BEFORE THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

In the matter of the amendment of ARM 17.30.702, 17.36.345, 17.36.914, and 17.38.101 pertaining to Department Circular DEQ-4

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT   (WATER QUALITY) (SUBDIVISIONS/ON-SITE SUBSURFACE WASTEWATER TREATMENT) (PUBLIC WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS)

 

            TO: All Concerned Persons

 

            1. On December 20, 2012, the Board of Environmental Review and the Department of Environmental Quality published MAR Notice No. 17-343 regarding a notice of public hearing on the proposed amendment of the above-stated rules at page 2529, 2012 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 24. On January 31, 2013, the board published MAR Notice No. 17-343 regarding a Notice of Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Amendment at page 90, 2013 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 2. On June 6, 2013, the board published MAR Notice No. 17-343 regarding an Amended Notice of Proposed Amendment and Extension of Comment Period at page 895, 2013 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 11.

 

            2. The board and department have amended the rules exactly as proposed.

 

            3. The following comments were received and appear with the board's and department's responses:

 

GENERAL

 

            COMMENT NO. 1: The board and department received several general comments recommending changes to formatting, grammar, syntax, and punctuation.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree with many of these comments. The circular has been reviewed and the appropriate changes have been made. Because they are numerous, these comments will not be summarized and the nonsubstantive changes have been made throughout DEQ-4. They are indicated by an "[NS]" following the change, except for punctuation and grammar changes. When references are made to subchapter, section, and subsection numbers, the citations are made to the numbers as they appear in the final version of the circular.

 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

 

            COMMENT NO. 2: The department should add an explanation for the chart in section 1.1.1.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that an explanation to the chart in section 1.1.1 would be helpful and the suggested change has been made to the circular. This section now explains that the reviewing authority can refer to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality or a division of local government and states "[c]hart 1 shows this relationship graphically."

 

            COMMENT NO. 3:  When section 1.1.2 states "[p]ressure-dosed distribution should be the method of choice," does this permit DEQ or a sanitarian to require pressure distribution? DEQ should delete this requirement.

            RESPONSE:  The United States Environmental Protection Agency Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, Feb. 2002, states that pressure-dosed distribution should be the method of choice for onsite wastewater treatment systems. This recommendation is included in the circular for informational purposes so that installation of a pressure-dosed system will be considered in situations where such a system is possible. The circular does not specify that pressure-dosed drainfields must be used in situations where it is not specifically required by the circular or other rules. Some counties, however, have passed rules requiring pressure-dosing on all new systems.  Section 1.1.2 allows the reviewing authority to evaluate the specific site conditions and determine the best method of distribution. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 4: Subsection 1.1.3.8 should not state that "gray water systems are used for irrigation." Instead that subsection should state that "gray water irrigation systems are used for irrigation." There are gray water systems that basically serve as drainfields receiving the gray water fraction of wastewater when waste segregation is used. One example of this type of system would be a cabin that does not have a piped water supply.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. Subsection 1.1.3.8 references that gray water irrigation systems are used for irrigation.

 

            COMMENT NO. 5: The description of intermittent sand filters, at subsection 1.1.3.9, should be consistent with subsection 1.1.3.10 and include the phrase "small wastewater."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. The description of intermittent sand filters now includes the term "wastewater."

 

            COMMENT NO. 6: Subsections 1.1.3.9 and 1.1.3.10 should be amended. Rather than refer to "prior to final disposal," these descriptions should be reworded to state "prior to application of effluent to the infiltrative surface." The reason these descriptions should be changed is because there is no definition for "final disposal."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that there is no definition of "final disposal" and the suggested change has been made to the circular. Subsections 1.1.3.9 and 1.1.3.10 now replace the phrase "final disposal" with the phrase "prior to application of effluent to the infiltrative surface."

 

            COMMENT NO. 7:  Subsections 1.1.3.9 and 1.1.3.10 should not distinguish between "small wastewater systems" and "large wastewater systems," because there is no definition for a "small wastewater system."

            RESPONSE:  Subsections 1.1.3.9 and 1.1.3.10 give typical applications for onsite system components.  These subsections are not intended to impose requirements. Rather, they are presented for informational purposes.  Pressure distribution is not required in an intermittent sand filter. However, this type of system is often used where less than 1000 square feet of area is required or where Level 1b designation is required to comply with the Water Quality Act.  Conversely, recirculating sand filters must use pressure distribution and are often used where more than 1000 square feet of area are required. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 8: Change subsection 1.1.3.12 so that it reads "Typically, these systems are used for limited areas, replacement systems, or where other systems cannot be installed."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the language could be clearer and the suggested change has been made to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 9: A component of waste segregation is gray water disposal. Gray water systems, however, cannot be installed where soil conditions preclude the use of a soil absorption system. This description should not be used to allow development on otherwise undevelopable lots. Subsection 1.1.3.13 should state "[w]aste segregation systems are used in areas of limited water availability or as a way to implement water saving measures."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the language could be clearer and the suggested change has been made to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 10: The difference between "variances" and "deviations" is unclear. It seems that variances and deviations are identical actions. Variance criteria, however, are different from the criteria listed in subsection 1.1.4.1. DEQ should consider if the criteria for variances and deviations should be identical. Having the same variance/deviation criteria in both circulars seems reasonable and more workable than having two standards.

            RESPONSE: A "deviation" is a departure from a requirement in Circular DEQ-4. A "variance" is a departure from a requirement in the minimum standards set out in ARM Title 17, Chapter 36, subchapter 9. As a commenter notes, the deviation criteria in DEQ-4 subsection 1.1.4.1 and the variance criteria in ARM 17.36.922 are different. The board and department acknowledge that this can cause confusion. The department previously eliminated a similar disparity between the subdivision rules' waiver criteria and the DEQ-4 deviation criteria. See ARM 17.36.601(3). The board and department will consider a future rulemaking to address the commenter's concern, but amendment of ARM 17.36.922 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding.

 

            COMMENT NO. 11: Change the definition of "absorption area," at section 1.2.1, to include those designs using a bed.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. "Absorption area" is now defined as "that area determined by multiplying the length and width of the bottom area of the disposal trench or bed."

 

            COMMENT NO. 12: Consider using "subsurface wastewater treatment system" as an equivalent to "absorption system" or define "subsurface wastewater treatment system" separately.  Include language that differentiates between the physical disposal of effluent and the treatment capabilities of the system.

            RESPONSE:  The term "subsurface wastewater treatment system" is defined in ARM 17.36.101(58) and is meant to be general in nature. This definition is applicable to DEQ-4. The circular discusses the capabilities of specific subsurface wastewater treatment systems in the chapters pertaining to their own design criteria. The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 13: Regarding section 1.2.5, a guest house should not be considered an "accessory building," because it would need to be approved as a building for lease or rent before it can be used, since it would add additional sewage flow. Guest houses should be distinguishable from other accessory buildings.

            RESPONSE: The board and department have used this definition of "accessory building" in the circular because the definition is identical to ARM 17.38.101(3)(a). Whether a guest house would be considered a subdivision under the lease or rent provisions is inconsequential to the application of DEQ-4. This circular provides guidance for what type of system would be appropriate based on how an accessory structure would be used and does not take into consideration whether subdivision review is required. No change has been made to the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 14:  In section 1.2.8, clarify the term "insufficient fines." Some counties have interpreted this definition of bedrock to mean that very gravelly soils are bedrock and, therefore, a system would not be permitted if these soils were <4-foot bgs. Give a percentage or take this part of the definition out. It conflicts with Table 2.1-1, which allows systems in gravel with less than 10 percent fines. If you have that type of soil, the type of system required (pressure-dosed sand lined) is already addressed and, in fact, is not prohibited as a system in bedrock would be.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. The use of the term "insufficient fines," in the definition of bedrock, makes the definition unclear and conflicts with quantity of fines allowed for systems in Table 2.1-1. The reference to "fines" in the definition of bedrock, under 1.2.8 and Table 2.1-1, has been deleted.

 

            COMMENT NO. 15: Strike "on a regular basis" from the definition of "bedroom" in section 1.2.9. Leaving this language in the circular would make enforcement very difficult. In addition, septic systems are sized for how a house may potentially be used, not how a single owner plans to use it. The expected life of a septic system is 25 to 30 years and houses are sold once every seven years on average.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. "Bedroom" is now defined as "any room that is or may be used for sleeping. An unfinished basement is considered an additional bedroom."

 

            COMMENT NO. 16:  Consider changing the definition of "distribution pipe" in section 1.2.20 to include the phrase "absorption system" to replace "subsurface wastewater treatment system."

            RESPONSE:  DEQ-4 applies to those systems that rely on soils for treatment, whereas DEQ-2 applies to those systems that dispose of effluent. The current use of the phrase "subsurface wastewater treatment system" is appropriate for this circular. The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 17: Add dosing siphon to the definition of "dosed system," at section 1.2.21, and remove actuated valve, as a valve does not deliver effluent to a system in the same basic manner as either a siphon or pump.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested addition has been made to the circular. Siphons are a means of dosing a system. However, actuated valves may also be used in some larger systems to control the flow of effluent through pipes. Accordingly, both siphons and actuated valves should be included as part of this definition. The definition for "dosed system" now states "any system that utilizes a pump, siphon, or actuated valves to deliver treated effluent to a subsurface absorption area."

 

            COMMENT NO. 18: In the definition of "dosing frequency," at section 1.2.22, use the phrase "other treatment component" rather than "sand mound" to be consistent with section 1.2.24.

            RESPONSE: The current definitions do not use the phrase "sand mound." The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 19: Consider whether the definition of "drain rock," at section 1.2.25, is a definition or a technical standard. The definition section should be used for definitions, not technical standards.

            RESPONSE: The commenter is correct that the requirements should generally not be included in definitions. However, the term "drain rock" is used in a number of places in chapters 6 and 7; but elimination of the requirements from the definition would require those requirements to be repeated in those locations. In order to insure that those requirements are not overlooked, and to avoid repetition, references to those requirements have been inserted in subsections 6.1.5.3, 6.1.5.4, 6.7.3.5, 6.7.4.5, 6.8.3.2, 6.11.3.3, 7.2.2.7, 7.2.5.1, 7.3.2.3, 8.4.2.4, 8.4.2.5, and section 6.3.3. In addition, the definition has been modified to indicate that drain rock is used in absorption systems, sand filters, and seepage pits.

 

            COMMENT NO. 20: Keep the definition of "dwelling," since the term is still used throughout the circular, unless the plan is to replace all instances of dwelling with living unit.

            RESPONSE: The board and department replaced all references to the term "dwelling" with "living unit" throughout the circular. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 21: Define the term "drop box."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the term "drop box" should be defined and has included the definition in the circular at section 1.2.26. The circular defines "drop box" as "a watertight structure that receives septic tank effluent and distributes it into one or more distribution pipes and into an overflow leading to another drop box and/or absorption system located at a lower elevation."

 

            COMMENT NO. 22: The definition of "impervious layer," at section 1.2.42, conflicts with the requirements of Chapter 2, Site Modification, and the use of a Chapter 6.8 evapotranspiration absorption system. This definition and its use would preclude an ETA system from being installed because four feet of natural soil separation is required between the bottom of a trench and a limiting layer. Due to the fact that the ETA system is installed within a defined impervious layer, the separation can never be met. There should be some language that explains that ETA systems are not subject to separation to an impervious layer, but separation to bedrock and seasonal high ground water still apply.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that a conflict exists between the definition of "impervious layer" and the use of ET or ETA systems and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. The intent of the board and the department is to define an impervious layer as one with a percolation rate greater than 240 minutes per inch (mpi). Section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1 and subchapter 6.8 have been changed to eliminate the conflict between the definition of impervious layer and the use of ET or ETA systems.

 

            COMMENT NO. 23: Why was the section 1.2.42 definition of "impervious layer" increased from 120 mpi to 240 mpi?

            RESPONSE: The change in the definition of "impervious layer" in section 1.2.42 was increased from 120 mpi to 240 mpi because some bed and trench systems are allowed in these soils with an application rate of 0.15 gpd/ft². This change was made to maintain consistency within the circular. No change was made to the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 24: Keep the definition of "chemical nutrient reduction" in subchapter 1.2, unless the plan is to remove all references to these systems from the circular.

            RESPONSE: The board and department believe that chemical nutrient reduction systems must be included in the circular to allow greater flexibility and design, but that the description of those systems should be included in section 7.5.1 and not in a definition. The circular has been amended to include a more detailed description of chemical nutrient reduction systems in section 7.5.1.

 

            COMMENT NO. 25: With the reference to "business," the definition of "industrial wastewater," at section 1.2.45, is too broad. Eliminate the reference to waste from the process of business from the definition of industrial wastewater.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. "Industrial wastewater" is now defined as "any waste from industry or from the development of any natural resource, together with any sewage that may be present."

 

            COMMENT NO. 26: Eliminate the use of the terms "bedroom" and "kitchen" in the definition of "living unit," at section 1.2.51, and replace those with "sleeping areas" and "cooking areas" to allow the definition to incorporate uses such as studio apartments and guest houses.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the definition of "living unit" was potentially too restrictive and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. "Living unit" is now defined as "the area under one roof that can be used for one residential unit, and which has facilities for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. A duplex is considered two living units."

 

            COMMENT NO. 27: Do not reference the requirements in this circular in the definition of "manhole," at section 1.2.53. This reference does not add to the plain meaning of the definition or clarify what a manhole is.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the definition of "manhole" included some unnecessary language and the suggested change has been made to the circular. "Manhole" is now defined as "an access to a sewer line for cleaning or repair."

