a separate system is installed to accept effluent fiom a single home 445 washing machine only, the retention tank or interceptor for such system shall meet the following minimum 446 standards: 447 (a) lhe minimum effective capacity shall be 225 gallons for establishments with an estimated sewage flow of 448 up to 300 gallons per day and shall be increased by 50 gallons for every 100 gallons of additional daily sewage flow 449 (b) lhe interceptor shall be provided with a vented inlet tee, vented sweep, or a baffle. 450 ( c) lhe interceptor shall not receive waste flow fiom kitchen flXtmes or be used as a grease trap 451 (9lQ) Pump tanks and pumps - when used as part of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system, the 452 following requirements shall apply to all pump tanks manufactured for use in Florida unless specifically exempted 453 by other provisions ofthese rules: 454 (a) Pump tanks shall have a minimum effective capacity measmed fiom the bottom of the tank to the top of the 455 tank in accordance with lable II. At least 80% of the required effective capacity shall be contained below the invert 456 ofthe inlet. Pump levels shall be set as low as practical to preserve as much reserve capacity as possible in the event 457 of pump failme 458 (b) Construction standards fOl pump tanks shall be the same as for tr·eatment receptacles, except that single 459 compartment tanks are allowed 460 (c) lhe electrical conduit and effluent dosing pipe shall exit the dosing chamber through the tank outlet using 461 plumbing fittings and reducers to produce a watertight seal or, when risers are used, the electrical line and the 462 effluent dosing pipe may penetrate the riser wall provided the penetration is above the wet season high water table 463 elevation and there is a soil-tight seal around the penetrations .. When the top of the dosing tank is placed more then 8 464 inches below the finished grade, risers shall be used to provide access within 8 inches of the fmished grade. Where 465 risers are used, risers shall be attached to the tank in accordance with paragraph 64E-6 .. 013(2)(i), F.AC. The unused

466 tank outlet shall be sealed with a length of capped PVC pipe iostalled in accordance with paragraph 64E-6.013(2)(f), 467 FAC 468 Cd) When a pump is used as PaIt of a system, the followiog conditions shall apply 469 I Pumps used to distribute sewage effluent must be certified by the manufactmer to be suitable for such 470 purpose The use of a timer as a PaIt of any pump system shall not be allowed unless it is part of a design submitted 471 by an engioeer, or master septic tank contractor, and is approved by the department. 472 2. An audio and visual high water alarm shall be provided io a conspicuous location visible by system users to 473 warn of pump failures. If the alaIm is located outdoors, the alaIm shall be waterproof and specified by the 474 manufactm·er for outdoor use 475 3, A pump shall be placed in a separate compartment or tank, except when using a pump chamber insert Except 476 as noted below, any compartment or tank io which a pump is located shall not be considered when determioiog total 477 effective capacity ola septic tank 478 4 .. A pump chamber iosert may, at the applicant's discretion, be used to house a pump ioside a septic tank. Ifa 479 pump chamber iosert is used, it must be approved for use by the State Health Office Approval shall be based on the 480 ability of the pump chamber insert to effectively filter solids from the effluent prior to intake by the pump. Ihe 481 efficiency of solids removal by the pump chamber iosert must be at least equal to a currently approved outlet filter 482 device. Pump chamber ioserts that do not meet this criteria shall not be approved and shall not be used .. The filter 483 device used as PaIt ofthe pump chamber insert shall be considered to meet the requirement ofusiog an outlet filter 484 device for purposes of subsection 64E-6 .. 008(2), F AC Ihe tank or compartment used to house the pump chamber 485 iosert shall be iocluded in ca!culatiog the minimum effective capacity of the tank, su~ject to the followiog 486 conditions: 487 a. When placed in a compaItmentalized tank or tanks in series, the pump chamber iosert shall be placed in the 488 last chaIllber or tank .. When placed io a single compartment tank, the pump chaIllber insert shall be placed as close to 489 the outlet side of the tank as possible. In no case shall the iosert be placed farther than 112 the distance to the iolet as 490 measmed from the outlet of the tank. Ihe pump chamber insert and filter shall be accessible for routioe 491 maiotenance. Ihe manufactmer shall provide iosttuctions on how to maiotaio the filter unit and the iosert device. 492 b. Pump levels shall be set so that the high water alaIm is activated when the liquid level of the tank will exceed 493 the height ofthe inlet iovert of the tank. Ihe pump-on switch shall be set to maiotaio the greatest possible effective 494 capacity ofthe tank, and io no case shall it be set higher than I inch below the inlet iover!. Floats used for operation 495 ofthe pump shall be allowed outside the pump chamber insert 496 c .. Ihe iotake openings of the pump chaIllber iosert shall not be located withio 12 inches olthe bottom ofthe 497 tank, or within 12 ioches of the liquid level line of the tank 498 d. Ihe volume dischaIged by the pump shall not exceed 114 olthe average daily sewage flow io any dose 499 e. A pump chamber iosert shall not be used when the total absorption ar·ea for the system is greater than 1000 500 square feet, or when automatic dosiog is required .. 501 f. For new system iostallations, io addition to the requirements above, the total septic tank capacity shall ioclude 502 the required mioimum septic tank effective capacity, which shall be contaioed below the pump-off switch level, plus 503 the pumpiog tank capacity per Iable II, plus the required 15% airspace. 504 g. For repair iostallations, io addition to the requir·ements of subparagraphs a .. through e. above, pump chamber 505 ioserts shall not be used in an existing septic tank of less than 750 gallons effective capacity In addition, the 506 mioimum tank liquid depth shall be 36 ioches below the pump-off switch level and the minimum effective capacity 507 contaioed below the pump-off switch level shall be within two tank sizes of that required io Rule 64E-6.008, FAC, 508 I able II. The total septic tank capacity shall ioclude the mioimum effective capacity within two tank sizes of 509 required tank size, plus dosiog capacity, plus dosiog reserve capacity equal to the dosiog capacity, plus fieeboard or 510 air space capacity which is equal to 15% olthe minimum effective capacity. 511 CWll) Transportation and installation 512 Ca) Onsite wastewater receptacles shall not be removed fiom the manufactmer's facility until the compressive 513 sttength ofthe concrete has reached 75% of the design strength. Use of concrete industry published graphs or tables 514 iodicating compressive str·ength vs .. concrete age for the design mix aIe satisfactory proof of strength

515 (b) I anks shall be installed level fiom end to end and side to side. As used in this context, level includes a slope 516 from the inlet end to the outlet end or fi·om side to side of the tank not exceeding one-half inch over the entire length 517 or width of the tank. lhe tank shall not be approved with any pitch upward from the inlet end to the outlet end of the 518 tank 519 C c) If a pumping device has been placed in the building sewer, an inlet device shall be used. 520 Cd) Cast in place tanks or tanks manufactured with water stops below the invert of the outlet, and tanks with 521 seams below the invelt ofthe outlet shall be watertightness tested in accordance with ASIM C 1227-98, Standard 522 Specification for Precast Concrete Septic I anks, paragraph 9 22, after installation in the field 523 C H12) Repair of receptacles - Repairs shall be allowed for receptacles prior to shipment per AS 1M, ACI, PCA 524 and National Precast Concrete Association (NPCA), Septic lank Manufacturing Best Practices Manual (1998), 525 standards and publications. Ianks damaged after they leave the manufacturer's facility may be repaired for the 526 following defects: 527 Ca) Chips and cracks that occur above the invert ofthe outlet 528 (b) Chips that occur below the invert ofthe outlet, provided that such chips to not penetrate more than 1/3 olthe 529 wall or bottom thickness 530 CHJl) All materials incorporated herein may be obtained fiom the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at 531 www.MyFloridaERcomor4052BaldCypress Way, Bin A08, Iallahassee, Florida 32399-1713. 532 Specific Authotity 3810011(4) (13),381 0065(3)(a) FS Law implemented 3810065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-

533 85, Fotmerly IOD-6. 55, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95 F'otmerly IOD-6 055 Amended 11-19-97, 2-3-98. 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 5-24-04

534 11-26-06

535

# 09-15 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Duplexes on one lot

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,004

Printed 7/1/2010 9:53:48 AM

The current language addressing this issue is cumbersome and confusing.

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes clarify when a deed restriction is required for duplexes on single lots or establishments on multiple lots.

(See Attached)

clarify when easement is required for duplexes on single lots or establishments on multiple lots.

cost of preparing and filing easements.. Possible impacts from having easements on the property. 8/12/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 8/27/09 Not heard. TRAP ran out of time ..

1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee 3/4/10 Variance Comments: CHD-great idea but require before final approval; DEP-should not record easement before a permit is given; REI­record at time of permit or at final inspection.; ENG-see REI comment, need rewritten-old rule I have to write myself an easement for property I own? This does not help .. ; STI-binding utility easements needs to be looked at as too many are being required when unnecessary; HBI-ok.

Ready for Rule [J

In Rule [J

Rule Date:

1 64E-6 .. 004 Application for System Construction Permit 2 (1) through (6) No chaoge 3 (7) Where a property owner proposes to build or has built multiple residences or multiple businesses on a single lot, and 4 splitting the property to separate any of the business or residences will place the ansite sewage treatment and disposal system in 5 violation of this chapter, ana the entire area efllle let is requireate a •• emmeaate lIle aesignea sewage flew from lIle multiple 6 resie6flees or ffitlltiple bHsiResses to the oRsite sewage treatment aREl disposal system, the property owner must submit, prior to 7 issuaoce of a construction permit, a written utility easement which has been executed and recorded in the public property 8 records at the county courthouse. The utility easement must bind the property together so that the original lot size is retained for 9 purposes of compliaoce with all the requirements of Rule 64E-6, aod must include provisions for maintaining the onsite sewage

10 treatment aod disposal system. Fer e"ample, a 8Hple)( built en a single let '?lith a single ensite sewage treatment aHa aispesal 11 system sef'o'ing eeth-balves efthe auple" must have a v,Tilten Hlili!y easement e"B.Hlea aaa re.eraea in the puB Ii. preperty 12 reeards befure aa aasite sewage treatffleat aaa aispasal s)~Iem eeastrHelien permit is issuea, In era", la obtain a rOflair !,ermi4 13 tfl.e.--.property m.vner must suhmit---a-eepy of tHe reGorlOled utility easemeRt eemonstrating tHe reteHtiofl: of ilie origiAal lot size fer 14 purpeses efthe oasile sewage treatment ana ais!,osal system ana a mellloa for maiataiaing lIle system, For elEample, eaeli half 15 efa auple" built ea a single let with a single onsile sewage treatfflen! ana aisposal system sef'o'ing beth halves of the aUfllelHs 16 selate separate perseas, If, when Ihe easite sewage treatment aispesal s)stem fujls, aaa a 'mitten Hlility easement was net 17 e".sutea ana reseraee in the JlHblis property re.eras "efure the sales, it IIlHsl b. aeae befure aa ensile sewage treatment ana 18 aisresal system repair permil is issuea, 19 (a) Where a property owner proposes to build or has built a single residence or a single business or multiple residences or 20 businesses on multiple lots, ana the resiaeRse's or eusiness's autherized sewage flew requires lIle Hse e[multiple leIs, sr parts 21 thereef, fur the easile sewage treatmeat ane aisposal system, the property owner must submit, prior to issuance of a permit, a 22 written utility easement executed and recorded in the public property records at the county courthouse The utility easement 23 must bind the required property together so that the original lots aod their collective size, or part thereof, is retained for 24 purposes ofthe onsite sewage treatment and disposal system, aod must include provisions for maintaining the onsite sewage 25 tr'eatment and disposal system Fer e"ample, a resiaeaee er Business "uilt ea three lets with a sewage flew whish is large 26 eaeugh to require the laaa frem alltmee leIs must have a '.vritten Hlility easemeal e"esutea ana resBraea in Ihe pUBlis preperty 27 reseras befure aa-ensite sewage treatffleat aaa aispesal system eeaslTustienpermil may-be issaea, In eraer to obtain a repair 28 permit, lIle preperty ewner musl """mil a eepy efthe reseraea Hlilit)' easement demenstrating lIle retentien efthe erigi"allets 29 aaa lIleir eelleslive size fur pHrpsses ef the eRsite sewage treatment ana aispesal system aaa a melhea fur maintaining the 30 S)'SleIIl. 31 (b) Where a property owner, through inadvertent elror or mistake, has built multiple residences or mUltiple businesses on a 32 series oflots and each residence or business has its own onsite sewage treatment aod disposal system or the sewage flow from 33 the residence or business exceeds the allowable limits established for the area of land upon which the residence or business is 34 located, the property owner must execute aod record in the public property records, a written utility easement, for the remaining 35 undeveloped lots in the subdivision, which informs the public of the amount of sewage flow which will be generated or the 36 number of onsite sewage tr'eatment aod disposal systems which will be installed in that subdivision It must also state that when 37 the maximum amount of sewage flow or maximum number of onsite sewage treatment aod disposal systems has been reached 38 for the subdivision, no further development cao occur until sewer is available 39 (8) No chaoge 40 Rulemaking 8peeifie Authority 381.0011(4),(13), 38\0065(3)(a), 489.553(3) FS Law Implemented 3810065,489553, 41 F S. History~New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 1 OD-6 .44, Amended 3-1 7-92, 1-3-95, 5-14-96, 2-13-97, Formerly 42 10D-6.044, Amended 11-19-97, 3-22-00, 11-26-06~

1

# 09-16 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Prlnted 7/112010 9:53:54 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Triple-Wide mobile home spaces; cleanup MHP sizing

Rule Sections:

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

the rule contains no sizing for triple-wide mobile home spaces .. Also, the current language about multiple spaces per system versus one space per system needs some cleaning.

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes provide sizing criteria for triple­side mobile home spaces in Mobile Home Parks.

09-16-64E6,008_triple-wide-mhp-spaces doc (See Attached)

The proposal adds 50 gallons to the double wide space flow to create a triple wide space flow

none.. currently there is no provision in the rule for these spaces .. Adding the 50 gallons has been the practice in some parks where triple-wide spaces were necessary 8/12/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Comments: 8/27/09 Not heard.. TRAP ran out oftime. 1/28/10 TRAP edited, approved to go to Variance committee. 3/4110 Variance Comments: REI-OK; ENG-I don't understand it; STI-OK; CHD No issue; DEP-I'm fine with the added and revised language; HBI-ok.

Ready for Rule U

In Rule U Rule Date:

64E-6 .. 008 System Size Determinations (I) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the estimated

daily sewage flow as determined fium I able I or the following: (a) through (b) No change

TABLE I For System Design

ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS IYPE OF ES I ABLISHMENI

Mobile Home Park (a) per single wide mobile home

space, less than 4 single wide spaces connected to a shared individual onsite system .

(b) per single wide mobile home space, 4 or more single wide spaces are connected to a shared individual onsite system

(c) per double wide mobile home space, less than 4 double wide mobile home spaces connected to a shar·ed individual onsite system

(d) per double wide mobile home space, 4 or more double wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared individual onsite system.

__ ---'( e) per triple wide mobile home space, less than 4 triple wide mobile home spaces connected to a

GAlLONS PER DAY

250

225

.... 300

.275

shared individual onsite system ............................................................................................................... 350 (f) per triple wide mobile home space,

4 or more triple wide mobile home spaces connected to a shared individual onsite system ......................................................................................................................... 325

(2) through (6) No change Rulemaking Authority 3810065(3)(a), FS.law Implemented 3810065, FS. History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85,

Formerly IOD-6A8, Amended 3-17-92,1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6 048, Amended 11-19-97, Amended 3-22-00, 9-5-00,11-26-06, 06-25-09~.

# 09-17 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Site Plans

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,004

Printed 7/112010 9:53:59 AM

Current site plan language is not specific about what scales are appropriate and how much tolerance is allowed in that scale

Gerald Briggs, DOH

The proposed changes clarify which scales are appropriate and how much error is allowed in the drawings ..

09-17--64E6004_Sile_Plans.doc (See Attached)

allows .. 5 ft error on 1 "=1 0' , 20' and 30' scales. Allows 2 ft error on smaller scales

none.. Should clarify situation to help avoid permit delays 8/10/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

8/27/09 Not heard. TRAP ran out of time. 1/28/10 TRAP edited, approved to go to Variance committee 3/4110 Variance Comments: DEP-I have no issue with this. A higher tolerance may be needed though; STI-one copy is plenty in most cases; CHD No issue; DEP-Iess paperwork good! Second copy could be stored electronically; REI-why?; ENG-ok; HBI-ok ..

II []

I 64E-6 .. 004(3) 2 3 (a) A plan or plat of the lot or total site ownership. The site plan shall be drawn to scale and shall be for the 4 property where the system is to be installed. All site plans shall use standard civil engineering. non-metric scales. 5 Site plans drawn with a scale of 10 - 30 feet to I inch shall have a margin of error of not more than one-half foot. 6 Smaller scale site plans shall have a margin of error of not more than 2 feet. Site plans shall be drawn on Form 7 DOH 4015 or submitted on 8.5xll inch or up to 24x36 inch paper using the scale that maximizes the size ofthe 8 plan. 9 I. The site plan shall show boundaries with dimensions and any of the following features that exist or that are

10 proposed: 11 a, Structures; 12 h. Swimming pools; 13 c. Recorded easements; 14 d. Onsite sewage treatment and disposal system components 15 e. Slope of the property 16 f. Wells; 17 g. Potable and non-potable water lines and valves; 18 h. Drainage features; 19 i Filled areas; 20 j. Excavated areas for onsite sewage systems; 21 k Obstructed ar·eas; 22 1. Smface water bodies; and 23 m Location of the reference point for system elevation 24 2 If the county health department is responsible for performing the site evaluation, the applicant or applicant's 25 authorized representative shall indicate the approximate location of wells, onsite sewage treatment and disposal 26 systems, sIUface water bodies and other pertinent facilities or features on contiguous or adjacent property .. If the 27 features are within 75 feet ofthe applicant lot, the estimated distance to the feature must be shown but need not be 28 drawn to scale 29 3 If the county health department will not be performing the site evaluation, the applicant or authorized agent 30 shall be responsible for the measurements to all features, including the pertinent featmes within 75 feet of the 31 applicant lot The location of any public drinking water well, as defined in paragraph 64E-6 .002( 44)(b), within 200 32 feet of the applicant's lot shall also be shown, with the distance indicated from the system to the well 33 4 If an individual lot is five acres or greater, the applicant may draw a minimum one acre par·cel to scale 34 showing all required featrues, or the minimum size drawing necessary to properly exhibit all required features, 35 whichever is larger. The applicant must also show the location of that one acre or larger parcel inside the total site 36 ownership

# 09-18 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: PBTS plans

Rule Sections: 64E-6.026

Printed 7/112010 9:54:04AM

current rule requires two copies of all docs. One copy would be enough in most cases.

Pad Juarez, DOH, Wakulla CHD

The proposed changes the proposed change requires all plans to be signed and sealed but does not specify the number of copies top submit.

09·18··64E6 026Jlbts_documents doc (See Attached)

requires all plans to be signed and sealed.. It does not specify the number of copies to submit

could reduce costs from reducing the number of plan copies required. 8/10/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: 8/27/09 Not heard .. TRAP ran out of time ..

1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee. 3/4110 Variance Comments: STI-one copy is plenty in most cases; CHD-no issue; DEP-Iess paperwork good, second copy could be stored electronically; REI-why?; ENG-ok; HBI-ok

Ready for Rule L In Rule ~l

Rule Date:

1 64E-6.026 Applications for Innovative system permits and System Construction Permits 2 (2) Applications for system construction permits - All information required in Part I for an 3 application for system construction permit shall be included as part of the application for 4 a performance-based treatment system.. All Two cOFlies of all information shall be dated, 5 signed and sealed by the registered engineer who designed the system, and provided to 6 the department Upon any change to the design, Documentation of two GOFlios of _any 7 revisions shall be provided to the department and shall be dated, signed and sealed by 8 the registered engineer. Additional information shall include the following: 9

10

# 09-19 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Commercial Sewage Waste Definition

Rule Sections: S4E-S.002

Printed 711/2010 9:54:10 AM

the definition in the rule differs from the definition in the interagency agreement

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Dale Holcomb, DOH

The proposed changes incorporates the interagency definition of commercial wastewater into the rule

09-19--64E6 .002 _Definitions_ Commercial-waste doc (See Attached)

Summary: adds beauty salons to the list of examples of commercial wastewater generators.

Possible Financial Impacts: none.. Beauty salons have been included in the interagency agreement definition since 2001.

Date New: 8/12/2009 Initially Reviewed by Trap: 1/28/2010 Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: 1/28/2010 Variance Committee Reviewed: 3/412010 Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

8/27/09 Not heard .. TRAP ran out of time. 1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee .. 3/4110 Variance Comments: REI-ok; CHD-no issue; STI-sounds fine; DEP­great; ENG-ok; HBI-ok

o o

I 64E-6.002 Definitions 2 For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated: 3 (I) through (12) No change 4 (13) Commercial Sewage Waste - Non-toxic, non-hazardous wastewater ii-om commercial facilities .. E][affijlles sf 5 establishments Iincluded in this defmition are commercial wastewaters and mixtures of commercial and domestic wastewaters 6 from commercial and institutional food operations, commercial laundry facilities with no more than four washing 4 machines, 7 arul-animal holding facilities (such as commercial kennels, veterinary hospitals, and animal grooming facilities), and beauty 8 salons, provided toxic, hazardous or industrial wastes are not introduced into the system 9 (14) through (59) No change

10 Rulemaking Speeifie Authority 3810011(4),(13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS .. Law Implemented 3810065,381.00655, FS. 11 History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 10D-642, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6.042, Amended 11-12 19-97, 3-22-00, 11-26-06~ 13

I

# 09-20 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Incinerating Toilets

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,009

Printed 71212010 8:35'39 AM

The language addressing composting and incinerating toilets refers to an old version of the applicable standard, and does not include a current testing protocol for inCinerating toilets The proposed language makes the updates

Eberhard Roeder, DOH

The proposed changes update the references for incinerating toilet standards

09-20--64E6,009_1ncineratinQ_ TOileCstandards doc (See Attached)

updates the rule to incorporate the current NSF and ANSI/NHSF standards

none 8/12/2009 8/27/2009 1/28/2010 1/28/2010 3/4/2010

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

8/27/09 Not heard. TRAP ran out of time 1/28/10 TRAP approved to go to Variance committee .. 3/4110 Variance Committee ENG-ok; REI-OK; CHD-no issue; STI-ok; SHO­agree; HBI-ok

i~ ~,

1 2 64E-6,,009 Alternative Systems 3 When approved by the DOH county health department, altemalive systems may, at the discretion ofthe 4 applicant, be utilized in circumstances where standard subsmface systems are not suitable or where 5 altemative systems are more feasible. Unless otherwise noted, all rules pertaining to siting, construction, 6 and maintenance of standard subsmface systems shall apply to alternative systems. In addition, the DOH 7 county health department may, using the criteria in subsection 64E-6.004(4), F AC, requiIe the 8 submission of plans prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, prior to considering the use of 9 any alternative system

10 (I) Waterless, incinerating or organic waste composting toilets - may be approved for use if found in 11 compliance with standards for Wastewater Recyc1elReuse and Water Conservation Systems as defmed by 12 ANSIINSF Intemational Standard Number 41, revised March 28, 2005, or NSF protocol PIS? Electrical 13 Incinerating Ioilets - Health and Sanitization, issued April 28, 2000, May 1983 ,hereby incorporated by 14 reference, and provided that graywater and any other liquid and solid waste is properly collected and 15 disposed of in accordance with standards established in this Chapter Forresidences, the required drainfield 16 absorption smface and unobstructed area of the system treating the remaining sewage flow shall be reduced 17 by 25% when waterless, incinerating or organic waste composting toilets are used exclusively for all toilet 18 wastes .. Solids removed fiom waterless, incinerating or organic waste composting toilets shall be mixed 19 with lime, containerized, and disposed of with the solid waste fiom the establishment liquids discharging 20 from waterless, incinerating or organic waste composting toilets shaH be plumbed into the onsite system 21 serving the establishment 22

# 09-21 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7/112010 9:54:20AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Inspection by engineers

Rule Sections: 64E-6.003

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome:

current rule exempts engineer-designed residential systems from being inspected by an engineer.