 

            COMMENT NO. 28: Clarify the definition of "multiple-user wastewater system," at section 1.2.56, to clarify which population statistics should be used to estimate the population that will be served by the proposed system. Base the definition on census data for the county rather than a state average of 2.5 people/living unit.

            RESPONSE: This circular serves as a design guideline for the entire state and the state-wide average of 2.5 people per house is appropriate. Accordingly, the definition has not been changed to allow counties to use their own census data. However, the board and department agree that the definition of "multiple-user wastewater system" was unclear and have amended the circular in response to the comment. The definition now guides the reviewing authority to multiply the number of living units times 2.5 to reflect the state average of 2.5 people per living unit.

 

            COMMENT NO. 29: In section 1.2.57, include the term "undisturbed" in the definition of "natural soil."

            RESPONSE: The current definition states that the soil must have developed in place through a natural process. The term "undisturbed" does not add meaning to the definition of "natural" and could be read to preclude natural process, such as deposition and weathering. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 30: In 1.2.61, clarify the difference between uniform and non-uniform pressure distribution or include the term "uniform" in all references to pressurized systems. The ambiguity leads to the question of when non-uniform pressure distribution is acceptable.

            RESPONSE: Uniform pressure distribution requires the flow in all pipes to have less than 10 percent variation. "Pressure distribution" is a more general term and is used primarily when describing system components such as type of pipe, valves, and pumps. The requirement for uniform distribution would not be applicable to these system components. The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 31: Clarify why "2.5" is used in the section 1.2.67 definition of "public wastewater system." Base the population statistics on census data for the county.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the definition of "public wastewater system," at section 1.2.67, should be clarified and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. However, county census data is not appropriate because it is too variable and this circular is a guide for the entire state. The statewide average of 2.5 people per living unit is appropriate. The definition now specifies that the reviewing authority shall multiply the number of living units times "2.5 people per living unit."

 

            COMMENT NO. 32: Eliminate the word "any" from the definition of "public wastewater system," at section 1.2.67. If the intent is to clarify that any 60 days of the year can be used in the calculation, use "any consecutive" or "non-consecutive" to make it clear. Alternatively, use the language in 75-6-102(14), MCA.

            RESPONSE: The term "any" is used in section 1.2.67 to provide consistency between this circular and 75-6-102(14), MCA. The language has been modified to more closely resemble the language of the statute.

 

            COMMENT NO. 33: The definition of "shared wastewater system," at section 1.2.80, can be interpreted to allow service to a combination of three residential and commercial units. This is not the intent.  The intent is to limit a shared system to two units, regardless of whether they are commercial or residential. DEQ should revise this definition to limit a shared system to two units, if that is possible without first changing it in ARM 17.36.101(47).

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the intent of the definition of "shared wastewater system" is to limit a shared system to two units and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Amending ARM 17.36.101(47) is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The definition of shared wastewater system has been amended to read "[s]hared wastewater system means a wastewater system that serves, or is intended to serve, two living units, two commercial units, or a combination of one living unit and one commercial unit. The term does not include a public sewage system as defined in 75-6-102, MCA."

 

            COMMENT NO. 34: Clarify the definition of "siphon," at section 1.2.81, so that it is clear siphons can be used for multiple purposes.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to the comment. The definition of a siphon should not limit the understanding of how they may be used. "Siphon" is now defined as "a pipe fashioned in an inverted U shape and filled until atmospheric pressure is sufficient to force a liquid from a reservoir in one end of the pipe over a barrier and out the other end."

 

            COMMENT NO. 35: Eliminate the definition of "soil consistence," at section 1.2.83. Soil consistence has little, if any, relation to absorption field siting and is not taken into consideration in any of the siting criteria.

            RESPONSE: "Soil consistence" is referenced in subsection 2.1.4.1 and should be defined in this circular. Evaluation of soil consistence helps the reviewing authority understand how wastewater may move through the soil.  Information about soil consistence is used to estimate the shrink-swell capacity of the soil and thus its mineralogy. Information about soil consistence also is used to determine if the horizon or soil will have a low permeability. The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 36: Do not delete the definition of "wastewater" from the circular. While it is already defined in 75-6-102(17), MCA, ARM 17.36.101(62), and ARM 17.36.901(37), that is true for a number of terms defined in this circular. If not deleting other definitions, keep the definition of wastewater in the circular.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and have amended the circular to reinsert the definition of "wastewater," at section 1.2.93, in response to the comment. It is defined as "[w]astewater means water-carried waste including, but not limited to, household, commercial, or industrial wastes, chemicals, human excreta, or animal and vegetable matter in suspension or solution."

 

            COMMENT NO. 37: The definition of "wastewater treatment system or wastewater disposal system" should include the phrase "The term includes all disposal methods described in this circular along with experimental systems."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the definition of "wastewater treatment system or wastewater disposal system" should include the phrase "The term includes all disposal methods described in this circular," but, because experimental systems are already addressed in the circular, felt that this language was repetitive. The circular has been amended in response to this comment and the definition of "wastewater treatment system or wastewater disposal system" states "[w]astewater treatment system or wastewater disposal system means a system that receives wastewater for purposes of treatment, storage, or disposal. The term includes all disposal methods described in this circular."

 

            COMMENT NO. 38:  Is a definition of "abandoned system" needed? A definition may be useful in the event that there is a proposal for reuse.

            RESPONSE:  DEQ-4 is intended for design and construction purposes. Abandonment of existing subsurface wastewater treatment systems, or their components, falls under the authority of the local board of health. The suggested change has not been made.

 

CHAPTER 2 SITE CONDITIONS

 

            COMMENT NO. 39: The circular's recommendations in 2.1.4 that test pits be located outside the boundaries of the absorption area are too stringent.

            RESPONSE:  The circular recommends, but does not require, that test pits be located outside the boundaries of the drainfield. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 40: Delete the requirement in section 2.1.4 that drainfield locations be identified through staking or other acceptable means of identification on lots two acres or smaller. Requiring drainfield staking will result in increased costs to the developer and ultimately land owners.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that staking or other forms of identification may result in a burden for interim uses of the property and have amended the circular in response to the comment by deleting the requirement.

 

            COMMENT NO. 41: In some confined locations, excavating the profiles in the absorption area and requiring two soil profiles could tear up most of the native soil layer beneath the absorption system. In 2.1.4, rather than require two test pits in confined areas, leave the determination up to the discretion of the reviewing authority. Would four soil profiles be required even if the primary and replacement areas are adjacent to each other?

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the reviewing authority should be given more discretion. In response to this comment, the circular now uses permissive language rather than requiring one soil profile at each end of both the absorption system and the replacement area.

 

            COMMENT NO. 42: In 2.1.4.1, delete the language "as defined in section 1.2.68," because it is unnecessary.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended to delete this language.

 

            COMMENT NO. 43: The requirements in 2.1.4.1 for reporting soil consistence and plasticity during a site evaluation should be eliminated. These methods of texturing soils have little to do with absorption system sizing or siting.

            RESPONSE: Evaluation of soil consistence and plasticity helps the reviewing authority understand how wastewater may move through the soil.  Information about soil consistence and plasticity is used to estimate the shrink-swell capacity of the soil and thus its mineralogy.  Aspects of consistence and plasticity are used to determine if the horizon or soil will have a low permeability. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 44: In 2.1.4.1.B, is the intended word "consistency" or "consistence?"

            RESPONSE: The intended word is "consistence." The board and department have amended the circular to reflect the proper term.

 

            COMMENT NO. 45: The type of bedrock encountered is important for characterizing the site and area. Leave the words "and type of" in subsection 2.1.4.1.F.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended to reinsert the phrase "and type of" in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 46:  In 2.1.5, define what "variable soils" are and quantify the number of tests that the reviewing authority may require.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department consider soils to be variable when there are multiple application rates within the same absorption area. Soil texture descriptions are defined in Table 2.1-1. In some instances variable soils could exist and percolation tests would not be required. A decision to require more than one percolation test would be made by the reviewing authority based on the size of the site, soil conditions, application rates and professional experience. Because the term is applied by the department to determine whether it will require additional percolation tests, and because requiring those tests is discretionary with the reviewing authority, a definition is not necessary for an applicant to prepare an application. Therefore, the suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 47: Clarify the requirement that "similar" percolation test values be used when calculating the arithmetic mean. For instance, if there are three perc tests with the results of 10, 35, and 60 (or even 5, 5, and 20), what would we average?

            RESPONSE: Common statistical techniques such as averages are not valid for data with a skewed distribution. A normal distribution of similar percolation test values is necessary to ensure adequate drainfield sizing. If the influence of a single percolation test result changes the required application rate, then that number might be indicative of an error in the percolation test procedure. This dissimilar result should be eliminated from the statistical average or additional testing information provided to the reviewing authority.

 

            COMMENT NO. 48: The first category in Table 2.1-1 may conflict with the definition of "bedrock."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. The reference to "fines" in the definition of "bedrock," under 1.2.8, and in Table 2.1-1, has been deleted.

 

            COMMENT NO. 49: There is a definition of "uniform distribution," but not a definition of "uniform pressure distribution," which is the term used in section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(a).

            RESPONSE: The terms were not intended to be different. Since pressure distribution includes requirements for uniformity, the word "uniform" has been eliminated from sections 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(a), 6.5.2, 6.7.1, and 7.2.3 and subsections 6.6.2.2, 6.9.3.3, and 6.11.2.2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 50: Consider rewording section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(a) and replacing the square footage requirements with 300 lineal feet of gravity distribution line per section and 1,500 square feet of gravity distribution absorption trench area per section. Presby AES design standards allow up to 600 gpd per individual serial section (equating to 300 ft at 2.0 gpd/ft) within a treatment/absorption bed. As well, in soils exceeding 120 mpi percolation, it is common for AES to be spaced at four to five feet on-center (equating to 5 sf/lf x 300ft = 1,500 sf) wherein the ASTM C-33 sand lens acts to evenly disperse the clear effluent.

            RESPONSE: The proposed requirements insure that adequate treatment occurs in larger systems. Gravity distribution is characterized as unequal and localized distribution of effluent. Overloading of the infiltration surface may occur when there are no periods of little or no flow to allow the subsoil to dry. Through pressure-dosing, smaller quantities of effluent enter the soil matrix over a large area at a controlled rate and allow time for the subsoil to dry between applications. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 51: Consider changing the requirement in section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(c) by allowing either uniform pressure distribution or a sand meeting ASTM C-33.

            RESPONSE: The systems discussed in section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(c) must be pressured-dosed and sand lined because soil conditions with fast percolation rates have a tendency to allow effluent to pass through the soil matrix without time for treatment. Sand lining allows the effluent to slow down and facilitates treatment. Uniform distribution insures that the quantity of effluent passing through the soil is controlled without large fluctuations or overloading.  Sand lining a trench does not provide the same level of treatment as both uniform distribution and sand lining.  The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 52: Using the most conservative of either soil profile information or United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data is too restrictive and undervalues site-specific information. The size of an absorption system should be based upon an educated assessment of all the site-specific information gathered.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the existing and proposed language may be unnecessarily restrictive. Section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(b) has been amended to encourage review of soil profile information and NRCS soils data as part of an assessment of all site-specific information in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 53: Why are percolation tests required when some studies have demonstrated that perc tests are not the most reliable method of determining soil absorption rates?  By putting more emphasis on perc test results, there is a risk that there will be more incorrect perc rates for soils that should have ETA beds. Some counties will put gravity systems in that will ultimately fail. Should soils with an app. rate of 0.2 or less be required to have ETA beds?

            RESPONSE:  Section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(e) does not require percolation tests. Rather, it requires that, when they are done, they must be done in accordance with Appendix A. Percolation tests are not required for most absorption systems, with the exception of ETA systems, as stated in section 6.7.1. Percolation tests are, however, a valuable tool when evaluating the ability for a soil type to accept an onsite wastewater treatment system. The department tries to give system designers as many options as possible and the information that percolation tests provide have the potential to open up more options. The percolation tests, along with the soil profile information and the soil survey, are used together to choose the appropriate system. Section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1 is designed to provide guidance to system designers, so that counties will not install systems that fail. The board and department do not believe that all clay, silt, and silty clay soil, or those with an app. rate of 0.2 or less, should have ETA beds. The EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual allows traditional absorption systems for these types of soils and mandating ET or ETA beds would unnecessarily limit that option. If local health authorities desire to limit traditional absorption systems for soils with application rates of 0.2 gpd/sf or less, they may do so under the local health rules. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 54: With regard to section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(f), the board and department should consider whether the evaporative surface and storage capacity of a sand mound might be a preferable, or at least an optional, system in tight soils.

            RESPONSE: The construction of a sand mound on a site with soil percolation rates greater than 240 minutes per inch would create an interface between sand (which is a fast percolating medium) and native soils (a slow percolating medium). This transition zone would have a tendency to create a path for effluent to surface at the top of the mound and subsequent failure of the system. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 55: With regard to 2.1.8.2, if floodplain maps are going to be required as part of an evaluation, base flood elevation (BFE) maps should be used. Flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) should not be allowed as part of the evaluation process.

            RESPONSE: The board and department encourage the use of multiple sources of information when evaluating a site.  A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is published by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and shows a community's base flood elevations, flood zones, and floodplain boundaries.  These maps may indicate different locations of flood zones. The board and department recommend that all sources of information be used for evaluation of a site, including information provided by the community floodplain manager, FIRM maps, models providing base flood elevations, topographic maps, and site-specific topographic information. The recommended change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 56: Not all county sanitarians are knowledgeable in flood plain management. Would it be acceptable to have a determination of the potential for flooding and accumulation of surface water from storm events made by the county flood plain administrator?