Scott Franz, Soil Scientist

The proposed changes will require all systems that were designed by an engineer to be inspected by that engineer.

09w 21 w -64E6003_lnspection_by_engineers,doc (See Attached)

removes the residential exemption from engineer inspection

cost of inspection could be offset by reduced failure. 8/12/2009

1/28/2010

1/28/2010

3/412010

Comments: 8/27/09 Not heard TRAP ran out of time. 1/28/10 TRAP edited, approved to go to Variance committee .. 3/4110 Variance Comments: ENG-why? Really not necessary if DOH inspects system; REI-no. Adds cost to homeowner; STI-don't agree .. why should engineer have to go and inspect a system that the health department already inspected?; CHD-no opinion; SHO-strongly agree; HBI-too stringent, what if he dies?

Ready for Rule 0 InRu~ n Rule Date:

I 64E-6,,003 Permits 2 (1) System Construction Permit - No portion of an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be installed, repaired, 3 altered, modified, abandoned or replaced until an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction Permit" has 4 been issued on Form DH 4016. Ifbuilding construction has commenced, the system construction permit shall be valid for an 5 additional 90 days beyond the eighteen month expiration date. A fee shall not be charged for a repair permit issued within 12 6 months from the date of fmal authorization of the onsite sewage tr·eatment and disposal system If a construction or repair 7 permit for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is transferred to another person the date of the construction or repaIT 8 permit shall not be amended, but shall run from the date of original issuance prior to the transfer. Servicing or replacing with 9 like kind mechanical or electrical parts of an approved onsite sewage treatment and disposal system; pumping of septage from a

10 system; or making minor snuctural corrections to a tank, or distribution box, does not constitute a repair II (2) System Inspection - Before covering with earth and before placing a system into selvice, a person installing or 12 constructing any portion of an onsite sewage tr·eatment and disposal system shall notify the county health department of the 13 completion afthe construction activities ami shall have the system inspected by the department for compliance with the 14 requirements of this Chapter, except as noted in subsection 64E-6.003(3) for repair installations. 15 (a) If the system construction is approved after an inspection by the DOH county health depaltment, the depaltment shall 16 issue a "Construction Approval" notice to the installer 17 (b) If the system installation does not pass the construction inspection on any type of system installation, the installer shall 18 make all requITed corrections and notify the DOH county health department of the completion of the work plior to reinspection 19 ofthe system. A reinspection fee shall be charged to the installer for each additional inspection leading up to construction 20 approval 21 (c) Final installation approval shall not be granted until the DOH county health department has confumed that all 22 requITements of this Chapter, including building construction and lot grading are in compliance with plans and specifications 23 submitted with the permit application. 24 1 In addition, if the system was designed by an engineer, who shall be licensed in the State ofHorida, the DOH county 25 health department shall requIT·e the <lesign-engineer of record or the design eagiseer's engineer of record's designee, 'Nile shall 26 be a lie eased engineer, to celtify that the installed system complies with the approved design and installation requirements .. All 27 Single family resideflees are e,wlllded Hem tRis requiremest, Rewever, all changes to the engineering specifications shall be 28 approved by the <lesign-engineer of record. 29 2. If additional site visits after the construction approval inspection ar·e necessary to establish the compliance of the 30 building construction and lot grading, or to establish the compliance with any provision of this Chapter, a reinspection fee shall 31 be charged to the permit applicant for each inspection of the building and site leading to the final installation approval. 32 3. If an operating permit is required for the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system, fmal installation approval shall not be 33 granted until the operating permit application and fee have been received by the Department 34 (d) Where an establishment is serviced by on onsite sewage tr·eatment and disposal system, section 3810065(4), F .. S., shall 35 govern when occupancy of a building can be allowed. "Approved" installation does not imply that a system will perform 36 satisfactorily for a specific period of time 37 (e) Systems which are required to have an annual operating permit and the structmes which they serve shall be inspected by 38 the department at least once dwing the term olthe permit to determine compliance with the terms of the operating permit 39 (3) through (6) No change 40 Rulemaking Authority 3810065(3)(a), 489553(3), 489557(1) FS Law Implemented 381 .0065, 3810067, 386041 F S 41 History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly IOD-643, Amended 3-17-92,1-3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Formerly IOD-42 6043, Amended 3-22-00, 4-21-02, 05-24-04, 11-26-06, 06-25-09~ 43

# 10-01 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7/112010 9:54:25 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Lower Flow rates for Large houses

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,008, Table I

Current rule creates excessively high flows for houses over 4 bedrooms and 3300 square feet

Issue Originated By: Florida Building Commission

Justification: The proposed changes reduce the sewage flow increment for houses over four bedrooms and over 3300 square feet of building area. This reflects the Christiansen study and reflects the fact that bedrooms over 4 bedrooms are not as densely occupied as the first two bedrooms

Proposed Rule Change: (See Attached)

Summary: reduces the flow increment to 60 gallons per bedroom over four bedrooms and per 750 square feet over 3300 square feet of building area.

Possible Financial Impacts: Should reduce the cost of installing an onsite sewage system for the affected houses

Date New: 1/28/2010

Initially Reviewed by Trap: 1/28/2010

Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: 1/28/2010

3/412010 Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

This was originally part of issue 08-15 regarding bedroom re-definition .. The bedroom re-definition remains issue 08-15. TRAP approved this increment provision and separated it to go on for approval. 3/4/10 Variance Comments: ENG-do not have access to this study.. Other systems should be considered such as surge tanks; REI-ok; STH agree but I think you should go to 5 bedrooms and 4050 square-foot home .. ; CHD-not a good idea; DEP-I don't think it should be changed on 4 bedroom houses.. For houses with 5 or 6 bedrooms, this would work but not for 4-bedroom houses.; HBI-ok

D

1 64E-6,008 System Size Determinations .. 2 (1) Minimum design flows for systems serving any structure, building or group of buildings shall be based on the 3 estimated daily sewage flow as determined from Table! or the following: 4 Ca) through Cb) No change 5

6

TABLE! For System Design

ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS

TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT RESIDENTIAl: Residences

Ca) Single or multiple family per dwelling Unit ! Bedroom with 750 sq. ft or less of building area 2 Bedrooms with 751-1200 sq ft. of building area 3 Bedrooms with 1201-2250 sq ft of building area 4 Bedrooms with 2251-3300 sq ft. of building area For each additional bedroom or each additional 150 square feet of building area or fraction thereof in a dwelling unit, system sizing shall be increased by 60 +{14 gallons per dwelling unit Cb) Other per occupant .

7 Footnotes to Table!:

GALLONS PER DAY

100 200 300 400

50

8 I For food operations, kitchen wastewater flows shall normally be calcUlated as 66 percent of the total establishment 9 wastewater flow

10 2 Systems serving high volume establishments, such as restaurants, convenience stOles and service stations located near 11 interstate type highways and similar high-traffic areas, require special sizing consideration due to expected above average 12 sewage volume. Minimum estimated flows for these facilities shall be 3 0 times the volumes determined from the Table I 13 figures. 14 3 For residences, the volume of wastewater shall be calculated as 50 percent blackwater and 50 percent graywater 15 4 Where the number ofbedrooms indicated on the floor plan and the corresponding building area of a dwelling unit in 16 Table I do not coincide, the criteria which will result in the greatest estimated sewage flow shall apply 17 5 Convenience store estimated sewage flows shall be determined by adding flows for food outlets and service stations as 18 appropriate to the products and services offered 19 6 Estimated flows for residential systems assumes a maximum occupancy oftwo persons per bedroom Where residential 20 care facilities will house more than two persons in any bedroom, estimated flows shall be increased by 50 gallons per each 21 additional occupant 22 (2) through (6) No change

23 Rulemaking Authority 381 0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381.0065 FS History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 24 10D-648, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly 10D-6 048, Amended 11-19-97, 3-22-00, 9-5-00, 11-26-06, 6-25-09

# 10-02 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 7f1/2010 10:33:46AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Soil Replacement for Drip Systems

Rule Sections: 64E-6,009

Issue: The rule requires 42 inches of suitable soil below the bottom of the drainfield Drip irrigation systems do not require spodic horizons to be removed when they are more than 24 inches below the bottom of the drainfield,

Issue Originated By: Scott Franz, Soil Scientist

Justification: The proposed changes allow spodic horizons to remain in place provided they are more than 24 inches below the drip emitter drainfield

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

10-02--64E-6 009_Effective_soil_depth_for_drip_systems doc

(See Attached)

Eliminates requirement for replacement of spodic horizons between 24 and 42 inches below a drip emitter drainfield,

Should reduce costs by eliminating soil replacements between 24 and 42 inches of the bottom of the drip emitter bed. 2/26/2010

LJ

1 64E-6,009 Alternative Systems., 2 Un-numbered introductory paragraph - No change 3 (I) through (4) No change 4 (5) Drip irrigation systems - Drip irrigation systems may, at the option of the applicant, be used in lieu ofa mineral 5 aggregate drainfield .. Drip irrigation systems shall meet all requir'ements of this chapter except as noted below 6 (a) Drip irrigation systems shall receive effluent from an approved aerobic treatment unit or a performance based treatment 7 system designed to meet at least secondary treatment standards for CBOD, and ISS, and shall meet the following 8 requirements: 9 1. through 26 .. No change

10 27. The minimum effective soil depth below drip emitter lines shall be 42 inches; however, spodic layers greater than 24 11 inches below the drip emitter lines may remain in place at the discretion of the design engineer. 12 (b) Drip illigation systems shall be monitored during required maintenance visits by visual inspection of the ground 13 swface above the emitteI lines for evidence of soil saturation at the ground sUlface 14 (6) through (10) No change

15 Rulemaking Authority 381.0065(3)(a) FS lmv Implemented 381 0065 FS, History-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formerly 16 IOD-6.49, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly 10D-6 049, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00,4-21-02,6-18-03,11-26-06, 17 6-25-09

1

# 10-06 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: Existing Systems

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,001

Printed 712/2010 8-54:50 AM

Current language has been amended and re-amended and is confuSing

Gerald Briggs, DOH

The proposed changes simplifies the language related to existing systems and modifications

10-06--64E-6 001_Existing_System_standards doc (See Attached)

Simplifies the language related to existing system modification

Standards are not changing significantly. 1/15/2009

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

'-'

I Extensive revision of 64E-6 .. 00L Strike all existing language and insert the following: 2 64E-6.001 General 3 (I) Ihis chapter applies statewide except where specific law or parts ofthis chapter provide an 4 exception This chapter must be used with Chapter 381, Chapter 386, and part 1lI of Chapter 489, FS 5 (2) Structures for human occupancy, employment or service to the public and locations where people 6 congregate, such as construction sites, fairs, and field locations for agricultural workers shall provide 7 approved wastewater treatment and disposal systems Except for the provisions of Rule 64E-6 0101, 8 permanent structures shall not rely upon the use of holding tanks and portable toilets for wastewater 9 treatment and disposal

10 (3) Any change to the conditions under which the system was permitted and approved and placed into II use requires the owner apply for re-approval of the system by the DOH county health department It is the 12 applicant's responsibility to provide documentation of any prior department approval. An applicant must 13 complete Form DH 4015, 08109, Onsite Sewage Ireatment and Disposal System Application for 14 Construction Petmit, herein incorporated by reference, and provide a site plan in accordance with 15 paragraph 64E-6.004(3)(a),FA C 16 (a) An existing system evaluation and site evaluation is required All system tanks must be pumped by 17 a permitted septage disposal service and certified by a state licensed septic tank contractor, a professional 18 engineer, or a certified environmental health professional. A pump out is not required if a system has been 19 pumped out in the previous five years and the pump out documentation provides tank capacity and 20 condition. To be certified tanks must be watertight, constructed of approved material, free of visible 21 defects that impact the operation of the system, have lids and manholes that properly seal, and have an 22 approved outlet device or filter 23 (b) In reviewing applications consideration shall be given to both the permitted capacity and the current 24 capacity ofthe existing system per the system size determinations of Rule 64E-6 008 25 (c) Non-load bearing structures, such as a concrete patio floor, are allowed to cover the septic tank, 26 provided that access to the tank is provided Ihe structure above the tank shall have a minimum opening of 27 225 squale inches at each end of the tank for access A barrier of soil or plastic shall be used between the 28 tank and non-load bearing structure 29 (d) A residence or establishment that currently exceeds lot flow allowances shall not be allowed to 30 increase sewage flow 31 (4) If the existing system cannot be approved for the proposed the owner shall obtain a construction 32 permit for modification of the system from the county health department in accordance with Rule 64E-33 6004, F A C The following standards shall apply: 34 (a) For residences that add sewage flow the drainfield must meet current rule size requirements for the 35 proposed estimated sewage The bottom of the drainfield shall meet minimum separation requirements of 36 3810065, F S, from the wettest season water table 37 (b) For commercial or institutional establishments: 38 I A system out of service for more than one year shall be brought into compliance with new system 39 standards. 40 2 A system shall require modification if the domestic sewage flow increase is mOle than 20% of 41 current system capacity or requires mOle than one tank size adjustment 42 3 An increase in commercial sewage shall require compliance with new system standards 43 ( c) Existing tanks must be within one size of the requirements of I able II 44 (e) The installation of a laundry system, a gray water system, a grease interceptor, or additional 45 drainfield as a precautionary measure is considered a modification to the system 46 (5) If an owner requests an evaluation ofa system that is not required by law or rule, the department 47 Procedure for Voluntary Assessment of Existing Systems, May, 2000, herein incorporated by reference, is 48 required. The assessment does not guarantee system performance Nothing in this section shall be 49 construed to limit the amount of detail an evaluator may provide. Persons allowed to perform work under 50 this section shall be state licensed septic tank contractors, professional engineers, and persons certified 51 under section 3810101, F S Department employees are excluded from performing these evaluations. 52 Aerobic treatment units and performance-based treatment systems shall be evaluated by an approved 53 maintenance entity. Nothing in this section restricts the person having ownership of; contlol of; or use of an 54 onsite sewage treatment and disposal system from requesting a partial assessment T he evaluator shall 55 provide the person requesting the assessment a copy of the department Procedure for Voluntary

56 Assessment of Existing Systems and written notice of their right to request an assessment based on part Ot

57 all of the standards 58 (6) The department may impose a fine by an administrative complaint or citation for any violation of 59 381 0065, 381 0066, chapter 386, part III of chapter 489, or 64E-6. Citations issued by the department 60 shall be on Form DH 3146, 11/02, Citation fOJ Violation, Onsite Sewage Programs/Sanitary Nuisance, 61 hereby incorporated by reference 62 (7) All materials incorporated herein may be obtained fiom the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs at 63 wwwMyFloridaEHcom or 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A08, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1713

64 Rulemaking Author ity 381 0065(J)(a), 489553(3), 489 557(1) FS Law Implemented 381 0065, 381.0067, 65 386041,489553 FS Hlstoty-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Fmmelly IOD-6 41, Amended 3-1 7-92, 1-66 3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Formerly 1OD-6 041, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00 9-5-00,5-24-04, 11-26-67 06, 6-25-09, 4-28-10

68 69

2

Voluntary System Inspection Report

Property Street Address: City: State: Florida Zip:_-,--,,--__ I have ownership, control or use of the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system at the property listed above and request an inspection except for the items 1 have initialed to request that they be excluded

Signature of requestor:

Printed name of requestor: Tank Inspection

Initial to request that the inspection NOT be included o The tank has been pumped and capacity is: __ gallons Baffles or tees are intact and secure: Dyes o no D I have waived the pumping requirement because proof of a tank Outlet device D present o non present pumping, permitted new installation or permitted repair or permitted Condition: modification can be documented within the previous five years, and the Effluent filters 0 present o non present document states the capacity of the tank and that the condition of the tank Condition: does not constitute a sanitary nuisance Compartment walls 0 present D non present My visual inspection of the tank when the tank was empty detected the Condition: following cracks, leaks, or other defects: Structural defects in the tank:

Condition and fit of the tank lid, including manholes:

o The tank, in my professional opinion is in danger of being damaged by leaving the tank empty after inspection, and was refilled with water prior to concluding the inspection.

Drainfield Inspection Initial to request that the drainfield inspection NOT be included.

I have probed the drainfield area to determine its location and approximate Is there ponding water within the drainfield? o yes o no size Drainfield size: sq ft Is there even distribution of effluent in the field? 0 yes o no Describe drainfield location: Are there downspouts or drains that encroach or drain into the drainfield Drainfield configuration: 0 Bed o Trench area? 0 yes o no Drainfield is made of: 0 Mineral Aggregate o Non-mineral aggregate Based on augering and examining soils in the area of the drainfield the o Plastic chambers, Indications of previous failure: estimated seasonal high water table in the area of the drainfield is:

inches 0 above o below the bottom of the drainfield.

Pumps, Siphons, Alarms: Initial to request that pumps, siphons and alarms NOT be inspected.

Dosing tank integrity: __ Approximate volume of dosing tank: Type of alarm (0 audio o visual o both) Location of Material used in construction of the dOSing tank (i e concrete fiberglass, alarm: plastic): Does the alarm work? o yes o no Is the pump elevated off the bottom of the chamber? 0 yes o no Do electrical connections appear satisfactory? o yes o no Pump operational status: Can surface water infiltrate into the tank? o yes o no If there is a check valve is a purge hole present? 0 yes o no Was the pump tank pumped out? o yes o no

Assessment: The system 0 is 0 is not in my professional opinion a sanitary nuisance through:

o allowing the discharge of untreated or improperly treated human waste o the improperly built or maintained sewage treatment tank o the creation, maintenance or causing of any condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes or any other arthropods capable of

transmitting diseases directly or indirectly to humans The following maintenance needs to be performed on the system: ____________________________ _

Disclosure Statements: o 1 detected cracks leaks, improper fit or other defects in the tank, manholes or lid The following damaged or defective item or tank must be

properly corrected:c-_ _,----;----_,-=--;-~;;____;__;,___;_-__;___;_-~;_-_,_:_:_=_-_:_c=_c_;:_:c_:_:=_:_:__:;_:__:_:_::_c===,_:_­o I detected missing or damaged components of the system The following missing or damaged component must be replaced or an approvable replacement must be reinstalled in the system:=~=----------------------------------o I detected the following previous failure indicators: o I detected ponding of the drainfield or uneven distr~ib-u-,t-:io-n-o-;t-e-;;ff;-Iu-e-n;-t -:T"h-e-e-x-'t-en--:t:-o't-:th:-e:-p-on-d"i""ng'--'oC:-r -un-e'--v"ceC:n--d"i--:st""'ri""b"ut:-io"n;-i"'s-'a"s't"o"'lIo"w"s'--:-----

o 1 detected the following downspouts or other stormwater or other source of water directed toward the system and they should be re-directed away from the system: _____________________________________________ _

o I detected the seasonal high water table at or above the elevation of the drainfield There is an increased probability of system malfunction due to the presence of groundwater at these levels o I detected the following condition or situation existing on the site at the time of the inspection that in my opinion would possibly interfere with or restrict any future repair or modification to the existing system: _____________________________ _

Inspection date: Inspector's signature: Inspector's pI inted name and address:

# 10-09 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Issue Originated Sy:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts: Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed:

Subject: L TAR Adjustments

Rule Sections: 64E-6,,028

Printed 71112010 9:54:40 AM

The trench loading rates changed in June, 2009 but the PSTS LTAR in Table IV were not adjusted to reflect the changes. Also, Footnote 5 conflicts with 64E-6.028(3)(a).

Eb Roeder, DOH

The proposed changes change the Long Term Application Rate for trench bottom and sidewalls to reflect the loading rate changes from 2006 rule amendments Eliminated footnote 5 ..

10-09--64E-6 028_LTAR-"djustments doc (See Attached)

The proposal changes the PSTS L TAR rates to reflect the 2006 rule amendments and eliminates a rule conflict.

none 8/31/2009

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

64E-6,,028 Location and Installation. PerfOImance-based treatment systems shall be installed in compliance with the following

(1) through (2) No change (3) Drainfield designs: The following alterations to drainfield requirements shall be allowed for pressme dosed systems

only (a) Long Term Acceptance Rate, also known as LIAR - LIAR's for sidewall infiltrative surfaces shall not exceed 125

times the bottom infiltrative smface LIAR for the same soil classification. Where the soil classification varies within the chainfield soil profile, the sidewall LIAR shall be adjusted accordingly. Sidewall infiltrative surfaces may be utilized only when a system is dosed a maximum of two times per day and the trench width is no greater than 18 inches

(b) For septic tank effluent, maximum LIAR values shall not exceed the equivalentto the baseline standard for the soil classification in question. (see Iable IX) IABLElX Bottom/Sidewall Infiltrative Surface Maximum Equivalent L TAR's

Side L TAR: Bottom LIAR ratio ~ ~

Current tr'ench bottom LTAR (gal/sq. ftlday) ~ +dO Trench width (inches) ~ 3M)I)

Effective sidewall height (inches) ~ &00 Total sidewall height (inches) ~ H.OO Revised bottom LIAR (gal/sq. ftlday) ~ I;).;R

New sidewall L TAR (gal/sq. ftlday) ~ {}.%

Footnotes to Table IX.

125 0.80G»{)

36.00 8.00

12 .. 00 0.51~

0.64().;hl

125 0.65

36.00 8.00

12.00 042 0.52

125 035

36.00 8.00

1200 0.23 028

Footnote 1 Designs that utilize onsite open trench hOIizontal and vertical hychaulic conductivity testing to adjust the bottom and sidewall LTAR's shall be acceptable The L TAR can be modified; however, the side L TAR: bottom LIAR ratio cannot exceed 1 25 for like soils. Footnote 2. Designs that utilize established modeling techniques to determine the maximum effective capacity (design daily flow) of a designed chainfield system shall be acceptable Footnote 3 .. Ihe horizontal and vertical projections of inclined surfaces canuot be considered fOI both sidewall and bottom credit in the same cross section. The designer must select one OI the other, Footnote 4 .. The current trench bottom L TAR's are fiom Part I, Table Ill, and are referred to as maximum sewage loading rates in I able III. ¥eetHete S. Abserption eeds shall ee allewed previding the LTAR's are adjusted a •• erdingly.