            RESPONSE: Not all counties have a flood plain administrator. If that resource is available, it should be used in the evaluation of a site for flood potential and subsection 2.1.8.2 allows that to occur.

 

            COMMENT NO. 57: Consider rewording subsection 2.1.8.2 by replacing the term "storm events" with "runoff events."

            RESPONSE: The term "runoff event" is not commonly used in describing runoff from a storm in this or other department documents. To provide consistency between DEQ-8, Montana Standards for Subdivision Storm Drainage, and DEQ-4, the term will remain unchanged.

 

            COMMENT NO. 58: In section 2.2.1, the circular explains that site modifications may be used only for replacement of failing systems. Should "when no other system can work," be added to this statement?

            RESPONSE:  Section 2.2.1 allows site modifications only for replacement of failing systems. It is intended to allow lot owners, with existing development, the flexibility to solve site-specific problems through cut, fill, and artificially drained soil. There are many different types of onsite wastewater treatment systems that range in both price and complexity.  The statement "where no other system can work" is more broad than the scope of this chapter and might be interpreted to require existing developments to use cost-prohibitive solutions, such as connection to municipal systems, additional treatment streams, or other techniques that are beyond the practical or financial means of the system owner. Site modifications are allowed in the circular to insure the current use of the lot can be continued even at time of replacement. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 59: Subsection 2.2.2.1 should include a requirement that assures the drainage system will be maintained, along with certification by an engineer and a maintenance plan. A deed restriction or other method to insure perpetual maintenance may be appropriate.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that artificially drained systems need ongoing maintenance to insure they continue to function as designed. Maintenance of an artificially drained site, or any other component of an onsite system, is the responsibility of the system owner. If a drainage system is not properly maintained, the department has the ability to initiate an enforcement action. Requiring a deed restriction would be redundant. The board and department agree that artificially drained systems and major site modifications need certification, as-builts, and a maintenance plan. These requirements have been added to subsections 2.2.2.4, 2.2.3.3, and 2.2.4.6 of the circular in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 60: In regard to 2.2.2.2, how is adequate horizontal separation determined?

            RESPONSE: Each site is unique and considerations, such as soil type, slope, and other physical features, may all be influencing factors. It will be the responsibility of the reviewing authority to use its professional expertise to determine this setback.

 

            COMMENT NO. 61: The bottom of an infiltrative surface is not clearly defined and separation requirements between this interface and ground water in 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.5 are ambiguous.

            RESPONSE: The term "infiltrative surface" is used to represent that part of the subsurface treatment system that has been added to the trench or bed above the in situ soil. By specifying the bottom of the infiltrative surface, we insure that a minimum of four feet of natural soil is present between a drainfield and any ground water. This is apparent on the face of the current language. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 62: With regard to 2.2.2.3, if ground water monitoring is not required prior to installation, I think it is dangerous to require it after.  What if a county permits a system, it is installed, and then, once monitoring is required, it is discovered that the separation distance no longer meets the criteria for separation between the bottom of the infiltrative surface to the seasonally high ground water level. Would the system then have to be abandoned?

            RESPONSE: Monitoring is not required by subsection 2.2.2.3 as amended. It may, however, be a valuable tool for counties to insure all applicable local rules are followed in the permitting process. Artificially drained sites, as discussed in section 2.2.2, are for areas where ground water levels may need to be reduced through a subsurface network of curtain drains, vertical drains, under drains, or other components. Ground water monitoring, both before and after construction of the drain system, may be necessary to insure adequate results prior to permitting and construction of the replacement drainfield system. The circular allows observation of the seasonally high ground water in the area of an artificially drained site to insure there is at least four feet of natural soil between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and ground water is achieved. If the vertical separation distance is not maintained, the county health officer can require abandonment and replacement of the artificial drain and septic system.

 

            COMMENT NO. 63: With regard to 2.2.3, why not use a cut system as a new system, if a 25 foot separation is maintained from the down gradient?

            RESPONSE: Cut systems are used in areas of steep slopes. Allowing cut systems for replacement only insures that the initial primary area would still be available if the replacement fails.

 

            COMMENT NO. 64: Clarify when a cut system must be physically completed in order to gain approval by the reviewing authority.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the language was unclear and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Section 2.2.3 now states "site modification for replacement subsurface wastewater treatment systems must be completed prior to approval by the reviewing authority."

 

            COMMENT NO. 65: Conducting a soil profile prior to construction of a cut system may not provide an accurate representation of the final receiving soils. The soil profile hole needs to be done after the site preparation is complete or the holes need to be deep enough to profile the final receiving soils.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree. Subsection 2.2.3.2 has been amended to require soil profile information of the final receiving soils to be submitted to the reviewing authority.

 

            COMMENT NO. 66: Clarify whether a fill system must be physically completed when seeking approval by the reviewing authority.

            RESPONSE: The circular requires physical completion of fill systems prior to approval by the reviewing authority. This requirement can be found in section 2.2.1, which states in pertinent part that "site preparation for cut and fill modifications must be completed prior to final approval."

 

            COMMENT NO. 67: With regard to 2.2.4.2, why not use fill to achieve four feet separation on a replacement system.

            RESPONSE: Four feet of natural soil separation is required under ARM 17.36.320(2) and 17.36.914(3). The rules do not distinguish between new and replacement systems. Additionally, this amendment would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

 

            COMMENT NO. 68: Is there a conflict with the four feet separation specified in 2.2.4.2 between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and a limiting layer in filled systems when that is not required in shallow-capped systems in section 6.2.1?

            RESPONSE: Both fill systems, as specified in subsection 2.2.4.2, and shallow-capped systems, as specified in sections 6.2.1., 6.1.2, and Chapter 2, must maintain four feet of natural soil between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and a limiting layer.

 

            COMMENT NO. 69: With regard to 2.2.4.5.B, changing the setback distance from three feet to ten feet places an undue hardship on property owners. The protection provided by this rule change is not justified when compared to the owners' loss of property.

            RESPONSE:  Requiring ten feet of fill as opposed to three feet of fill provides extra room for treatment of effluent. The additional fill is necessary to insure that there will be no surfacing of effluent at the fill toe. Although this requirement creates additional restrictions for property owners, the additional fill will provide increased protection to adjacent property owners. On small lots, a variance from this requirement may be available. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 70: Remove the word "native" when describing vegetative cover from a fill site. The word does not add clarification and, as written, it implies that non-native species can stay.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 71: Does the second paragraph of section 2.2.5 conflict with the design nature of elevated sand mounds? Isn't the infiltrative surface the bottom of the sand bed, not native soil? Is minor leveling allowed for mounds?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the second paragraph of section 2.2.5 may conflict with the design of an elevated sand mound and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. After site modification, the soil that has been cut or filled is not considered to be native or natural. In the case of an elevated sound mound, soil that has undergone minor leveling may be considered part of the infiltrative surface. Plowing or keying an uneven surface for an elevated sand mound is allowed if four feet of unmodified or natural soil from the bottom of the key or plowed area to a limiting layer is maintained. Section 2.2.5 has been changed to clarify that soil that has undergone minor leveling is not considered natural soil.

 

            COMMENT NO. 72: The circular should not require detailed site plans for all minor leveling. That discretion should be left up to the reviewing authority.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and section 2.2.5 has been amended in response to this comment to allow the reviewing authority to use its discretion in determining whether detailed site plans are required for minor leveling.

 

CHAPTER 3 WASTEWATER

 

            COMMENT NO. 73: The sizing of a wastewater treatment system should be based on the size of the home, not the size of the home site. The reference to home "site" should be removed from section 3.1.1. Also the reference to ARM 17.36.326 is either out of place or unnecessary.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that section 3.1.1 should refer to a home and not a home "site." The circular has been amended to reflect this suggested change. Referencing ARM 17.36.326 clarifies the easements and agreements necessary for shared, multi-user, or public subsurface wastewater treatment systems. The reference to ARM 17.36.326 has not been deleted in the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 74: Section 3.1.2 states "[l]iving units will be considered to have three bedrooms unless otherwise specified." This implies that an applicant can specify that they want a system for less than three bedrooms. Keep the original word, "approved" instead of "specified." This will allow flexibility, while preserving the minimum sizing requirement.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. The last sentence in section 3.1.2 now states "[l]iving units will be considered to have three bedrooms unless otherwise approved."

 

            COMMENT NO. 75: The methodology for determining the flow rate of systems serving three to nine living units on a single wastewater treatment system, in 3.1.2, should be changed. For a system serving nine or fewer homes, the design flow is inflated resulting in larger systems. As written, the size of homes will have to be regulated and limited on systems serving nine or fewer homes, but not for systems serving ten or more homes. The nexus between the number of bedrooms and daily wastewater flow produced by a home is attenuated.

            RESPONSE: The proposed design flow rates for single systems, serving nine or fewer living units, is based on the number of bedrooms for each living unit. If the number of bedrooms is unknown, it is assumed to be three per living unit for design purposes. This design criteria accounts for the variability of wastewater flow rates in a day and applies an appropriate factor of safety to the system sizing. As the number of units on a single system increases, the hourly peaks on the system become less pronounced and the attenuation of peak flow rates becomes less important for design purposes. The design criteria for ten or greater living units was selected to correspond to those systems that may meet the public definition of 25 people or more, based on a state census statistic of 2.5 people per household and the sizing criteria of Document DEQ-2. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 76: The ability to vary from minimum flow designs, as described in section 3.1.2, should be determined by the reviewing authority, not dictated by a permit applicant.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Section 3.1.2.B now states "[a]n average of 2.5 persons per living unit must be used to calculate total design flow unless the reviewing authority determines that a larger per-living-unit average is appropriate for a given project."

 

            COMMENT NO. 77: With regard to 3.1.3, what parameters are there to determine if waste strength is residential? What information must be required to prove that nonresidential flows are not high strength? Requiring all nonresidential designs to demonstrate residential strength parameters is too broad, overly conservative, and costly.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that this requirement is too broad and has amended the circular in response to the comment. Reviewing authorities should be allowed to request this information when their professional judgment deems it necessary, rather than requiring it of each applicant.  Information regarding the strength of nonresidential wastewater can also be difficult to obtain. If information is requested by the reviewing authority, and direct sampling is not available, characterization data from similar facilities already in use may be submitted for review. Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.1 now states "[t]he reviewing authority may require nonresidential establishments demonstrate that wastewater meets residential strength standards or complies with the requirements of Chapter 3.2."

 

            COMMENT NO. 78: Section 3.1.3 should be rewritten. Change this section to clarify that the expansion of existing systems may not be used to determine design flow rates.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. Section 3.1.3 now states "[f]or expansions of existing systems, the reviewing authority may approve the use of actual water use data to determine appropriate flows."

 

            COMMENT NO. 79: Provide additional information regarding the characterization of nonresidential wastewater. Also, would these requirements apply to replacement systems? It seems unreasonable to put the financial burden of engineering costs and more sophisticated wastewater system on a facility that may not have a large budget and may not actually be generating high strength waste, simply because they are on a list or part of a broad definition. Due to the fact that subchapter 3.2 applies to all nonresidential establishments, the list under paragraph three serves no purpose. Delete the list or use it to clarify which nonresidential systems typically do not need to address high strength waste.

            RESPONSE: The board and department rely on the professional judgment and expertise of the reviewing authority to determine the characteristics of wastewater for a proposed use. The list of establishments in section 3.2.1 is meant as a guideline for designers and the reviewing authority to determine possible sources of high strength waste.  Wastewater generating activities in some nonresidential establishments are similar to those of residential dwellings and may not be appropriate for review under this section. Existing facilities should be characterized by metering and sampling the current wastewater stream. For those new or proposed developments, wastewater strength should be estimated based on available data. Characterization data from similar facilities already in use can provide that information. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 80: Requiring that all nonresidential establishments comply with the requirements of subchapter 3.2 unless it can be shown that wastewater meets residential strength standards places an undue burden on the applicant.

            RESPONSE: Wastewater must meet the definition of residential strength or it is considered high strength. The application of high strength wastewater to a drainfield has been attributed to soil clogging to the point of hydraulic failure, anoxic soil conditions, and reduced wastewater treatment. High concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD₅), total suspended solids (TSS), and fats, oils, and greases (FOG) were indicative of these failures. To insure adequate treatment of wastewater and drainfield longevity, all facilities treating high strength waste must be designed in accordance with subchapter 3.2. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 81: The last sentence in section 3.2.1 should be reworded, because the explanation of the flow rates is redundant.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. Section 3.2.1 now states "[t]hese establishments often produce effluent with variations of flow including intermittent, seasonal, or sporadic peak events."

 

            COMMENT NO. 82: The reference to EPA Class V Injection Wells should remain somewhere in the circular. This information does apply to many installations whether they are multi-residential, commercial, or industrial in nature. DEQ should recognize or connect with this federal requirement, to assure both federal and state requirements are met. DEQ should inform system owners of this requirement.

            RESPONSE:  The department has not adopted rules to regulate, nor has it sought primacy for, the federal Class V Injection Well rule. Accordingly, DEQ-4 should not make reference to this rule. The reference to EPA Class V injection wells was also removed to prevent confusing the regulated public. In an effort to make the regulated public aware that other requirements may exist, the department has included a notice in the Foreword, page 2 of 216, paragraph 2, that EPA Class V injection well requirements may apply. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 83: High strength waste should be equal to or less than the criteria listed, not less than as shown in the proposed document.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular. Section 3.2.2 now explains that wastewater must be treated to levels equal to or less than the levels in the list.