( c) through (e) No change (4) through (5) No change

Rulemaking Auth01 ity 381.0065(j)(a) FS Law Implemented 381 0065, 386.041 FS History-New 2-3-98, Amended 3-22-00, 6-25-09

# 10-10 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 71112010 9:54:45 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: Site Plans, Mounds

Rule Sections: 64E-6.004, 5, 8, 9, 15

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New:

Initially Reviewed by Trap:

Tabled by Trap:

Trap Review Finished:

Variance Committee Reviewed:

Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision:

Final Outcome: Comments:

Ready for Rule

In Rule Rule Date:

This incorporates interpretive memos and clean-up some existing language related to showing and determining MAFL and other setback features, Mound size determination, setback to shallow swales ..

DOH Staff

The proposed changes clarify what setback features need to be shown on large parcels, when MAFL is not required to be determined, sizing systems based on most restrictive soil beside and beneath the drainfield, deleting the setback from swales that control mound runoff ..

(See Attached)

amends site plans in 004 and 015, amends setbacks in 005, amends system sizing in 008 and 009.

the site plan amendments should relieve some applicants from MAFL determination and clarify when various features are required to be shown.. Could increase system cost by sizing systems based on sidewall contact as well as soil beneath drainfield. 1/28/2010

D

64E-6,004 Application for System Construction Permit. (1) through (2) No change (3) through (3)(a)3 No change 4, If an individual lot is five acres or greater, the applicant may draw a mlnilffilffi-one acre or larger detail parcel to scale

showing all required features. If the required features are within 75 feet of the one acre or larger detail parcel, the distance to the feature must be shown but need not be drawn to scale, The location of any public drinking water welL as defined in paragraph 64E-6,002(44)(b), F,A.C" within 200 feet of the one acre or larger detail parcel shall also be shown, with the measured distance indicated from the system to the well.,eHfle-m.ffii~~ffig-H€,cessar)' te prepGfly-e-~l1 fe€fHire4--f€.atures-,wh4€He\ Sf is 1aFg€-¥ The one acre or larger detail parcel must be large enough to accommodate a dailY sewage flow allowance equal to the cumulative capacity of all systems within the parcel. The applicant must also show the location of that one acre or larger detail parcel inside the total site ownership

5 No change (b) through (f) No change (4) through (9) No change

Rulemakmg Authmity 381 0065(3)(a), 489553(3) FS Law Implemented 3810065,489553 FS Hlltory-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Fmmerly IOD-6 44, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95,5-14-96,2-13-97, Fmmerly IOD-6 044, Amended 11-19-97, 3-22-00, 11-26-06, 6-25-09

64E-6,,005 Location and Installation" All systems shall be located and installed so that with proper maintenance the systems function in a sanitary manner, do not create sanitary nuisances or health hazards and do not endanger the safety of any domestic water supply, groundwater or surface water Sewage waste and effluent flOm onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems shall not be discharged onto the ground sUlface or directly or indirectly discharged into ditches, drainage structures, groundwaters, surface waters, or aquife1s 10 prevent such discharge or health hazards:

(I) Systems and septage stabilization facilities established after the effective date of the rule shall be placed no closer than the minimum distances indicated for the following:

(a) through (e) No change (f) Fifteen feet from the design high-water line of retention areas, detention areas, or swales designed to contain standing

or flowing water for less than 72 hours after a rainfall or the design high-water level ofnOlmally dry d1ainage ditches 01 nOImally dty individual-lot stOlmwater retention areas Excluded from this setback requirement are swales designed only to divert the runoff from drainfield mounds or fill systems.

(2) through (9) No change

Rulemaking Authoflty 381 0065(3)(a), 489553, 489557(1) FS Law Implemented 3810065, 489553 FS Hiltory-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Formeliy lDD-646, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6 046, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98, 3-22-00, 5-24-04, 6-25-09

64E-6,,008 System Size Determinations., (1) hrough (4) No change (5) The minimum absorption area for standard subsurface drainfield systems, graywater drainfield systems, and filled

systems shall be based on estimated sewage flows and T able III so long as estimated sewage flows are 200 gallons per day or higher When estimated sewage flows are less than 200 gallons per day, system size shall be based on a minimum of200 gallons per day

T able III No change Footnotes to I able III:

1 thr ough 4 No change 5, Where more than one soil texture classification is encountered within a soil profile and. it is not removed as part of a

replacement, drainfield sizing for standard subsurface drainfield systems and fill drainfield systems shall be based on the most restrictive soil texture in contact with the sidewalls or bottom of the drain field or tffi€B-U~within 24 inches of the bottom of the drainfield absorption surface

(6) No change

Rulemaking Author ity 381 0065(3)(a) F:S Law Implemented 381.0065 FS Hlltory-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85, Fmmerly IOD-648, Amended 3-1 7-92, 1-3-95, Formerly lDD-6 048, Amended 11-19-97,3-22-00,9-5-00,11-26-06,6-25-09

64E-6.,009 Alternative Systems., (1) through (2) No change (3) Mound systems - are used to overcome certain limiting site conditions such as an elevated seasonal high water table,

shallow permeable soil overlying slowly permeable soil and shallow permeable soil located over creviced or porous bedrock

Special installation instructions or design techniques to suit a particular site shall, using the criteria in subsection 64E-6 004(4), F A,C, be specified on the construction permit in addition to the following general requirements

( a) through (c) No change (d) Where the soil material under lying a mound system is of a similar textural mater ial as that used in system construction,

the mound drainfield size shall be based on estimated sewage flows as specified in Rule 64E-6 008, F A C., Table I and upon the quality offill material utilized in the mound system When estimated sewage flows are calculated to be less than 200 gallons per day, specifications for system design shall be based on a minimum flow of200 gallons per day Maximum sewage loading rates for soils used in mound construction shall be in compliance with the following:

Fill Material

Sand; Coarse Sand; aHE!-loamy Coarse Sand: and Fine Sand

Sandy loam; Coarse Sandy Loam; and Loamy Sand

Maximum Sewage Loading Rate to Mound Drain Trench Bottom Surface in gallons Per square foot per day

0.80

ago

0.65

Maximum Sewage Loading Rate to Mound Absorption Bed Bottom Surface in gallons per square foot per day

0.60

Fine Sandy loam; Very 035 025 Fine Sand; Loamy Fine Sand; and Loamy Very Fine Sand

(e) Whef~!'at€jy-Iffiti!"d ssib :mdeFli~,ltrf"j-withjn 30 inch".; of :00 b,_,-oj~iffiield;-12arainfield sizing shall be based on the most restrictive soil textUle existing in contact with the sidewalls or bottom ofthe drainfield or in the profile to a depth 006 inches below the bottom of the drainfield. Drainfield sizing based on soils below natural grade shall be based on ;--Hsmg-Table III. for soil loading rates Drainfield sizing based on fill material above natural grade shall bc based on the soil loading rates in subparagraph (d)

(1) through Ul No change (4) through (10) No change

Rulemaklng Authority 381 0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 3810065 FS Hiltory-New 12-22-82, Amended 2-5-85. Formetiy IOD-649, Amended 3-17-92, 1-3-95, Formerly IOD-6 049, Amended 11-19-97,2-3-98,3-22-00,4-21-02,6-18-03,11-26-06, 6-25-09

64E-6 .. 015 Permitting and Construction of Repairs, All repairs made to a failing onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be made only with prior knowledge and wr itten approval from the DOH county health department having jurisdiction over the system Approval shall be granted only if all of the following conditions are met

(1) Any property owner or lessee who has an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system which is improperly constlucted or maintained, or which fails to function in a safe or sanitary manner shall request from the DOH county health department, either directly or through their agent, a permit to repair the system prior to initiating repair of the system A permit shall be issued on Form DH 4016, 10196, hereby incorporated by reference, only afrer the submission of an application accompanied by the necessary exhibits and fees Form DH 4015, 10196, hereby incorporated by reference, shall be used for this purpose, and can be obtained from the department Applications shall contain the following information:

(a) A site plan showing property dimensions, the existing and proposed system configuration and location on the property, the building location, potable and non-potable water lines, within the existing and proposed system El-r.:a-in-fie-fd repair area, the -g-eH<$'Hl~ slope of the property, property lines and easements, any obstructed areas, any private 01' public wells, or any surface water bodies and stormwater systems in proximity to the onsite sewage system which restricts replacement or relocation of the drainfield system, For this paragraph. "in proximity" shall mean closer to the proposed or existing system than the distance of the current required setback in Table V rlus 25 feet ·The existing drainfield type shall be described. The model of any particular non-mineral aggegate or chamber system shall be included. For example, mineral aggregate, non-mineral aggregate to indicate type and model, chambers to indicate type and model, or other to include type and model

(b) through (1) No change (2) through (12) No change

Rulemaking Author ity 381 0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381 0065, 386041 FS Hiltory-New 3-17-92, Amended 1-3-95, 2-13-97, Formerly IOD-6 0571, Amended 2-3-98,3-22-00,5-24-04, J 1-26-06,6-25-09

# 10-11 ISSUE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ADVISORY PANEL CONSIDERATION Printed 71212010 8:47·58 AM

Next Trap Meeting: 7/15/2010

Subject: paTS design standards

Rule Sections: 64E-6,0295

Issue Originated By:

Justification:

Proposed Rule Change:

Summary:

Possible Financial Impacts:

Date New: Initially Reviewed by Trap: Tabled by Trap: Trap Review Finished: Variance Committee Reviewed: Trap Review Variance Comments: Trap Final Decision: Final Outcome: Comments: Ready for Rule In Rule Rule Date:

Current PBTS data are listed in a variety of ways based on the type of test data they submitted,

Eb Roeder, DOH

The proposed changes Formalizes the way the department will compile performance data, requires reclassification of all PBTS systems,

1 D-11--PBTS_design_standards doc (See Attached)

Formalizes the way the department will compile performance data, requires reclassification of all PBTS systems

None as existing data will be reviewed to determine system classification, Technology owners who wish to improve their classification may choose to have additional testing, 6/29/2010

1 Issue: Provide a common way to assess treatment performance data 2 • Formalizes that the Bureau will have a data compilation on treatment performance 3 • Initiates a reclassification process by Sept 30, 2011, so that data requirements are consistent between treatment 4 systems, and establishes data requirements for this reclassification 5 • Incorporates HSES 10-01 for interim review of performance claims, with the additional provision that for nitrogen 6 reduction, percent reduction is the parameter to be looked at 7 • Clarifies that differences between different sources oldata (controlled testing vs home installations) will be addressed 8 in the future, around the time when phase II has significantly advanced and the data compilation will have provided 9 data Soil treatment effectiveness will be addressed after the final report fiom phase II of the nitrogen study

10 11 64E-6.0295 Innovative System Reclassification" 12 (1) Following the installation and monitoring of the number of systems allowed by the innovative system development 13 permit, the applicant may request reclassification of the it innovative system by the Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs 14 Requests for reclassification as an alternative system component and design shall be made in accordance with subsection 64E-15 6.009(7), F A.C Requests for reclassification as a performance-based treatment system shall include the following: 16 (a) Results and analysis of monitoring of the systems installed 17 (b) Observations of system performance 18 (c) Maintenance, repairs or modifications periCH med on any systems 19 (d) Comments from the system oper ators Or users 20 (e) Comments from the design engineers who designed the individual system designs 21 (f) Comments from the county health departments in the counties where the systems were installed 22 (g) Specification of the proposed classification as performance-based 23 (h) Rationale for the proposed type of classification desired 24 (i) Proposed monitoring protocol. 25 (j) A sample manual addressing the siting, design, installation, inspection, operation, maintenance and abandonment 26 procedures 27 (2) The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall process the request in accordance with Chapter 120, F.S The department 28 shall approve the request only if the department is satisfied that the system will reliably perform to the standards desired under 29 normal operating conditions as demonstrated by the information provided 30 (3) The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall compile data obtained for treatment components during innovative 31 system testing and other testing and publish characteristics of performance. These characteristics shall include: 32 @) system description 33 (b) pollutant monitored 34 (c) average third-party performance evaluation results of full-scale systems when tested where influent and effluent 35 conditions are monitored over a period of at least five months and at least ten "influent and effluent data points are available in 36 separate weeks. e characteristics will be flow, influent. effluent and fraction removed. Where mUltiple such tests are available, 37 the simple average of the tests shall be reported. unless hydraulic residence times varied by a factor of two or more. 38 (9) third-party field testing data in Florida within the previous 15 years as available, characterized by average, median, 75 th

39 and 90 th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same time, an average removal 40 effectiveness shall be estimated. 41 (§) first and second-party field testing data in F lorida within the previous 15 years as electronically available, characterized 42 by average, median, 75 th and 90th percentile. Where both influent and effluent were measured at the same system at the same 43 time, an average removal effectiveness shall be estimated. 44 (4) innovative and performance-based treatment systems currently in use shall be reclassified by September 30, 2011, and 45 the data reported according to section (3) screened, according to the following criteria. 46 @) data forO)(c) that were not gathered over a period of at least five months with at least ten influent and effluent data 47 points available in separate weeks within the previous 15 years will not be considered. 48 (b) innovative and performance-based treatment systems that have data to be considered after subsection (a) has been 49 implemented and at least 30 data points combined in (3) (d) and (e), or that have at least 50 data points combined in (3) (d) and 50 ~), shall be eligible for reclassification as non-innovative performance based treatment systems. Systems that have fewer data, 51 shall be reclassified as innovative. provided that there is an entity willing to provide the required information. 52 (c) information required by section (1) is on file with the Bureau of On site Sewage Programs 53 (5) by September 30. 2011. the Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall propose rule language for performance-based 54 treatment systems that addresses differences between results from testing with controlled and uncontrolled flows for the review 55 of performance-based treatment systems and design safety factors. The Bureau of On site Sewage Programs shall propose rule 56 language to address consideration of soil, provided that the final report of the Phase II of study reguired by HB5001 of the 57 2010 Florida legislature is completed. In the interim the following review standards shall apply in evaluating proposed 58 performance of treatment components: 59 (a) for cBOD5. TSS. average effluent concentrations of results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or fi'Om combined results of

60 (3)(d) and (el. shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not 61 be considered. 62 (b) for fecal coliform, average effluent concentration trom results from (3)(c). subject to (4), and provided that the 63 geometric mean of influent concentrations or over the evaluation period exceeds 1,000,000 colony forming units per 100 mL OJ

64 ITom combined (3)(d) and (e), shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment 65 effectiveness may be considered up to advanced secondary treatment standards if the site-specific design includes monitoring 66 to verify performance. 6? (c) for total nitrogen, average removal effectiveness from results from (3)(c\ subject to (42. or fl'om at least 20 data points 68 combined results from (3)(d) and (e). shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard of the system. For the 69 purposes of this section, this standard shall be 50% for advanced secondary, 62% for Florida Kevs, and 90% for advanced 70 wastewater treatment standards. Where average removal effectiveness cannot be determined, average effluent concentrations 71 from combined results ofl3)(d) and (e) shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed. Soil treatment 72 effectiveness shall not be considered 73 Cd) for total phosphorus, systems treating all domestic sewage or fractions of the greywater of an establishment in at least 74 one treatment eceptacle may be deemed to comply with the average effluent concentrations for advanced secondary treatment 75 performance standards. For other systems, average effluent concentration from results results from (3)(c), subject to (4), or 76 from combined results of(3)(d) and (et shall meet the average annual treatment performance standard proposed, or the design 77 engineer may provide data showing that the influent concentration meets the average annual treatment performance standard 78 proposed. Soil treatment effectiveness shall not be considered. 79

80 Rulemaking Authol ity 381 00 II (!3), 381 006, 381 0065(3)(a) FS Law Implemented 381 0065 381 0067, 386041 FS 81 Hlltory-New 6-18-03

2

January 21, 2010

Gerald Briggs, Onsite Sewage Programs Bureau Chief Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, FL 32399

Subject: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ONSITE SYSTEM RULE REVISIONS UNDER REVIEW BY TECHNICAL REVIEW & ADVISORY PANEL

Deal Mr Briggs:

We ale aWaie that the Technical Review & AdvisOlY Panel (the TRAP) will be meeting on Janualy 28, 2010 to continue discussion of proposed rule revisions described in the document "TRAP Issues Under Review" posted on the Department's website

We offer the following comments on the proposed revisions. We have also attached a redline/strikeout version of the code changes being considered by the TRAP, along with other pertinent code sections, showing Orenco Systems' recommendations

We request that you distribute a copy of this letter and the attachment to the TRAP members for their consideration.

Issue Number: 07-23 (Performance Based Systems - Standards)

1) The revisions under consideration at F A.C §64E-6 .. 025(9) would establish NSF/ANSI Standald 245 as the sole criterion used by the Department to approve technologies as nitrogen reducing systems.

The Department's objectives ojprotecting the environment, and serving the public's interest, will not be best served by adopting NSF/ANSI Standard 245 as the only accepted testing and evaluation program for approving nitrogen reducing systems, to the exclusion ojother valid 3rd party testing programs. There are a number of other 3'd palty testing options that are at least as rigorous as NSF/ANSI 245, and at least as definitive for purposes of predicting actual performance under actual residential use conditions

Examples of valid alternative perfOlmance verification programs include testing conducted as Palt ofDS .. EPA National Onsite Demonstration Projects (NODPs), 01

field-testing conducted by state or local agencies outside of Florida. Examples of states with rigorous third-palty field-performance verification programs include Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Such testing programs ale administered by independent third palties according to exacting testing, sampling, and analysis protocols. In contrast with testing under calefully controlled "laboratory" conditions, such field-testing programs have the important advantage that the systems tested are subject to real-world conditions, making them a more reliable predictor of actual perfOlmance

Orenco Systems' Incorporated

814AIRWAYAVENUE

SUTHERLIN OREGON

97479

TOLL FREE:

(8001348·9843

TELEPHONE:

(541) 459-4449

FACSIMILE:

(541) 459-2884

WEBSITE:

wwworerlCO com

ReV!) JAN:2S:'10 A,,1l:t4

ONSHE SEWAGE PROGRAM

We can imagine no valid reason to require that a treatment technology be further tested according to the NSF/ANSI Standard 245 testing protocol, ifperfOimance has already been demonstrated tluough some other recognized, rigorous pIOgram of independent third-party testing and evaluation, particularly one involving field testing

Indeed, for constituents other than nitrogen, the TRAP has already recognized in principle that third­party testing and evaluation programs other than NSF/ANSI testing may be considered "compelling evidence that the system will fUnction pIOpedy and reliably .. " The proposed revisions under TRAP consideration at §64E-6026(1)(b)(5)(a) (refer to TRAP Issue Number 08-09) explicitly recognize alternative pIOgrams such as National Onsite Demonstration PIOjects and other states' testing programs as acceptable for pm poses of obtaining an Innovative system permit

We can see no reason why the same principle should not also be extended to recognize alternative third-party testing and evaluation for nitrogen perfOimance provided that the testing and evaluation protocols are equally rigorous or more rigoIOus than NSF/ANSI Standard 245

We mge the Department to consider the gr owing body of evidence suggesting that test -center testing is not always the most reliable indicator of actual field performance

Recommendation: We recommend that the proposed §64E-6. 025 language be modified to allow the Department greaterflexibility in accepting nitrogen-reducing technologies. The regulations should allow the Department discretion to accept performance testing and evaluation results from independent third party testing and evaluation programs other than NSF/ANSI Standard 245, provided that the alternative program is at least as rigorous as the NSF/ANSI Standard

Issue Number: 08-09 (Innovative Systems - Test Data Required)

2) We SUppOit the pIOposed revisions at FAC. §64E-6 026(1)(a) establishing a minimum test period, minimum number ofmonitOling events, and minimum number of systems tested However, additional requirements should be established at §64E-6.029(7) stipulating that sample collection and performance evaluation for Innovative testing will be conducted by an independent third party such as an accr edited academic institution, a licensed professional engineer experienced in the field of sanitary engineering, 01 some other agency acceptable to the Department, such as NSF International The regulations should also stipulate that samples must be analyzed by a certified laboratory using standard analytical methods, and that a perfOimance evaluation repOit must be prepared and submitted by the third-party evaluation agency

Recommendation: Incorporate additional requirements at §64E-6 029(7) requiring third party sampling, analysis, and performance evaluation

3) The proposed revisions at §64E-6 026(1)(b)(4) would establish NSF/ANSI Standard 245 testing as the only accepted basis for evaluating nitrogen-reducing technologies for pmposes of issuing Innovative system appIOvals .. FOI reasons explained in om comments on Issue Number 07-23 (see above), we mge the Department not to establish NSF / ANSI Standard 245 as the only accepted option for evaluating the perfOimance of nitrogen reducing technologies.

-2-

Recommendation: We recommend that the proposed revisions at §64E-6 026 be modified to allow the Department f5l eater flexibility in accepting nitrogen-reducing technologies The regulations should allow the Department discretion to accept performance testing and evaluation results from independent third party testing and evaluation programs other than NSF/ANSI Standard 245, provided that the alternative prof5lam is at least as rigorous as the NSF/ANSI Standard

4) We SUppOIt the proposed revisions at §64E-6.026(1)(b)(5)(a), which recognize the value ofthird-­party testing programs administered by OIgarrizations other tharr NSF International

Recommendation: Adopt the proposed changes at §64E-6 026(J)(b)(5)(a)

5) The proposed revisions at §64E-6 026(1)(b)(4) require that "All nitrogen-reduction technologies cunently approved for installation by the department must be certified under [NSF/ANSI Starrdard 245] by January 1,2011" But the proposed revised regulations are deficient in that they do not fully address how the Department will harrdle technologies cUlTently approved as nitrogen reducing systems under the Department's "grarrdfathering" practice By "grarrdfathered," we mearr those technologies that were approved by the Department as Performarrce Based T real!nent Systems (PBTS) primarily on the basis of test-center testing, without having performarrce demonstrated by field-testing in FlOIida

Florida Statute section 381.0065(2)(g) requires that an advanced treatment system be considered "innovative" until it has been successfully field tested in Florida Moreover, section 381 0065 (3)(e), F.S , requires that the Department limit the number of innovative systems that may be installed until "there is compelling evidence that the system will function properly and reliably to meet the requirements of this section and rules adopted under this section" Compelling evidence of satisfactOIY performance based on in-state field-testing is lacking for many of those grandfathered systems-yet the Department has not acted to limit the number of permitted installations

The Department's practice of grandfathering carmot be justified .. It creates an unfair business environment and could be considered a restriction of trade .. Moreover, it is contrary to section 381.0065, F.S The practice of grandfathering is justifiable when it used to exempt existing construction that does not meet certain codes-that type of grandfathering is customary with respect _ to enforcement of building codes, for example But the Department's practice with respect to Performance Based T real!nent Systems is not analogous to exemptions allowed by building inspectOI s, in that the Department continues to allow new construction, and places no limit on the number of installations for approved PBTS technologies even when those technologies have not demonstrated successful performance through field--testing in FlOIida as required by 381 0065, F S.