 

            COMMENT NO. 84: The meaning of the last paragraph of section 3.2.2 is unclear.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. The last paragraph of section 3.2.2 now states "[s]ystems, accepting wastewater not treated to the following levels, must comply with this section prior to final disposal in a subsurface absorption system. Other conditions of system approval may be required by the reviewing authority."

 

            COMMENT NO. 85: It is unclear what is meant by "special consideration should be given" to low BOD₅ influent systems. Subsection 3.2.2.1 should be written in such a way as to allow the reviewing authority to impose additional requirements on systems with low BOD₅ influent.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and subsection 3.2.2.1 has been amended in response to the comment. The circular now states "[a]ll wastewater must meet residential waste standards for BOD₅ and TSS. The reviewing authority may impose additional requirements on systems with low BOD₅ levels where compliance with the Water Quality Act and nondegradation of state waters is a concern."

 

            COMMENT NO. 86:  Delete the use of the term "institution" from subsection 3.2.2.2 and replace it with "facility."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular. Subsection 3.2.2.2 now refers to "facilities" rather than "institutions."

 

            COMMENT NO. 87: The requirement, in subsection 3.2.2.A.3, to plumb grease tanks separately from the remaining wastewater sewage treatment system may be difficult to achieve in established buildings.

            RESPONSE:  There is some level of treatment for fats, oils, or greases (FOGs) in septic tanks. However, drainfield failures have shown that this level of treatment is not sufficient for establishments that produce high levels of FOGs, such as restaurants. FOGs must be removed from the effluent stream and provided a sufficient period of cooling time to allow grease separation to occur. While plumbing may be difficult in established buildings, these difficulties would be minor in comparison to replacing an entire drainfield. No change has been made to the circular in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 88: Subsection 3.2.2.2.A.3 is confusing, because it refers to baffles in grease tanks with a schematic showing a tank using sanitary Ts with a central baffle. Explain how sanitary Ts and baffles should be used on the inlet and outlet of tanks.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that subsection 3.2.2.2.A.3 should be clearer and the circular has been amended in response to the comment. Subsection 3.2.2.2.A.3 now states "[g]rease tanks must have sanitary Ts on the inlet and sanitary Ts or baffles on the outlet."

 

            COMMENT NO. 89: The requirement for pressure distribution of all high strength waste systems should be deleted. Once residential strength is achieved this section would be in conflict with other sections.  This requirement would be also be onerous in addition to high strength wastewater pretreatment.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and section 3.2.4 has been deleted from the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 90: Requiring operation and maintenance plans or contracts is difficult to enforce, especially to ensure compliance.

            RESPONSE: While requiring an operation and maintenance plan may make enforcement difficult, proper operation and maintenance of all subsurface wastewater treatment systems is important to protect water quality and public health. The requirement has not been removed from section 3.2.4.

 

            COMMENT NO. 91: Subsection 3.2.4.2 should designate how long sampling records must be maintained.

            RESPONSE: Not all high strength waste treatment systems will be required to keep sampling records. Accordingly, if the reviewing authority determines this is an appropriate requirement for approval, it must specify how long records must be kept in the sampling agreement. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 92: Consider providing a more comprehensive list of systems that produce water residuals in section 3.3.1, as is done in section 3.3.3.

            RESPONSE: Section 3.3.1 already includes a comprehensive list of systems that produce water residuals. The list includes ion exchange water treatment systems, water softening treatment systems, demineralization water treatment systems, and other treatment systems that produce discharge. In response to this comment, section 3.3.3 has been amended to include the same list.

 

            COMMENT NO. 93: Reword section 3.3.3 to include all technologies cited in section 3.3.1.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.

 

            COMMENT NO. 94: In section 3.3.4, define dry well and describe how it will be sized and the necessary setbacks.

            RESPONSE: A drywell is defined in ARM 17.36.101(11) as "a storm water detention structure that collects surface runoff and discharges the water below the natural ground surface." The term is used in relation to storm water and should not be used in this circular. All proposed references to dry wells have been deleted. Section 3.3.4 of the circular has been amended in response to the comment and now states "[w]astewater from ion exchange water treatment systems, water softening treatment systems, demineralization water treatment systems, or other water treatment systems that produce a discharge may be discharged to a separate drainfield, other approved absorption system, or into the ground, if not prohibited by other rules or regulations."

 

            COMMENT NO. 95: Be more specific in 3.3.5 about what systems require operation and maintenance plans for water treatment residuals.

            RESPONSE: All water treatment residual disposal systems must have an operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Appendix D. The level of detail provided in that plan must take into account the system complexity and no change has been made to the circular in response to this comment.

 

CHAPTER 4 COLLECTION, PUMPING, AND EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

 

            COMMENT NO. 96:  Chapter 4 is needlessly complicated for individual and shared systems. It appears that a great deal of information comes from DEQ-2. DEQ should make the document more user-friendly by either removing or changing the location of those sections that apply to only public systems.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that repetition of information from Circular DEQ-2 is redundant. Chapter 4 has been rewritten to direct designers to those areas of DEQ-2, when appropriate. In addition, some sections have been combined to make the document more user-friendly. Grammatical errors, typos, etc., throughout the circular have been corrected.

 

            COMMENT NO. 97: The references to "water," in subsections 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3, appear to be errors.

            RESPONSE: Subsections 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3 were originally intended to repeat the definition of "service connection" and "main" found in ARM 17.38.101. Since this document refers only to wastewater applications, the definitions should not include references to pipes that convey water. All references to sewer connections and mains in this document have been limited to those collection systems that relate to wastewater applications. Subsections 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3, as contained in the initial proposal language, have been combined as subsection 4.1.1.2, which now states "[s]ewer collection systems, including sewer service lines and sewer mains, must maintain the setback distances required in ARM Title 17, chapter 36, subchapter 3 or 9, as applicable." In response to a comment, section 4.1.6 has been deleted and the new language in subsection 4.1.1.3 directs users to Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 98: Delete the space at the start of the first sentence in subsection 4.1.1.4.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended to delete that space.

 

            COMMENT NO. 99: The word "the" should appear in subsection 4.1.1.5 before the word "ultimate."

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree with the recommendation and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 100: In subsection 4.1.2.8, consider removing the word "discourages." This is not a good regulatory term and cannot be enforced.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and subsection 4.1.2.8 of the circular has been deleted, because the requirements appear in Department Circular DEQ-2. The board and department may consider this comment in a future rulemaking.

 

            COMMENT NO. 101: With regard to subsection 4.1.3.4, the former standard for a sewer main slope is 1/4 inch drop per foot for a four-inch pipe. This subsection complicates installation.

            RESPONSE: The requirement for sewer service pipe slope is 1/4 inch per foot for a four-inch diameter pipe and is currently addressed in subsection 4.1.2.1. Sewer mains are pipes that serve multiple service connections and have different size and slope requirements. Sewer mains are addressed in Department Circular DEQ-2. Subsection 4.1.3.4 has been deleted from the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 102: The typical user of this chapter will not understand what Type 1 or Type 2 bedding is.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that some system designers may not be familiar with the construction material and specifications required of sewer mains. Subsection 4.1.3.8 is deleted from the circular, because sewer main construction requirements are addressed in Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 103: DEQ should reorganize this chapter to clearly delineate between the requirements that apply to public systems, systems over 2500 gallons per day, and those that apply to smaller systems.

            RESPONSE: The requirements for public wastewater systems and those wastewater systems that are over 2,500 gallons per day are found in ARM Title 17, chapter 38 and Title 17, chapter 36. Department Circular DEQ-4 is intended as a design circular for all onsite wastewater systems. In response to this comment, the circular has been reorganized to clearly delineate between service connections and mains to differentiate between small and large system requirements.

 

            COMMENT NO. 104: In subsection 4.1.4.4, it is unclear what is meant by the requirement that "[s]urge protection chambers should be evaluated." By whom and against what criteria?

            RESPONSE: The design recommendations in subsection 4.1.4.4 no longer appear in this circular, since the requirements appear in Department Circular DEQ-2. Surge protection chambers should be evaluated by the design engineer for problems associated with water hammer pressures and stresses that are expected with the cycling of wastewater lift stations. These chambers must be designed to withstand these stresses.

 

            COMMENT NO. 105: With regard to subsection 4.1.4.8, would heat flow calculations need to be shown for individual systems? This seems to be excessive for an individual homeowner.

            RESPONSE: Force mains, including heat flow calculations, must be designed in accordance with the requirements of Department Circular DEQ-2, as stated at section 4.1.4 of this circular. Individual systems are not mains and are not subject to these requirements. Subsection 4.1.4.8 has been deleted.

 

            COMMENT NO. 106: Subsection 4.1.4.11 should be specific about what leakage tests can be used.

            RESPONSE: There are a number of hydrostatic leakage tests applicable to sewer force mains depending on the type of construction method, pipe material, and available equipment. System designers must specify the proposed leakage test for review and approval by the reviewing authority. Subsection 4.1.4.11 no longer appears in this circular, since the requirements for leakage tests appear in Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 107: The requirement for effluent pumps is unclear because there are no pumps listed by the National Electrical Code (NEC) for Class 1, Division 2 locations.  These locations are defined as those where flammable gases or vapors, flammable liquids, combustible dust, or ignitable fibers or flyings may be present but not in explosive concentrations. The requirements specifying the use of these pumps should be removed from the circular.

            RESPONSE: The board and department believe that there are pumps listed for Class 1, Division 2 locations. The NEC and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, has identified certain wastewater treatment locations as prone to hazardous conditions. Pump manufacturers have developed specialized pumps that are made to operate safely under these conditions. Pumps certified to operate under Class 1, Division 2 locations are listed with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) under many different certifications including, but not limited to, UL 1604. Subsection 4.1.5.7 has been deleted in this circular and the designer directed to the requirements in Department Circular DEQ-2. The requirements for Class I, Division 2 pumps, used for effluent, are addressed in subsection 4.2.3.1. The board and department have clarified this subsection in response to public comment. In lieu of meeting the requirements for NEC Class 1, Division 2 locations, pumping stations receiving effluent from five or less living units, those stations vented in accordance with the requirements of Department Circular DEQ-2, Chapter 40, or advanced treatment effluent pumping units that are preceded by a septic tank, may use submersible pumps and motors designed specifically for totally submerged operation with controls and wiring that are corrosion-resistant.

 

            COMMENT NO. 108: In subsection 4.1.5.10, DEQ should define "alternative systems." What systems must be owned, operated, and maintained by a "responsible authority" and who is the "responsible authority?"

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that this subsection was unclear and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 4.1.5 now states "[a]lternative wastewater collection systems include pressurized sewers carrying raw wastewater from grinder pumps, pressurized or gravity sewer mains carrying effluent, and combinations thereof, and must be designed in accordance with the requirements of Department Circular DEQ-2. This would include grinder pump systems, septic tank effluent pump systems, and small diameter gravity systems." These systems must be operated and maintained by a responsible authority that may include, but not be limited to, a homeowners association, sewer district, or municipality.

 

            COMMENT NO. 109: The sections on separation distances seem inconsistent with the minimum horizontal distances required in Title 17, Chapter 36, subchapters 3 and 9. When sewers are proposed in the vicinity of any water supply facility, requirements of Circular DEQ-1, Circular DEQ-3, and ARM Title 17, chapter 36 should be used to confirm acceptable isolation distances.

            RESPONSE: Sewer collection systems and their components must maintain setback distances as required in ARM Title 17, chapter 39, subchapter 3 or 9, as applicable. The information regarding inverted siphons or those to be constructed near stream crossings, at water main crossings, or with aerial crossings, are for circumstances when the setbacks are not maintained. This information was included in Circular DEQ-4 at section 4.1.6, but was transferred to subsection 4.1.1.3 in response to a comment. That subsection states that those types of facilities must be designed in accordance with Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 110: Strike the first sentence of subsection 4.1.6.3.A, as it does not appear to add to the rest of the language under that subsection. If there are other isolation distances they should be specified.

            RESPONSE: This information was included in the circular at section 4.1.6, as a reference for the designers and the reviewing authority, but was transferred to subsection 4.1.1.3 in response to a comment. That subsection states that those types of facilities must be designed in accordance with Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 111: The overall structure of subsection 4.1.6.4 is confusing. Also, take out the word "gravity," unless there are different requirements for gravity and pressure mains.

            RESPONSE: This information was included in the circular at section 4.1.6, as a reference for the designers and the reviewing authority, but was transferred to subsection 4.1.1.3 in response to a comment. That subsection states that those types of facilities must be designed in accordance with Department Circular DEQ-2. Department Circular DEQ-2 has different requirements for gravity and pressure mains.

 

            COMMENT NO. 112: Subsection 4.2.3.1 should require alarms for high and low water levels.  In the alternative, if DEQ is going to require only one or the other, it should require an alarm for the high water level.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that it is important to have high water alarms on all pump stations and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Although low water alarms may provide useful information for pump longevity, they do not provide the same level of protection to the system. Subsection 4.2.3.1 now requires that an audible or visible alarm must be provided to indicate high water levels.

 

            COMMENT NO. 113: Subsection 4.2.2.3 uses "the" 100-year or "the" 25-year floods. DEQ should use "a" 100-year or "a" 25-year flood.

            RESPONSE: Subsection 4.2.2.3 has been deleted from this circular. Designs that include raw wastewater pumping stations will be directed to Department Circular DEQ 2. The board and department may consider this comment in a future rulemaking pertaining to Department Circular DEQ-2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 114: Subsection 4.2.3.3 should be reworded, so that the language matches section 2.1.7, Table 2-1.1(a).

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that consistent terminology should be used and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 2.1.7, Table 2-1.1(a) has been amended to require pressure distribution rather than uniform pressure distribution. "Pressure distribution" is defined in section 1.2.61 and means "an effluent distribution system where all pipes are pressurized and the effluent is pumped, or delivered by siphon, to the next portion of the treatment system in a specific time interval or volume." In accordance with subsection 4.2.3.3, pressure distribution must show less than 10 percent variation across the distribution pipe. This is consistent with the requirements of uniform distribution. To provide consistency throughout Circular DEQ-4, the term "uniform pressure distribution" has been replaced with "pressure distribution."

 

            COMMENT NO. 115: All dosed systems, both those with siphons and pumps, should include a dose counter. This component functions to insure that the system is performing at original dosing specifications. Secondly, the word "should" in a regulation has virtually no effect on common practice.  In the case of subsection 4.2.3.3 as drafted, conservative designers will include a dose counter in each system, by practice. The designer who is not incorporating conservative design parameters, however, will opt-out on the inclusion of a dose counter because he or she is not required to include one.

            RESPONSE: The board and department do not make dose counters mandatory in order to facilitate flexibility in design. Those systems using a siphon could also install a flow meter or take individual measurements of the tank to achieve the same information as obtained through a dose counter. This circular is a set of state minimum design standards. Recommendations using language such as "should" and "may" are intended for those instances where the inclusion of the component is not required to maintain public health and safety. However, it is still appropriate for the board and department to indicate what is better practice. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 116: In subsection 4.2.3.3.B, the last sentence is confusing. Consider separating this into more than one sentence, or simplify the whole thing by just referring to square footage of absorption area, calculated before applying any reductions.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that subsection 4.2.3.3.B could be written more clearly and has amended the circular in response to this comment. The last sentence in subsection 4.2.3.3.B now states "[t]he effective length of the absorption area is the actual length of the trench or bed, calculated prior to any applied reductions. The effective length cannot exceed the length of the pipe by more than one-half the orifice spacing."

 

            COMMENT NO. 117: The requirement in subsection 4.2.3.3 for "two times" the distribution pipe volume is arbitrary and unsupported. As the pipe network fills, the flow is initially non-uniform. Dose volume should be based on pipe volume to provide a reasonable assurance that, after the pipes fill, there is still sufficient volume to uniformly dose the soil.

            RESPONSE: As the pipe network fills, the flow is initially non-uniform, but, as the volume stabilizes and air is expelled, full-pipe conditions are reached. Under full-pipe conditions, system-wide dosing of the drainfield occurs. A dose, equal to the volume of the transmission line, manifold, and "two times" the distribution pipes, approximates the amount of liquid necessary to achieve instantaneous full-pipe conditions. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 118: Subsection 4.2.3.3.G needs to make it clear that cleanouts must be placed at both ends of every lateral. Many designers make the mistake of placing the header at one end of the laterals and one row of cleanouts at the other end. A proper design puts the header in the middle of the laterals and cleanouts at both ends. In this manner, a high pressure cleaning nozzle can be inserted in one end, pass through the header, and push the pipe solids out the other end of the pipe. If only one set of cleanouts is installed, the jetter has no place to push the solids.

            RESPONSE: Circular DEQ-4 presents minimum standards to drainfield design. The department's and the board's intent is to allow flexibility with design components that are not required to maintain public health and safety. The suggested change is not necessary to maintain health and safety. The location of cleanouts, whether at one end or both ends of the lateral, the location of the manifold relative to the laterals, and the angle of, and type of cleanout, is left to the discretion of the designer as long as the requirements for the operation and maintenance of the systems are met. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 119: In subsection 4.2.3.3.E, the increase in residual pressure to ten feet for orifices smaller than 3/16 inch and to five feet for larger orifices is not necessary. In some circumstances this increase could necessitate a more expensive, high-head dosing pump.

            Response: The board and department agree that, while there may be marginal benefits to increasing pressure at the end of a distribution line, those benefits are not offset by the increased cost of a high-head dose pump. The circular has been amended in response to this comment. Subsection 4.2.3.3.E now recommends the "size of the dosing pumps and siphons must be selected to provide a minimum pressure of 1 psi (2.3 feet of head) at the end of each distribution line. For orifices smaller than 3/16-inch, the minimum pressure must be 2.16 psi (5 feet of head) at the end of each distribution pipe."

 

            Comment NO. 120: Subsection 4.2.3.3.G should add a sentence that states "[p]ressure-dosed lines must not be connected (or looped) on the ends, because this would interfere with subsequent flushing of the lines."

            Response: The current language in the circular precludes the connection or looping of pressure-dosed systems. Subsection 6.1.5.5 states "the ends of the distribution pipes must be capped or plugged." Additionally, subsection 4.2.3.3.G requires that "cleanouts must be provided at the end of every lateral." These two requirements could not be met with looped lines. If a design required, or if a designer chose to connect or "loop" ends of a pressure-dosed system, a deviation would be required. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 121: The last sentence in subsection 4.2.3.3.H.2 is redundant with what is stated in subsection 4.2.3.3.H.1.

            Response: The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to this comment. The last sentence of subsection 4.2.3.3.H.2 is redundant and has been deleted.

 

            Comment NO. 122: In subsection 4.2.3.3.H.3, the term "weep hole" should be added for clarification.

            Response: Although weep holes are one way to protect against siphoning from the septic tank, there are other design considerations that may be implemented. The intent of the circular is to allow designers flexibility with design. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 123: With regard to 4.2.3.3.H.3, it is not necessary for the designer to project finished riser height. The final height to finished grade may be different based on final site work. If the concern is that other requirements may be necessary based on bury depth, then make that clear in the language. Otherwise, requiring a riser to finished grade is adequate.

            Response: The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to this comment.  The length of the dose tank risers is often difficult to specify at the design stage and access to the ground surface is often a primary concern. Subsection 4.2.3.3.H.3 no longer requires that dosing tank depth and riser height be determined prior to installation.

 

            Comment NO. 124: On the Standard Dosing Tank Drawing, in subsection 4.2.3.3, DEQ should add a requirement that floats must be mounted on PVC pipe independent of the discharge piping. This allows the float to be easily lifted out of the pump station and allows the floats to be adjusted without disturbing the pump. This is a simple requirement that makes a huge difference in maintenance.

            Response: The Standard Dosing Tank Drawing does show a separate "float tree" for the floats. However, it does not require a PVC float tree. Float trees can be made out of different materials. The only items specified are the four-inch inlet size, the sanitary T, and the reserve volume requirements. Due to the fact that there are different designs for dosing tanks, the department's and the board's intent is to leave these design decisions up to the designers. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 125:  Subsection 4.2.3.3.G should make it clear that cleanouts must be placed at both ends of every lateral.

            Response:  Circular DEQ-4 presents minimum standards to drainfield designs. The department's and the board's intent is to allow flexibility with designs. The location of cleanouts, the location of the manifold relative to the laterals, and the angle of, and type of cleanout, is left to the discretion of the designers, because placement of cleanout at both ends is not necessary to protect public health. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 126: In subsection 4.2.3.3.H.4, all dosing systems that use pumps should include a control panel that has a manual/off/auto switch, so that a pump can be started from above ground in the case of float failure.

            Response: The department's and the board's intent is to allow flexibility with designs. The alarm requirements of subsection 4.2.3.3.H are meant to insure that, if there is a failure, the owner is made aware of a problem. Although the use of an electronic control panel with float sensors would achieve that goal, other configurations might also alert homeowners to the situation, including a flashing light or audible alarm. The addition of a manual, above ground, on/off pump switch would increase the cost to system owners and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 127: All distribution boxes should have access risers so they can be inspected and adjusted.

            Response: Risers are typically cylinders that extend from the box or tank to the surface. Due to their shape, they provide limited line of site and make access to the corners of the tank or box difficult. Risers on distribution boxes do not allow adequate visibility for inspection of the outlets or facilitate the adjustment of distribution pipes. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 128: Specifications for distribution boxes and drop boxes are illustrated in Drawings 4.3-2 and 4.3-4. These include 12 inches of gravel. Are other materials or methods acceptable?

            Response: Please refer to the specific rules in this circular pertaining to each element for details. The department's and the board's intent is to allow flexibility with designs. Although both drop boxes and distribution boxes must be set level and bedded to prevent settling, specific bedding depth, materials, and methods may vary.

 

            Comment NO. 129: Drop boxes seem to be a bit archaic. Since they do not provide equal distribution, what is the justification for leaving them in subsection 4.3.2.2?

            Response: Drop boxes are not designed to provide equal distribution. They are designed to provide successive distribution. As the lower lateral fills, the effluent level in the box increases to feed the next lateral. They are not widely used, but they are still an allowable system. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            Comment NO. 130: In subsection 4.3.2.2.C, the requirement for Schedule 40 PVC for distribution systems is overkill. These pipes are always shallow buried. Moreover, a Class 200 PVC is more than adequate and about half the price.

            Response: The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Subsections 4.2.3.3.E and 4.3.2.2.C now require that pressure-dosed distribution lines must be at least Class 200 PVC or Schedule 40 PVC.

 

            Comment NO. 131: Section 4.3.3 should not allow continued use of manifold pipes on gravity fed systems.

            Response: A gravity drainfield, using manifold distribution, is still a system used throughout the state. Public health is not jeopardized by use of these systems and it is the department's and board's intent to maintain flexibility in design. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 132: In subsection 4.2.3.3.I, is there an alternative to a squirt test to determine equal distribution?

            Response: The board and department do not require a squirt test to determine equal distribution. It does require that equal distribution is field verified. Alternative methods might include mechanical or electronic pressure measuring equipment.

 

CHAPTER 5 PRIMARY TREATMENT

 

            Comment NO. 133: Is there a way to incorporate septic tank abandonment procedures into the circular? Some replacement systems will need to follow DEQ-4's guidelines and, in those cases, there may be an old tank that needs to be abandoned. When septic tanks are not properly abandoned there could be safety hazards for people, especially children.

            Response: The board and department appreciate this comment, but it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The board and department may consider addressing the commenter's concerns in a future rulemaking.

 

            Comment NO. 134: There should be a statement that, when alternative septic tank lids or access ports are used, they must be of durable construction, secured with hex screws, lag bolts, locks, or other method to prevent child access. Section 5.1.1 should also be changed to require safety nets in all septic tanks.

            Response: This circular sets forth requirements for the design and preparation of plans and specifications for subsurface wastewater treatment systems. While safety basket screens are recommended, the board and department do not require their installation, because their purpose is not directly related to wastewater treatment or the protection of water quality. The board and department agree that secured tank lids and access ports are necessary to insure proper design, sizing, operation, and maintenance of all septic tanks and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Section 5.1.1 now provides that "[a]ll septic tanks and access ports must have lids. The lids must be of durable construction and be secured with hex screws, lag bolts, locks, or other methods to prevent unauthorized access. Safety basket screens (child catchers) should be installed in all septic tanks."

 

            Comment NO. 135: In section 5.1.1, consider breaking the sentence starting with "The septic tank must be …" into two sentences.

            Response: The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to the comment.

 

            Comment NO. 136: The units used to describe the access risers for septic tanks should be changed from square feet to a diameter in inches.

            Response: Units used to size the openings of septic tank lids must be applicable to all shapes of openings. Not all septic tanks have circular openings and a measurement of diameter would not be appropriate. A square-foot requirement sets a minimum that can be applied to differently shaped openings. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 137: DEQ should not change the minimum septic tank volume to 3.0 times the daily flow unless it is demonstrated that septic tanks designed under the old standard are causing environmental or operational problems. In the alternative, design criteria should be rewritten to allow the engineer design flexibility based upon actual settling velocity calculations and sludge storage volumes. The standard requirement for most states is 1.5 to 2.0 times the average daily flow. Larger septic tanks do not equate to better on-site systems. The costs of the proposed change will greatly exceed any benefits and, therefore, should not be required. In addition, it was suggested to require a septic tank volume of 3.5 times the design flow for residential systems serving two to nine living units.

            Response: EPA's Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual states that, for buildings other than one- or two-family residential homes, septic tanks should be able to accommodate "two to three times the estimated design flow. This conservative rule of thumb is based on maintaining a 24-hour minimum hydraulic retention time when the tank is ready for pumping, for example, when the tank is one-half to two-thirds full of sludge and scum." Additionally, biological activity significantly decreases as temperatures decrease. Given that average annual temperatures in Montana are significantly lower than national averages, tank sizes in Montana may need to be larger than nationally recognized to allow for adequate retention time and to insure that biological activity will break down the waste. Although EPA recommends up to three times the estimated flow for septic tanks, the board and department believe that requiring a septic tank to accommodate three times the daily flow is more than what is necessary to insure adequate retention time. Due to the fact that Montana's temperatures are significantly lower than national averages, septic tank sizing in Montana should adopt a more conservative standard. The board and department do not adopt the suggested change. The board and department did amend the circular in response to this comment by lowering the minimum septic tank capacity from 3 to 2.5 times the design flow for residential and nonresidential systems.

            The suggested requirement to size a septic tank volume at 3.5 times the design flow for residential systems serving two to nine living units would result in larger tanks than outlined in this document. An increase in the size of tanks is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 138: Please explain why there are different external standards for pre-cast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, fiberglass, and polyethylene septic tanks. Why not use one standard for all types of septic tanks.