This situation should be remedied by revising the regulations PBTS are defined at §64E-6 025(10) That section should be modified to require that in order to maintain approval status, technologies with existing PBTS approval must demonstrate satisfactory performance, through field-testing in Florida as 3810065, FS. requires

Recommendation: Incorporate language into §64E-6 025(10) requiring that to maintain approval status, all technologies currently approved as Performance Based Treatment Systems must initiate field-testing in Florida and demonstrate satisfactory performance under Florida field conditions by a specified deadline

-3-

6) FOI Innovative systems, the proposed revisions at §64E-6.026(1)(e) would requiIe the manufacturer to provide a five-year warranty to replace the unit with an approved non-Innovative system "in case of failure "Failure would be broadly defined, under the proposed revisions at §64E-6.02S(4), to include any time a sample at an individual site fails to achieve applicable performance standards (unless cOlTective action is taken, and a follow up sample collected 30 days later is determined to be compliant).

The proposed §64E-6.026(1)(e) warranty requirement fails to recognize an impOltant distinction between a deficient technology versus an individual site that is not in compliance with an effluent water quality standard due to factors that may be beyond the manufacturer's control. Failure to comply with effluent quality standards at an individual site may be due to waste disposal practices by the user that result in the discharge of unusually high concentrations ofregulated wastewater constituents,OI discharge by the user ofunauthOlized chemicals 01 substances that interfere with treatment system function

The regulations should not make the mistakeofblUIIingthe distinction between a deficient technology and a site that is noncompliant due to factOls beyond the treatment system manufacturer's controL Nor should the manufacturer be held responsible under a wananty for noncompliance if the manufactur er is not at fault

Recommendation: We recommend that §64E-6 026(1)(b)(4) be modified so that the manufacturer will only be held liable under the warranty for material defects or defective workmanship, or if there is compelling cumulative evidence. based on sampling results from a number of individual sites. that the technology in question is consistently unable to meet applicable standards

Thank you for distributing these comments to the TRAP and asking the panel members to give them their full consider ation

Please contact me at (800) 714-4073, or by email atjchmchill(aJ.orenco.com. if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Sincerely,

enclosure: recommended language changes in Track Changes format

cc (with enclosure): Robert Harper, TRAP Chairman Roxarme Groover, Florida Onsite Wastewater Assocation

-4-

Orenco Svstems, Inc. Recommendations for Revision of F.A.C. Section 64E-6

Oren co Systems' recommendations are indicated below in redline/strikeout format.,

The original language shown below for sections 64E-6 025 and 64E-6.026 reflects proposed revisions currently under consideration by the Technical Review & Advisory Panel, and is taken fiom the document "TRAP Issues Under Review" last updated 8/17/09, retrieved from the Department of Health website at hltp:l/www.doh.state.fl.us/environmentiOSTDS/trap/index.htm

The original language shown below for section 64E-6 029 is taken from the current published version ofthe Florida Administrative Code

64E-6,,025 Definitions

Definitions in Chapter 64E-6, Parts! and II, are also applicable to Chapter 64E-6 Part IV (1) Bottom infiltrative surface - the vertical projection of the bottom surface of the drainfield that is no lower in elevation than 30 inches below grade (2) Composite sample -a defined mixture of grab samples of wastewater or effluent taken in proportion to either time or, to minimize the effect of the variability of the individual sample (3) Effluent - treated sewage at the point of discharge to the drainfield or disposal system Except for systems designed for the Florida Keys nutrient reduction standard, where the site specific application proposes to use the drainfield as part of the treatment system, effluent refers to the mixture of soil water, effluent and shallow groundwater recovered from the monitoring points and treatment concentration standards shall be decreased by 50% for cBOOS,TSS, TN, and TP, and by 90% for fecal coliform, and percent removal standards of table IX shall be correspondingly adjusted (4) Failure· in addition to 64E-6 002(23), shall include if sampling determines that an individual sample exceeds the applicable performance standards, unless the maintenance entity performs and documents maintenance, and a second individual sample is taken within 30 days of the first individual sample and meets the applicable individual performance standard (5) Grab sample - a sample which is taken from wastewater or effluent over a period of time not to exceed fifteen minutes (6) Effective drainfield depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the invert of the distribution pipe (7) High strength wastewater - Wastewater that exceeds the domestic sewage waste range given in Table IX for at least one pollutant (8) Innovative System - as defined by s 381 0065(2)(9), F S (9) Nitrogen reduction system -, A system which has been certified and maintains certification under J'j~~AfjSJ ~C!Dd_arsl,g4§,_M~rgJ1 J ,_2QOI, herelD l.n<2..o~PQIa!eg ~y !.eter~n_~e...; C!! <i 0't?1e[!1 J~je!ng~?t~alJ!l!J.. __ _ comparable performance based on some other third·party testing and evaluation program recognized by " the Department (such as aU S EPA National On site Demon.stration Project, or a fleld·testing and performance venfication program administered by a state or local jurisdiction outside of Floridah !YI _ _ , __ nitrogen-reduction technologies currently approved for installation by the Department must either be certified under NSF/ANSI Standard 245, or be recognized by the Department based on accepted alternative third-party performance testing, by January 1, 2011 To maintain recognition as a nitrogen reduction system based on testing other than NSF/ANSi Standard 245, the manufacturer must submit an affidavit to the Department annualfy certifying that the design and manufacturing methods have not substantially changed over the preceding year or request that the Department accept any proposed design Changes (10) Performance-based treatment system - a specialized onsite sewage treatment and disposal system designed by a professional engineer with a background in wastewater engineering licensed in the state

-1-

uele"ea: All nitrogen~reduction technologies currently approved for installation by the department must be certified under this standard by January 1

of Florida, using appropriate application of sound engineering principles to achieve specified levels of CBOD5 (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), TSS (total suspended solids), TN (total nitrogen), TP (total phosphorus), and fecal coliform found in domestic sewage waste, to a specific and measurable established performance standard This term also includes innovative systems To maintain approval status, unless currently permitted as innovative systems, a/l technologies cu{renily approved as performance-based treatment systems must initiate field-testing within Fforida as set forth in sections 64E-6 026(1)(a) and 64E-6 029(7) within 90 days of the effective date of this subsection and demonstrate saNsfactory performance under Flonda field conditions within one year of Initiating field -testmg (11) Performance-based treatment system maintenance entity - any person Of business entity which has obtained an annual written permit issued on form DH4013 from the DOH county health department in the county where the service entity is located and has been authorized to perform maintenance by the design engineer or manufacturer of all treatment components used in the performance-based treatment system and provides operation and maintenance services associated with that performance-based treatment system. (12) Sidewall infiltrative surfaces - the horizontal projection of the drainfield measured from the invert of the drainfield distribution pipe to the bottom infiltrative surface, or to 30 inches below finished grade, whichever is less (13) Total drain1ield depth - the vertical distance from the bottom of the drainfield to the top of the drainfield. (14) Treatment periormance standards-(a) Performance standards for effluent from performance-based treatment systems consist of three criteria:

1 Annual average concentration is the arithmetic mean of the results of all effluent samples taken within the previous 365 days, expressed as a concentration 2 Individual sample - result of analysis of one effluent sample, whether grab sample or composite sample, expressed as a concentration 3 Percent removal - annual average removal of a pollutant from the discharge of the treatment system compared to the influent from the establishment The influent stems from a septic tank or similar treatment compartment and the effluent is discharged to a disposal system; percent removal:::: (1- effluent concentrationlinfluent concentration)*1 00 (b) Treatment performance standards are established for five pollutants 1 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand after five days (CBOD5), measured in mg oxygen per liter 2. Total suspended solids (TSS), measurecl in mg per liter 3 Total nitrogen (TN). the sum of nitrite nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, measured in mg nitrogen per liter 4 Total phosphorus (TP), measured in mg phosphorus per liter 5 Fecal coliform, measured in colony forming units (cfu) or most probable number (MPN) per 100 mL (c) Numerical values for several levels of common treatment performance standards for the five pollutants are defined in Table IX Compliance shall be achieved at least for one of the three criteria. To achieve compliance the values determined from samples of the system shall be equal to or better than the treatment standards listed For concentrations, better means lower, for percent removal better means higher. (15) Wastewater strength - the sum of the CBOD5 and TSS concentrations in the effluent

PUT TABLE IX HERE,.

Rulemaking Specific Authority 3810011(4), (13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS Law Implemented 3810065 3810067,386041, FS History-New 2-3-98 Amended 3-22-00 06-18··03,11-26-06,

-2-

G4E~G,02S Applications for Innovative system permits and System Construction Permits

(1) Applications for innovative system permits -The manufacturer or their authorized agent shall apply for innovative system permits using form DH 3143, 01/94 Innovative Onsite Sewage Treatment and disposal System Temporary Permit Application herein incorporated by reference. The appli cation and all supporting information shall be signed, dated and sealed by an engineer licensed in the State of Florida, accompanied by the appropriate fee and submitted to the Departmenfs Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs. Except as provided for in subsection 64E-6.028(3), FAC, alternative drainfield materials and designs shall not be approved which would result in a reduction in drainfield size using the mineral aggregate drainfield system as described in section 64E-6.014, FAC and the total surface area of soil at the bottom of the drainfield as the criteria for drainfield sizing comparisons" Applications shall include: (a) A monitoring and evafuation J]rQPosaf designed to validate4.he ~erformance of the system in ~~~~~~~[Il1J[Illl!l!JlIitI1iI1iI1i~ Florida _ The proposal shall Identify an TndependentthTrd-paify ver'ifica"tion-cigency StICh as ·an - - -"' -1 accredited academic Institution. a licensed professional engineer experienced in the field of " sanitary engineering, or some other Independent agency acceptable to the Department. The proposal shall provide for monitoring over a minimum period of one year, ~j!h_9~t~.fc.01!l § ____ _ minimum of 30 monitoring events at a minimum of five systems Each site installation may provide only one monitoring event per 30-day period (b) Compelling evidence that the system will function properly and reliably to meet the requirements of this chapter and section 381 0065, FS" Such compelling evidence shall jncl ude the testing protocol and results on performance and reliability from tests meeting all of the following conditions: 1. For tests conducted in Florida, none of the effluent from the testing shall enter the environment until it has been treated by a system permitted under chapter 403 FS, or by a non-innovative system permitted under chapter 381.0065 FS 2 The results must be from full-scale testing with an average measured daily sewage flow of at least 200 gallons per day 3. Results shall include measured influent and performance conditions in at least ten separate weeks over at least five months 4. For evaluation of nitrogen reduction, J~st.!..nIl ~nQ ~y§/~a.!..i0[l_~y"" 0!l~ 01 t!!~ f9J'21fl!.Jn_g !!l~tfJ..oQs_faJ.{ _ nitrogen-reduction technologies currently approved for installation by the Department must also be -certified by one of these methods by January 1 2011). a, Testing per -I'{~EI/:iN_SLSJa.DcLa~ tJl!_mp~ ~4.§,_M..?r~h_1--,-~0Q.7--,- h_e@iD l~~o!]J9.r~~d py"r~f~e.!l~e:... _'_ Standard 245 testing must be conducted by 8n NSFf.t.tiS1.-<i.c~es/jieQ §..g~I?2Y.:. QO~l!.m~nJ:~iQ.nJn_tf!...e -i~vE.ll!.a!.!o_n re(?o_rt !!l!!s!. s!:!o~ _~ r~9.ugtL0'l ~ql,!i~al~J!.t 10 _m~e.ti'lg_th.~ E~gujre_d _!TI_g/~ sJailcLar...d fOr. __ ~ " nitrogen, For the purpose of compliance with this rule, 70 percent reduction would meet a 10 \ \ mg/L standard and 50 percent reduction would meet a 20 mg/l standard \ " b Comparable nitrogen testing and evaluation under either test-center or field conditions conducted by an independent third party according to a program acceptable to the Department (such as a U S EPA National Onsite Demonstration Project, or a field-testing and performance verification program administered by a state or local jurisdiction outside of Florida)~ ___________________ ._. _ 5. For testing to evaluate performance other than nitrogen reduction, the tests must be conducted "'\ under one or more of the following conditions: a, Testing of the innovative system by a third party testing organization independent of the designer, engineer and manufacturer, such as NSF and entities performing such testing for NSF, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's national onsite demonstration projects or state agencies, outside of Florida, tasked with onsite sewage system evaluation b. Testing in Florida where the system is part of a treatment system regulated and monitored pursuant to Chapter 403, FS, certified by an engineer, licensed in Florida. c. Testing of the system in Florida as part of Oepartment-supelVised research certified by an engineer, licensed in Florida, (c) An operation and maintenance manual, including a replacement part list and instructions on how to detect, maintain, and repair a malfunctioning system, (d) Design and installation manual including system design criteria, design performance levels, and transferability of obtained results to different flows and conditions (e) A~Ji'{e:y~atV{_aJ!8!1ty ~ Jh~ ~,!n!:!f,!c!..uc.ec..agaJn~t.0@.t~j@.1 s!e!e~t~ ~[1q ~o!J<.'!Ia_n?!,!p !!e!es;t§.. !! 11 _,~