            Response: There are a variety of reasons why there are different external standards for pre-cast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, fiberglass, and polyethylene septic tanks. These include industry norms, prevailing use, and applicability. Historically, organizations have created standards that relate to that particular organization's area of expertise. For example, fiberglass and ethylene products have long been used in the plumbing industry. As a result, the plumbing industry developed standards for those products that have evolved into minimum criteria used by fiberglass and ethylene septic tank manufacturers. Most fiberglass and ethylene septic tanks reference standards were created through the plumbing industry. In addition, some standards are more appropriate for certain applications. For example, cast-in-place septic tanks are utilized primarily where pre-cast tanks are either unavailable or cost prohibitive. Standards that would allow the design of these tanks by a professional engineer are necessary to insure adequate construction. Those standards may be more appropriately found in one resource rather than another. Accordingly, different external standards are necessary for different types of septic tanks.

 

            Comment NO. 139: The last line in subsection 5.1.2.2 may be inconsistent with subsection 5.1.4.3

            Response: Subsections 5.1.2.2 and 5.1.4.3 pertain to different components of a septic system. Accordingly, it is appropriate that subsections 5.1.2.2 and 5.1.4.3 set forth different requirements. These provisions allow for flexibility in design of the septic ventilation system. Subsection 5.1.2.2 requires that each compartment of the septic tank be vented back to the inlet pipe and subsection 5.1.4.3 requires that each compartment of the septic tank be vented to the atmosphere. Although venting through the inlet pipe and a vent stack, located in the house or building, is the most common method of providing air exchange in the septic tank, there may be other design alternatives available.

 

            Comment NO. 140: For many pump vault units, the filter is incorporated into the unit itself, which would be in the dosing compartment. If this is adequate, maybe the language could be changed accordingly.

            Response: The board and department agree that there are some other filtering devices that could be used in place of an effluent filter and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 5.1.5.1 now requires effluent filters in all systems "unless the reviewing authority approves another filtering device such as a screened pump vault."

 

            Comment NO. 141: Subsection 5.1.5.5 states that effluent filter manufacturers must show that filters meet ANSI/NSF standards. Is that still 1/8-inch?

            Response: ANSI/NSF Standard 46 requires all effluent filters to have an effective opening no larger than 1/8-inch.

 

            Comment NO. 142: In section 5.1.6, change word "two" to "multiple," unless the intent is to allow no more than two septic tanks to be used in series to total the required amount of septic tank sizing.

            Response: The board and department agree that the designer should not be limited to a number of tanks when connecting septic tanks in series and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 5.1.6 now allows "multiple" single compartment tanks to be connected.

 

            Comment NO. 143: Subsection 5.1.6.2.A implies each living unit must have its own tank, but subsection 5.1.6.2.B implies living units can share a tank. Does each living unit in a multi-unit structure need its own tank or not?

            Response: The board and department agree that there was an inconsistency and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsections 5.1.6.2.A and 5.1.6.2.B specify a septic tank capacity rather than a septic tank size serving an individual living unit.

 

            Comment NO. 144: Subsection 5.1.7.1.D is poorly written.

            Response: The board and department agree that subsection 5.1.7.1.D should be reworded and have amended the circular in response to the comment. The language for subsection 5.1.7.1.D now states "[a]ll concrete tank sealants must be flexible, appropriate for use in septic tanks, and must conform to ASTM C 990-09."

 

            Comment NO. 145: Requiring that manufacturers mark the name, number of gallons, and depth of bury for pre-cast concrete tanks in subsection 5.1.7.1.E is a good idea, but we are guessing that this information will just be painted on because the manufacturers will not want to change their concrete molds.

            Response: The requirement in subsection 5.1.7.1.E does not specify the manner in which the information must be marked on the tank. Accordingly, painting would be an appropriate method. The intent is that a specific tank's information be available to the installer at the time the tank is placed in the ground. If, over time, it is deemed necessary for the information to be maintained for a longer period of time, the board and department will consider modifying the requirement in a future rulemaking.

 

            Comment NO. 146: In subsection 5.1.7.2, DEQ should require that poly tanks must be watertight. A method and standard for this testing would be useful as an appendix.

            Response: The board and department agree that all tanks should be water tight and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 5.1.7.2 now states "[t]hermoplastic and fiberglass septic tanks must be water tight and made of materials resistant to the corrosive environment found in septic tanks." Methods for testing thermoplastic and fiberglass tanks for tightness are found in subsection 5.1.7.2 and so are not necessary in an Appendix.

 

            Comment NO. 147: Subsection 5.1.7.2 specifically identifies polyethylene as the only acceptable thermoplastic that can be used for tank manufacture. The board and department have approved the use of Infiltrator's IM-1060 tank, which is manufactured with either polypropylene or polyethylene. Structurally, polypropylene has been successfully used to manufacture Infiltrator Quick4 chambers for years. Polypropylene can be used in structural applications in the same ways that polyethylene can be used, provided that minimum physical characteristics are satisfied. DEQ-4 should expand the allowable thermoplastics to include polypropylene.

            Response: The board and department agree that the circular should include all tank materials suitable for wastewater treatment and has amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 5.1.7.2 now refers to all thermoplastic tanks.

 

            Comment NO. 148: Plastic and fiberglass tank manufactures have spent millions of dollars on the tooling necessary to manufacture their products. The equipment is large, complicated, and generally cannot be modified once it has been produced by a toolmaker. Establishing a two-foot distance from the outlet of the tank for markings is likely to create a requirement that many manufacturers cannot comply with, without spending millions of dollars on new equipment. The circular should be amended to allow more flexibility in the location of markings on thermoplastic and fiberglass tanks.

            Response: The board and department agree that thermoplastic and fiberglass tank manufacturers should not have to change current practices if the necessary information is clearly marked on each tank in a visible location. The circular has been amended in response to the comment and subsection 5.1.7.2 now provides that "[a]ll thermoplastic and fiberglass tanks must be clearly marked near the outlet or on the top surface of the tank with the name of the tank manufacturer, tank model, number of gallons, date of manufacture, and maximum depth of bury."

 

            Comment: NO. 149: IAPMO is misspelled in the draft DEQ-4, appearing as "IAMPO."

            Response: The board and department agree that the abbreviation for the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials found in the circular contained an error. The circular has been amended to reflect the correct acronym.

 

            Comment NO. 150: Remove the date from the IAPMO standard reference (page 214, Appendix F), so that the latest version of the standard is applicable.

            Response: The board and department are prohibited from adopting future versions of standards without review and approval. Further, Montana law requires references to specific editions of documents, if they are to be incorporated by reference into administrative rules. The current version, IAPMO/ANSI Z1000-07, is the only version that has been reviewed and approved for use in the circular. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            Comment NO. 151: Why do tanks need to be marked with the name of the tank manufacturer, tank model, number of gallons, date of manufacture, and maximum depth of bury?

            Response: Pre-cast concrete tanks should be marked with the information in subsection 5.1.7.1.B to insure that the appropriate tank is being used for the intended site.

 

            Comment NO. 152: Owners should maintain their tanks in accordance with recommendations from MSU Extension.

            Response: The board and department agree and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Section 5.1.9 now states "[o]wners of septic systems should follow the septic tanks maintenance recommendations published by Montana State University Extension Service ...."

 

CHAPTER 6 SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS

 

            COMMENT NO. 153:  Subchapter 3.2 should have been included as a reference in section 6.1.1, along with subchapter 3.3.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that section 6.1.1 should direct the reader also to subchapter 3.2 and the suggested change has been made to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 154:  What drainfield square footage do we give a "Presby" type network that does not necessarily need a two-foot wide trench?

            RESPONSE:  A proprietary system, such as a "Presby," may have design-specific trench widths that are dictated by the manufacturer. The board and department agree that subsection 6.1.3.3 did not address those types of systems and the circular has been amended to allow flexibility with proprietary design configurations. Subsection 6.1.3.3 now provides that "[a]bsorption trenches, utilizing proprietary design configurations, with effluent meeting NSF 40 criteria for 30 mg/L BOD₅ and 30 mg/L TSS, may have trench separation distances that meet manufacturer recommendations."

 

            COMMENT NO. 155:  Why does subsection 6.1.3.2 prohibit interlacing a replacement area between primary area trenches? If the minimum distance between trench centers can be maintained, what is the justification? Interlacing between primary area trenches can save a few feet, which is sometimes necessary in small spaces.

            RESPONSE:  Replacement areas are intended for sites where the primary drainfield has failed. Failed systems often leave a site and surrounding area unusable for wastewater treatment. If the two sites are interlaced, the replacement area may be compromised. No change has been made to the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 156:  Is it correct that, if the reviewing authority approves lateral spacing of less than five feet on center for a proprietary system classified as an "other absorption method," then subsection 6.1.3.3 does not apply? Also, is it correct that, if the reviewing authority approves lateral spacing of greater than 18 inches for a proprietary system classified as an "other absorption method," then subsection 6.1.3.4 does not apply?

            RESPONSE:  Subsections 6.1.3.3 and 6.1.3.4 refer to standard absorption trench design. Proprietary absorption trench designs are addressed in subchapter 6.6.

 

            COMMENT NO. 157:  The proposed changes to subsection 6.1.3.5 now require that absorption system trenches must be 24 to 36 inches in depth. Up to 80 percent of effluent treatment by soils occurs within the top two feet of the soil cap. By keeping trenches at 24 to 36 inches, the primary treatment media is eliminated. Why isn't a shallow, pressure-dosed system with a soil "cap" promoted?  Doesn't this allow for more aerobic activity and better treatment?

            RESPONSE:  The circular has been configured to offer a variety of trench designs. Subchapter 6.1.addresses design and construction of drainfield trenches that are 24 to 36 inches deep and subchapter 6.2 addresses the design and construction of drainfield trenches that are 6 to 24 inches deep. Both subchapters 6.1 and 6.2 allow either gravity distribution or pressure-dosing of the system. The board and department agree that a large percentage of treatment occurs within the aerobic zone of the soil horizon systems, but also recognize that trenches less than 24 inches deep must be protected against freezing and surfacing effluent. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 158:  With regard to subsection 6.1.3.6, DEQ should not allow serial distribution unless it is a manufacturer requirement for a proprietary system. DEQ should encourage methods that promote equal distribution whenever possible.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that methods promoting equal distribution should be encouraged, but all systems must comply with the requirements of this circular. Longer trenches, as seen in serial distribution, can cause failure in gravity systems. Subsection 6.1.3.6 now states "[i]f more than 500 lineal feet, or 1000 square feet, of absorption area, calculated before applying any reductions, is needed, then pressure distribution must be provided."

 

            COMMENT NO. 159:  Subsection 6.1.4.1 should not direct applicants to select the most conservative USDA application rate. The USDA soils report is a generalization of what soils are in an area, which is why site-specific information is required in the first place. Larger drainfields should not be required on the basis of a broad brush report when site-specific information is available. The report can, however, be useful in areas with highly variable soils. Under these circumstances, the reviewing authority may want to use the report to increase the size of a drainfield.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that an important consideration for determining drainfield sizing is site-specific information and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.1.4.1 now states that the USDA soils report must be submitted, but also incorporates more site-specific information.

 

            COMMENT NO. 160:  With regard to subsection 6.1.4.3, requiring a full size replacement area is problematic on sites that have size constraints and is inconsistent with section 6.6.1 on elevated sand mounds. Assuming that an advanced treatment unit was required for a smaller drainfield, an advanced treatment unit would also be required when the replacement area was put to use. Accordingly, a full size drainfield replacement should not be needed.

            RESPONSE:  A full size replacement area is required for all systems, including elevated sand mounds and those with advanced treatment. Effluent from advanced treatment typically has very low BOD₅ and TSS effluent characteristics. If the drainfield fails, it will be from other factors than the use of advanced treatment. Since the board and department cannot predict what those factors may be, a full-sized replacement area is required. If site constraints do not allow this configuration, the designer may request a deviation from the requirement. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 161: In subsection 6.1.4.3.A, after stating that the area may be reduced by 50 percent, add another sentence that states "[i]f 6 inches of sand meeting ASTM C-33 is applied over infiltrative surfaces having percolation rates faster than 3 minutes per inch, then the 50 percent area reduction will additionally apply to these soils." This will make subsection 6.1.4.3.A consistent with subsection 1.1.3.3 and section 2.1.7, Table 2-1.1(a).

            RESPONSE:  Neither subsection 1.1.3.3 nor section 2.1.7, Table 2-1.1(a) allow a 50 percent reduction in the absorption area for the use of sand lined trenches. A 50 percent or 25 percent reduction in final absorption area is only allowed for those systems that demonstrate they can effectively reduce the amount of BOD₅ and TSS in the effluent prior to final distribution in native soils. The circular allows a reduction in the absorption area for some proprietary distribution systems utilizing a six-inch deep sand bed or trench that have demonstrated, through an independent third party, that BOD₅ and TSS levels have been reduced to 30 mg/l each. The rate of reduction is dependent upon the hydraulic capacity of the receiving soils. The level of treatment and reduction in effluent BOD₅ and TSS levels in a six-inch deep sand-lined trench using standard distribution methods has not been demonstrated to the department. Furthermore, for sand-lined trenches and deep trenches, the minimum depth of sand is 12 inches.  For systems utilizing intermittent and recirculating sand filters as described in chapter 7, a 24-inch column of sand is required. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 162:  In clay soils, should a reduction in absorption area be allowed? Do advanced treatment systems reduce volume of effluent?

            RESPONSE:  Reduction of an absorption area size should be allowed in clay soils. Advanced treatment systems do not reduce the volume of effluent, but they do reduce the amount of BOD₅ and TSS in the effluent. The lower BOD₅ and TSS levels allow receiving soils a greater hydraulic capacity. In clay soils, this greater capacity relates to a 25 percent reduction in final drainfield sizing for those systems that meet the testing criteria and performance requirements for NSF Standard No. 40 for Class 1 certification, or meet the testing requirements outlined in ARM 17.30.718 for 30 mg/L BOD₅ and 30 mg/L TSS.

 

            COMMENT NO. 163:  Subsection 6.1.5.1 should make it clear that uniform distribution of effluent must be verified at time of installation via "squirt test."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department do not require a squirt test to determine uniform distribution at time of installation. It does require that uniform distribution be verified. Alternative methods might include mechanical or electronic pressure measuring equipment. No change has been made to the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 164:  In section 6.2.1, the board and department should consider deleting the reference to "uniform pressure distribution." It would be better to provide a consistent and unambiguous sand specification. ASTM C-33 is commonly available throughout Montana.

            RESPONSE:  Uniform pressure distribution and sand lining is not required for all shallow-capped systems described in section 6.2.1. Uniform pressure distribution is, however, required for all sand lined trenches as described in subchapter 6.4. Uniform distribution is required to facilitate maximum treatment of effluent through the use of the entire sand column and to avoid the creation of conduits or cones of depression in the sand matrix.  Although ASTM C-33 sand is commonly used for construction, the board and department cannot confirm that it is commonly available to all markets at all times. Moreover, it is the department's and the board's intent to allow flexibility with design components that will not affect the functionality of a system. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 165:  The requirement that the soil cap extend two feet beyond the required absorption area, as contrasted with simply capping the trenches, results in significant additional expense and increases the visual impact of these systems. Also, it is not clear why the soil cap is required to be sandy loam or loamy sand in shallow-capped designs, whereas deep trenches may use native backfill. The requirements for shallow-capped systems should be relaxed, not made more restrictive.

            RESPONSE:  The requirements for shallow-capped trench designs are proposed to insure stability of the system and to protect against the potential for effluent to surface. Requiring that the soil cap extend two feet beyond the absorption trench, insures there will not be areas of depression where surface water may accumulate between trenches. A soil cap is required to be sandy loam or loamy sand to insure adequate aerobic activity within the trench systems. It is assumed, in a shallow-capped system, that material will need to be imported from off site to construct the cap, whereas, with a deep trench, there will be excess native material to backfill the drainfield. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 166:  Section 6.2.1 should be rewritten in order to clarify that natural soil is needed.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular. Section 6.2.1 now states "[a] shallow-capped absorption trench is used to maintain a 4-foot natural soil separation .…"

 

            COMMENT NO.167:  Consider providing concise numerical definitions of porous soils in section 6.2.1. Also in section 6.4.1, consider providing concise numerical definitions of rapid permeability situations in order to be consistent with other sections.

            RESPONSE:  Table 2.1-1 and footnote (c) explain the specific requirements for porous or fast-draining soils. Those soils are classified as having a percolation rate of less than three minutes per inch and may be found at a number of different sites. Because Table 2.1-1 specifies the requirements for fast-draining soils, a specific numerical definition in each absorption trench chapter is not necessary. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 168:  Subsection 6.2.3.2, is unclear. Is DEQ requiring the chamber be no higher than ground level or no lower than ground level?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the language in subsection 6.2.3.2 was unclear and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.2.3.2 now states "the top of the chamber must be no higher than the level of the natural ground."

 

            COMMENT NO. 169:  Trenches more than 12 inches deep don't need a shallow cap.

            RESPONSE: Subsection 6.2.2.1 defines shallow-capped absorption trenches as those with infiltrative surfaces between six to 24 inches below the natural ground. A soil cap is required for these configurations, because trenches constructed less than 24 inches in depth must be protected against freezing and surfacing effluent. The soil cap acts as both an insulator and a physical barrier to ensure pathogens and other elements of untreated effluent do not become a public health threat. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 170:  Specifying only chambers for a type of effluent distribution is too restrictive. Subsection 6.2.3.2 should be reworded to include other manufactured distribution devices.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that there may be many types of effluent distribution and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Subsection 6.2.3.2 now states "the top of the chamber or other manufactured distribution device must be no higher than the level of the natural ground."

 

            COMMENT NO. 171:  The board and department received comments both in support of and in opposition to deleting at-grade systems from the circular. If at-grade systems are reinstated, please remove the 500 gallon-per-day restriction for these systems.

            RESPONSE:  It is not the intent of the board and department to limit potential design options for designers. The board and department agree that a properly designed, at-grade system should not be limited to 500 gallons per day. In response to this comment, the board and department have amended the circular to reinstate the at-grade absorption trench design standards at subchapter 6.3 and the circular will not limit at-grade systems to 500 gallons per day.

 

            COMMENT NO. 172:  Subsection 1.1.3.1 states that there should be no depth limits to deep absorption trench designs. Accordingly, the references to a maximum of five feet below natural ground surface in section 6.4.1, Drawing 6.3-1, and Drawing 6.3-2 should be deleted.

            RESPONSE:  It was not the intent of subsection 1.1.3.1 to provide design standards for deep absorption trench designs or to assume that variable depths are acceptable. The different absorption trench designs described in this circular are intended to meet the many site characteristics encountered for subsurface systems. A deep absorption trench must not be more than five feet below ground surface to insure adequate air transfer, oxygenation, and treatment of effluent. The suggested change to section 6.4.1 has not been made. However, the board and department have amended subsection 1.1.3.1 of the circular in response to this comment. That subsection now states "[t]he bottom of the trench must not be more than 5 feet below natural ground surface."

 

            COMMENT NO. 173:  Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.2 should provide a consistent and unambiguous sand specification. ASTM C-33 sand is commonly available throughout Montana and should be required by these sections.

            RESPONSE:  Medium sand will meet the same performance criteria of ASTM C-33 sand for both backfilling deep absorption trenches and sand lining trenches. If ASTM C-33 sand is available it can also be used. DEQ-4 specifies medium sand to allow flexibility in design of systems. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 174:  In section 6.4.3, DEQ should require pressure distribution for deep trenches. Backfilling with sand into a better soil layer is basically the same as using a sand liner. It creates a system analogous to systems that already require pressure.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the required sand lining in deep trenches is similar in design to that of a standard sand-lined trench and have amended section 6.4.1 in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 175:  What should the square footage be for a drainfield in a "Presby" type network that doesn't necessarily have or need a two-foot wide trench?

            RESPONSE: Proprietary systems, such as a "Presby," must meet all of the requirements of this circular. Sand-lined trenches must meet the same requirements as standard absorption trenches found in subsection 6.1.3.3, which states "[a]bsorption trenches, utilizing proprietary design configurations, with effluent meeting NSF 40 criteria for 30 mg/L BOD₅ and 30 mg/L TSS, may have trench separation distances that meet manufacturer recommendations."

 

            COMMENT NO. 176:  Section 6.6.1 says "manufactures" when it should say "manufacturer's."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 177:  In subsection 6.6.2.1, DEQ should include a requirement that manufacturers must provide evidence that chamber construction complies with IAPMO PS 63-2005.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.6.2.1 should require leaching chambers to be constructed in accordance with IAPMO PS 63-2005 and have amended the circular in response to this comment to state that the evidence must be made available to the reviewing authority upon request.

 

            COMMENT NO. 178:  With regard to 6.6.2.3, why is a full size replacement area required when using gravelless chambers in the primary area? The use of this technology allows a reduction in drainfield sizing.

            RESPONSE:  A full-size replacement area is required to allow flexibility for future systems. When a gravelless system fails, the owner may want the option to install a different type of system. Requiring a full-size replacement area allows flexibility in design where owners build bigger homes than developers had intended. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 179:  Distribution pipes in gravelless chambers should be hung from the top of the chamber rather than placing them at the bottom of the chamber. This protects the pipes from plugging with fines and may provide better storage capacity if the infiltrator has periodic standing effluent.

            RESPONSE:  Manufacturers of infiltration chambers allow both spray down and spray up configurations. Consequently, both designs will be allowed in the circular. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 180: In subsection 6.6.2.3, DEQ should keep the sentence stating "[c]hambers that are 15 inches in width will be equal to an 18-inch trench width, a 22-inch width chamber will be equal to a 24-inch trench width, and 34-inch width chambers will be equal to a 36-inch width trench for calculating absorption system sizing."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that information regarding the effective width of the chambers may be helpful to the reviewing authority and have amended the circular in response to this comment by reinserting that sentence.

 

            COMMENT NO. 181:  Subsection 6.6.3.1 is unclear. This subsection seems to conflict with the definition of absorption system in section 1.2.3 and distribution pipe in section 1.2.20. Subsection 6.6.3.1 does not make it clear whether only a certain portion or the entirety of the "other absorption system" must have a pore space.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.6.3.1 should be clearer and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.6.3.1 now requires that other absorption systems "meet or exceed the same system performance as conventional gravel-filled absorption systems ...." The reference to "pore space of gravel" has been deleted.

 

            COMMENT NO. 182:  Subsection 6.6.3.3 is awkwardly written. DEQ should remove "review prior to" at the end of the sentence, leaving "approval."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.6.3.3 is confusing and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.6.3.3 now states "[a]ll other absorption systems must be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, although specific proprietary designs which conflict with requirements of this circular will require reviewing authority approval."

 

            COMMENT NO. 183:  Subsection 6.6.3.4 is awkwardly written. DEQ should remove "Approval for" at the beginning of the sentence and change the last word to "approval."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.6.3.4 is confusing and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Subsection 6.6.3.4 now states "[a] reduction in other absorption system sizing may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as supported by documentation and justification submitted by the manufacturer to the reviewing authority for approval."

 

            COMMENT NO. 184:  With regard to section 6.7.1, elevated sand mounds are used for multiple purposes including addressing minimum separation distances. The statement that one can use the mound to achieve separation is misleading and should be changed. Fill, or a sand mound, cannot be used to achieve separation to a limiting layer. Sand mounds are also used in confined areas that require a smaller footprint and in circumstances where a trench system is not preferred.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that section 6.7.1 should be clarified and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 6.7.1 now states that sand mounds "may be used to achieve separation distance between the treatment system and a limiting layer. Four feet of natural soil must be maintained between the modified site and the limiting layer."

 

            COMMENT NO. 185:  Should section 6.7.1 use the phrase "advanced treatment" to describe all elevated sand mounds?

            RESPONSE:  Elevated sand mounds were at one time considered advanced wastewater treatment systems. However, they no longer have this classification. Sections A and B refer to those elevated mound systems that have advanced treatment as described in Chapter 7. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 186:  Section 6.7.1 should allow smaller elevated sand mounds for systems that meet NSF 40 Class 1 criteria for reduced BOD₅ and TSS levels.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 6.7.1 now states "[i]f an advanced wastewater treatment system is used prior to distribution in an elevated sand mound, or the distribution system meets the requirements of NSF 40 Class 1, as described in subsection 6.1.4.3 …."

 

            COMMENT NO. 187:  The proposed measurement in subsection 6.7.2.2 creates more difficulty for locating sand mounds. The amount of effluent wicked into the 4:1 vs 3:1 slope is most likely not significant. The language in the prior version of DEQ-4 is preferred.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and the circular has been amended to reinsert that setback distances should be determined from the toe of the system as if the 3:1 slope were used. Subsection 6.7.2.2 now states "[s]eparation distances must be measured from the outside of the mound where the topsoil fill meets the natural ground surface or, if the design uses a lesser slope for landscaping purposes, where the toe of the mound would be if the 3:1 slope were used."

 

            COMMENT NO. 188:  It is disappointing that the sand mound has become the default system for areas that have 48 inches depth to ground water. Sand mounds are very good at removing BOD₅ and TSS, but fall short on nitrogen removal. I believe the wide spread misuse of the Bauman Schaeffer nondegradation model is doing a major disservice to the waters of our state. The circular should try to encourage the use of better nitrogen removal systems.

            RESPONSE:  This circular addresses the requirements for the design and preparation of plans and specifications for subsurface wastewater treatment systems. ARM Title 17, Chapter 30 discusses nitrogen removal and degradation of state waters. These subjects are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The board and department allow flexibility in design of systems and do not promote one design over another. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 189:  In subsection 6.7.2.4, please clarify what is meant by "the land area 25 feet from the toe ... must not be disturbed?"

            RESPONSE: The toe of the sand mound is the area of the system that interfaces with the natural ground surface. In other words, no disturbance of the natural ground is allowable for a lineal distance of 25 feet down gradient from any location on the perimeter of the sand mound. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 190:  With regard to 6.7.2.5, requiring sand mounds to have a separate replacement area is unreasonable and unnecessary. Mounds are often used for site-limited conditions and this requirement would be virtually impossible to meet in many settings.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the requirement for a separate replacement area may not be appropriate for all sites that use an elevated sand mound and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.7.2.5 now grants the reviewing authority the discretion to require a separate replacement area.

 

            COMMENT NO. 191:  The requirement that all wastewater strength discharged to an elevated sand mound be residential strength is already stated in subchapter 3.2.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the requirement that all wastewater strength discharged to an elevated sand mound be residential is already stated in subchapter 3.2 and have deleted subsection 6.7.3.2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 192:  In subsection 6.7.3.4 (now subsection 6.7.3.3), consider specifying whether or not the bottom area application rate of 0.8 gpd/sf is before or after any area reductions detailed in section 6.7.1.