-3-

, \

"

I approved for ~~Ei~~~~t i by the department must be under this -standard by ,January

5

is determined, based on cumulative evidence from samples collected at more than one individual instal!atlOn tllat the Innovative technology is unable to consistently meet applicable standards J:he -~~~t!!l~!!!Il!l!l§!ll[ml~!Ii~iiiiii~ warranty wilt also provide the innovative system owneq,'~t'2. tl:!e_s~f1:'!c2S_0i ~n~1!gLn~e~ aJ1c! ~ _ = =-- - , certified installer., and will provide contractor e~ulPment, materials. and labor necess~ to secure . "-permits and modifY the system -orrepair-th-e syStem wTtn a department-approved non-innovative - - --.. \ ".~~~~ system \ 1 (2) Application-for Innovatlve syste-m -constiUction-permffs -DOH Co-urlty-heaith departments are - -, \ "-

authorized to issue system construction permits upon receipt of the innovative system permit and \ application for a system construction permit.. In addition to the requirements of subsection 64E- \ 6.026(3), Form DH 3144, 1/94, and Form DH 3145, 1194, Innovative Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Review Information Form, hereby incorporated by reference, shall be used to record information that describes notification requirements between the innovative system permit applicant, the DOH county health department, and the State Health Office These forms are to be processed by the DOH county health departments

(2) and (3) renumbered as (3) and (4) No change

Specific Authority 381 0011(4). (13), 381.0065(3)(a), FS Law Implemented 381 0065 381 0067, Part I 386, FS History-New 2-3-98 Amended 06-18-03 11-26-06

64E·6,,029 Monitoring" Monitoring requirements - All performance-based treatment systems shall be monitored in compliance with the requirements in this section If soil is considered part of the treatment system in any performance-based standard, monitoring points in the effluent plume within the boundaries of the property must be in compliance with the minimum criteria for total nitrogen, total phosphorous and fecal coliform

(1) Advanced wastewater treatment systems (a) A maintenance report shall be kept by the performance system maintenance entity. A copy of all

maintenance reports shall be provided to the county health department on monthly intervals, to begin one month after system operation has started After the first six reports are provided to the county health department, reports shall be provided once every three months All reports must be legible Ihe report shall include the following information:

1 Address of performance-based treatment system 2 Date and time of inspection 3 Sample collection time and date, and person who collected sample 4 Results of all sampling 5 Volume of effluent treated, to include total monthly and daily average 6 Maintenance performed 7 Problems noted with performance-based treatment system and actions taken or proposed to overcome them 8 During the first six months of system operation, or after the system has failed, systems shall be monitored a

minimum of once eve:ry two weeks Monitoring shall include sampling for CBODs, TSS, TN, 1P and fecal coliform Monitoring shall occur at the time the system is expected to be at capacity, or as close to capacity as possible Re­sampling within 48 hours of receipt of laboratory results shall be allowed on all samples that exceed design parameters in order to evaluate the validity of the oliginal sample results If the re-sample is in compliance with the appropriate performance-based standard, the original result shall be disregarded Laboratories must be approved by the department or the Department of Environmental Protection for all analyses performed All results shall be certified by the laboratory

a If any two consecutive samples exceed design treatment standards by more than 100%, the system design and operation shall be inspected by the design engineer for conformance with permitting requirements, and shall be adjusted to bring the effluent quality into compliance with permitting requirements Monitoring shall be increased to once per week, or more if the design engineer specifies such, until such time the violation is corrected When two consecutive samples are within 100% of the design parameters, monitoring shall be reduced to once every two weeks For example, if the design parameter is 10 mgll CBODs, a reading of 20 mg/l CBODs exceeds the standard

-4-

by 100% b After a six month period of compliance with all applicable performance standards, sampling shall be

performed quarterly c, When an applicant installs a system designed to meet advanced wastewater treatment standards, the

monitoring frequency shall be reduced by 50% if only one of the following three location and installation requirements is used and the other two remain at the standards required of prescriptive systems The three requirements are:

(1) Setbacks required in paragraphs 64E~6 028(1)(a)~(c), F ,A C (II) Seasonal high water table subparagraph 64E-6 028(J)(c)4 , F A C (III) Authorized lot flow subsection 64E~6 028(2), F A.C (b) When four consecutive once every two week samples from a system are at or below the applicable standard

sampling frequency shall be reduced to quarterly (c) When eight consecutive quarterly samples from a system are below the applicable standard, sampling

frequency shall be reduced to once every six months (d) All reports of operating pennit violations shall be reported to the departinent within five working days (e) If the system cannot be brought into compliance with design parameters, the contingency plan must be

enforced (f) All failUI'es of the performance-based treatment system shall be reported to the county health department by

the maintenance entity within one working day from discovery of failure The testing laboratory shall mail copies of all results to the COUllty health department

(g) Testing performed dm'ing periods of system non-use that exceed one week, shall not qualify as legitimate samples for purposes of compliance with any provisions oftms rule

(2) Secondary treatment systems and advanced secondary treatment systems (a) A maintenance report shall be kept by the performance system maintenance entity, A copy of all

maintenance reports shall be provided to the COUllty health department on quarterly intervals All reports must be legible The report shall include the items required in subparagraphs 64E-6 029(1)(a)1 , 2,,5 6 and 7 , F A C ,in addition to the following information:

1 Ponding depth observed through drainfield observation ports or, when the drainfield design prevents direct measurement ofponding depth, CBODs and TSS results for samples collected at a point prior to the discharge to the drainfield

2 If system performance is necessitated by setback reductions Or lot flow allowances: a Sampling results for Fecal Colifonn from Secondary Treatment Systems b Sampling results for Nitrogen Phosphorous and Fecal Colifonn from Advanced Secondary I'reatment

Systems c Collection time and date of all samples d Name of the person who collected samples (b) All reports of operating pennit violations shall be reported to the department within five working days (c) If the system cannot be brought into compliance with design parameters" the contingency plan must be

implemented by the system owner (d) All failures of the perfonnance~based treatment system shall be reported to the county health department by

the maintenance entity within one working day from discovery of failure The testing laboratory shall mail copies of all results to the county health department

(3) Florida Keys nutrient reduction treatment systems shall be monitored and sampled in accordance with Part II of this chapter

(4) All systems with drainfields designed under subsection 64E-6 028(3), F A C shall be monitored via placing a minimum of two observation ports in the drainfield Monitoring will consist of recording depth of effluent ponding in the drainfield in at least two places on a quarterly basis

(5) If soil is considered part of the treatment system in any performance.-based standard, two monitoring points in the effluent plume within the boundaries of the property must be in compliance with the performance level

-5-

specified by the design engineer (6) Any performance~based treatment system that is out of compliance with the terms of the operating permit

shall be re-engineered by an engineer registered in the State off lorida The system shall be brought into compliance with treatment standards required at the time of system permitting

(7) Inno .... ative systems shall be monitored in accordance with the design engineer's protocol submitted with the application as appro'ved by the department All monitoring and sampling shall be performed at the expense of the applicant "Gil/ph, flllIll hL <lllal\:aIIJl U Lei 'iflul !ahOlCllOn lI~il1g lrani/md ana/"h ~illl!ctho(/l At a minimum, the monitoring protocol shall:

(a) Determine if baseline standards are being met

(b) Address the monitoring for any contaminant being reduced ( c) Address the monitoring of any site condition being modified ((I) De.IGnhf.; \aillJ)ling co1/ation fWlldlm,?, alld m/Oh IiI lilt/hod, olld'IIIOII(\ llI\/fJ'(I/,Ge (Illd ({/lahr), Lon/m/

{l1'O('8dll/c'\ Ilw/lt ill hi; 1I,Itd 10 G\ \/11'£ tIn mlidllJ.' oj pufolmance data

rd JdtntiJ.i, )(atll/iw/ I!hll!()d~ fhal 11111 bi; 1/Iu/ to daiIwlL Iht dl.!/a and o\H'\\ tho! pLl.!nmw!1u c{lpahillllel of

111: ICI..flll%gl, hting LWIIlOfH/

(1) idtnfl{l. Ihi!'(i palE) It Iling (1)(1 i;1'(lhlU!IOI1 agult.j~.s thm HIli ht /'(";polI~ihl~ fo! sample W!lcUIOI1 and fin

PIGPwillg a jinat /uhnoll!Kt c'l'U/llatirm rCl'ol/ III;n! pill'~\' It\{lIlg and tHilllal101l agullio ilia) illdllik

(/(cru!lIul Cleat/emit /IIlli/lIliOf)l a 1j(~'llSed p/'(~re.\~iol1ul cllgineu t.\{luiulCcd il1 Ihe fidd of IWlitai:V

(lIgll1ctlmg 01 ,10111('. olhu illd~ptndcnl agency accepwble 10 the f)epmlnWII! \/ll.-h (n lv':,[' Illfunallol/a!

(8) 'The following shall be considered as violations of the performance~based treatment system operating permit: (a) The failure to maintain equipment in a condition which will enable the intended function (b) The submission, by the owner, manager or maintenance entity of a performance~based treatment system, or

agent or employee thereof, of misleading, false, or inaccurate information or operational reports to the department, either knowingly or through neglect

(c) The submission of fraudulent data produced with an intention to deceive including the following: 1 Apparent measurement results for which no measurement or test results were actually made as determined by

the absence of the supporting records which are usually made

2 Measurements or test results obtained by deliberately and knowingly making measurements or collecting samples at places and times other than as specified in this chapter

3 T est results obtained through use of unapproved and erroneous sampling, preservation, storage, or analysis procedures

4, Computational errors, misunderstandings of required procedures and other common errors are excluded, SpecijicAuthority 381.0011(13), 381.006, 381 0065(3)(a), 489.553(3), 489557(1) FS [,mv lmpleme:n.ted 15401,381.001(2) 381,0011(4),381.0012,3810025 381006(7) 3810061 3810065 3810067 386041,489559 FS Hi~tory-New 2-3-98 Amended3-22-00 6-18~03

-6-