            RESPONSE:  The area application rate of 0.8 gpd/ft² is applied before any reductions are applied. Subsection 6.7.3.3 now includes the clarification "before any reduction in bed size allowed in this circular."

 

            COMMENT NO. 193:  Why is the application rate for a mound in subsection 6.6.3.4 (now subsection 6.7.3.3) being reduced from 1.0 to 0.8? The basis for this change should be explained. Is there a maximum application rate that should not be exceeded?

            RESPONSE:  The design application rate in Table 2.1-1 for coarse sand is 0.8 gpd/ft². Since the same sand is used both in the sand mound and found on site for use in a standard absorption trench, the maximum application rate should not exceed 0.8 gpd/ft².

 

            COMMENT NO. 194:  An application rate of 0.8 gpd/ft  in subsection 6.6.3.4 (now subsection 6.7.3.3) is already generous. Why provide a section allowing an increase if "finer sand" is used?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the application rate of 0.8 gpd/ft  is adequate and have amended the circular in response to this comment. The language allowing an increase in application rate, if finer sand is used, has been eliminated from subsection 6.7.3.3.

 

            COMMENT NO. 195:  Subsection 6.6.3.4 (now subsection 6.7.3.3), should provide that the sand specifications are stated as maximum fines passing the No. 200 or the No. 100 sieve. Typical ASTM C-33 requires less than three percent passing the No. 200.

            RESPONSE:  The ASTM C-33-13 specifications for fine aggregate indicate a maximum of three percent fines passing the number 200 sieve or, conversely, a maximum of two percent passing the number 100 sieve. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 196:  The shape of a sand mound is often determined by the space available. Perhaps there should be some discretion allowed to the reviewing authority for local permitting in subsection 6.6.3.7 (now subsection 6.7.3.6).

            RESPONSE:  The length of an elevated sand mound should be at least three times the width. The board and department agree that site conditions may require different design specifications and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.7.3.6 now states "[t]he length of a sand bed should be at least three times the width of a sand bed .…"

 

            COMMENT NO. 197:  In 6.6.3.7 (now 6.7.3.6), why must leaching chambers be placed edge to edge if we are measuring the absorption area based on three-foot wide trenches, even in sand beds?

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the chambers are not required to be placed edge to edge. Flexibility in design is allowed, if gravelless trench technology is installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. In response to this comment, the circular has been amended to delete the requirement and now requires leaching chambers to be placed "in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations."

 

            COMMENT NO. 198:  The requirement to measure depths after settling is unclear. How does one monitor this after installation and inspection?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.7.3.8 should not require measurements after settling and have amended the circular to delete the sentence "These depths are measured after settling."

 

            COMMENT NO. 199:  Subsection 6.7.4.1 should clarify if the key can infringe upon the four feet of natural soil separation. The potential to key into the four-foot separation and meet the separation regulation must be understood.

            RESPONSE:  A minimum of four feet of natural soil between the bottom of the key or scarified area to a limiting area must be maintained for all elevated sand mounds. The board and department agree that the requirement should be clarified and the circular has been amended in response to this comment. Subsection 6.7.4.1 has been amended to state "[a] minimum of 4 feet of natural soil from the bottom of the plowed surface, scarified surface, or key to the limiting layer must be maintained."

 

            COMMENT NO. 200:  Why would a system designer have the expertise to determine if trees located within an elevated sand mound will enhance nutrient uptake? Although this language was in prior versions of DEQ-4, it does not make sense.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.7.4.3 now states "[a]boveground vegetation must be closely cut and removed from the ground surface throughout the area to be utilized for the placement of the fill material. Tree stumps should be cut flush with the surface of the ground, and roots should not be pulled. Trees may be left in place within the 3:1 side sloped portion of the fill."

 

            COMMENT NO. 201:  Certification and as-builts should be required for all wastewater systems. This requirement should be located at the front of the document and apply to all systems.

            RESPONSE:  This circular addresses the design and preparation of plans and specifications for both simplistic and complex subsurface wastewater treatment systems. Certification and as-builts can provide valuable information regarding final component specifications and construction techniques, but offer limited value for more simplistic designs. The board and department believe that requiring as-builts on all systems would be overly burdensome, expensive to both the public and the regulating authority, and difficult to enforce. The circular has been amended to reflect the suggested change for the following systems:

 

Public Wastewater Systems, regardless of type, in accordance with ARM 17.38.101

Cut, Fill, and Artificially Drained Systems (subchapter 2)

Drainfields that serve 10 or More Living Units (section 3.1.2)

High Strength Wastewater Treatment Systems (section 3.2.4)

Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems (section 4.1.5)

Raw Wastewater Pumping Stations (section 4.2.2.2)

Elevated Sand Mounds (subsection 6.7.4.6)

Evapotranspiration Absorption and Evapotranspiration Systems (section 6.8.5)

Gray Water Irrigation Systems (subsection 6.10.5.2)

Intermittent Sand Filters (section 7.2.6)

Recirculating Sand Filters (section 7.3.3)

Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Units (section 7.4.8)

Chemical Nutrient Reduction Systems (section 7.5.3)

Alternative Advanced Treatment Systems (section 7.6.4)

 

            COMMENT NO. 202:  Evapotranspiration is misspelled.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and the suggested change has been made to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 203:  This chapter does not include the statement "ET and ETA must meet the same requirements as a standard absorption trench as described in Chapter 6.1, except where specifically modified in this chapter." Subsections 6.8.2.1, 6.8.2.2, and 6.8.3.8 could be removed if this sentence was included.

            RESPONSE:  While section 6.1.2 specifies setback distance requirements for standard absorption trenches, subsection 6.8.2.1 also clarifies that the distance between setbacks must be measured from the edge of the ET or ETA system. This clarification is necessary for these systems and this portion of subsection 6.8.2.1 has not been changed in response to the comment.

            The board and department agree that subchapter 6.1 addresses wastewater flow rate and sizing applications and the circular has been amended to delete subsections 6.7.2.2 and 6.7.3.8 in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 204: Providing that ET and ETA systems should be used in conjunction with wastewater flow reduction strategies is not the best solution. Perhaps it would be more helpful to require time-dosing with a dose counter so that wastewater flow can be monitored.

            RESPONSE: ET and ETA systems are not required to be pressure-dosed and may be gravity fed into the absorption area. Consequently, the requirement for a dose counter would not be appropriate for a gravity fed system. The board and department agree that, for continued success of these systems, wastewater flow strategies should be implemented. Depending on system design and configuration, other approaches to reduce wastewater flow might include, but are not limited to, repairing plumbing leaks, water conservation fixtures, or altered use practices. It is the intent of the circular to provide flexibility in design and the suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 205:  The requirement in section 6.8.1 for a percolation test for all ETA systems may not be necessary or appropriate, if the local health authority knows the soils well.

            RESPONSE:  ETAs are typically installed in soils with very slow percolation rates and success of these systems is highly dependent on proper sizing. Percolation tests provide an additional source of information regarding the hydraulic capacity of the receiving soils. Whereas conventional subsurface wastewater treatment systems have periods of saturation and drying, an ETA system provides continuous wetting of the soil interface. To better anticipate the receiving capacity of the soils, 24 hours of presoak of the hole, prior to the test, is required for ETAs. This requirement exceeds the typical procedures outlined in Appendix A. The circular has not been amended in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 206:  The reason for allowing ET/ETA systems on 15 percent slopes is not apparent. Please explain why the increase in slope is reasonable. Typically these systems require fairly flat ground to install, unless they are installed in multiple stepped beds.

            RESPONSE:  ET and ETA systems may be installed on slopes with a 15 percent grade if terracing, serial distribution, and other necessary design features are incorporated. Berms can be used on the downhill side to accommodate proper bed depth. The increase in allowable slope allows flexibility in design and siting for these systems.

 

            COMMENT NO. 207:  Add "if necessary" to the end of last sentence of subsection 6.7.2.3 (now subsection 6.8.2.2).

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that protective berms or trenches may not be necessary in all design situations and have made the suggested change to the circular. Subsection 6.8.2.2 now states "[p]rotective berms or drainage trenches must be installed to divert storm drainage and snow-melt run-off away from the system, if necessary."

 

            COMMENT NO. 208:  Subsection 6.7.3.1 is inconsistent with the diagram provided.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.8.3.1 should be clarified and have amended the circular to match the diagram. Subsection 6.8.3.1 now states "ETA and ET systems must not be deeper than 30 inches from the natural ground surface."

 

            COMMENT NO. 209:  What are the specifications for the void ratio and the wicking characteristics? The information in subsection 6.8.3.2 is not useful unless the purpose and specification is understood.

            RESPONSE:  Void ratio is a numeric description of the volume of voids in a media to the volume of solids and allows the designer to accurately estimate the wastewater capacity of an ET or ETA system. Void ratios change depending on the type of media. For example, loose sand with angular edges has a void ratio of 0.65, whereas glacial till has a void ratio of 0.3. To allow flexibility of design, ranges for acceptable void ratio are not specified in this circular. However, calculations determining system volume must include void ratio for size justification. Wicking characteristics for sands can be a useful tool in determining the amount of evaporation that will occur in ET and ETA systems. The wicking characteristics for sands are usually laboratory determined, but are often not readily or easily available. The board and department have amended the circular in response to this comment by requiring wicking information only when it is available.

 

            COMMENT NO. 210:  In subsection 6.8.3.3 make "system" plural.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 211:  Subsection 6.8.3.5 could be clearer. Consider rewording to state that "[a] minimum of 2 inches of sand fill must be placed between the native soil surface and/or any projecting rocks and the liner."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 212:  The last paragraph of subsection 6.8.3.6 should clarify that measurements are to be taken from the center of the pipe.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.8.3.6 should be clearer and have amended the circular in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 213:  Subsection 6.8.3.6 should be consistent throughout. Insure the term "other absorption systems" is used consistently rather than "other absorption trenches."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to the comment to replace the term "other absorption trenches" with the term "other absorption systems" in subsections 6.2.3.2 and 6.8.3.6 and sections 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 6.11.4, and 7.1.4.

 

            COMMENT NO. 214:  The language in subsection 6.8.3.7 contains a conflict. ETA soil is defined as an impervious layer, but the system is installed within that layer.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that ET and ETA systems must not be used in soils with percolation rates greater than 240 mpi, as this is the definition of an impervious layer. For soils with initial percolation rates greater than 240 mpi (see Appendix A), a percolation test following the ASTM D5093-02 test procedure entitled Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer with Sealed-Inner Ring may be used to determine if the percolation rate is still greater than 240 mpi. Only those soils with rates less than 240 mpi, using either the Appendix A procedure or ASTM D5093-02 test procedure, may accept ET or ETA systems. The board and department have amended the circular in response to this comment. Section 2.1.7, Table 2.1-1(f), subsection 6.8.3.7, and Appendix A now clarify those requirements.

 

            COMMENT NO. 215:  Subsection 6.8.3.7 should say "soils with a percolation rate of 120-240 mpi" as it would not be correct to use an ETA with >120mpi.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that ET and ETA systems can be used in soils with percolation rates between 121-240 mpi and have amended 6.8.3.7 and Table 2.1-1 in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 216:  In subsection 6.8.3.7, add some additional information (including common name, if applicable) about what the ASTM D5093-02 test is.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the name of the procedure would provide clarification of the requirement. The common name for ASTM D5093-02 is Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using a Double-Ring Infiltrometer with a Sealed-Inner Ring and is now listed in Appendix A in response to this comment. The test method (double-ring infiltrometer) describes a procedure for measuring the infiltration rate of water through in-place soils using a double-ring infiltrometer with a sealed inner ring. It is required for soils where the initial percolation rate is slower than 240 mpi. This standard has been adopted by reference, because it would be unduly cumbersome to publish the entire procedure.

 

            COMMENT NO. 217:  With regard to 6.8.3.8, making ETA beds 50 percent larger would be very expensive and require a large area for both the initial and replacement system. It would be better to simply plan for the replacement area. The basis for this size increase is not understood unless there is a history of failure. Any wastewater system design has the same progressive failure issues.

            RESPONSE:  ET and ETA beds are generally used in areas where the underlying soils preclude the use of a conventional system. Additionally, the uncertainty of the quality of the wastewater entering the system coupled with the lack of information regarding evaporation rates and transpiration rates has led to premature system failure rates in some areas of the state. The factor of safety adds additional capacity to account for changing site conditions while allowing flexibility for these designs in difficult site conditions. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 218:  Subsection 6.8.3.9 requires a water balance and then admits that the data to do the balance is not readily available. Perhaps an appendix for sizing ET or ETA systems would be useful, if this level of detail is required. Additionally, the reason for this level of detail for small systems is not understood. Finally, it is not clear what "C" is asking for regarding storage capacity. What is the required storage capacity?

            RESPONSE:  Pan evaporation data for Montana usually is tabulated at dam sites and can be found at NOAH web sites or in the DEQ office. The department has accepted data that is not site-specific, but would prefer site-specific data, if it can be obtained.

            Appendix E provides examples for sizing ET & ETA systems.

            Subsection 6.8.3.7 clarifies, for the designer, soils that can be used for an ET or ETA system and the corresponding percolation test requirements. This level of detail is necessary because ET and ETA systems are generally used in areas where the underlying soils preclude the use of a conventional system.

            The storage capacity requirement is necessary for months when there is little or no evaporation. A water balance will show the required extra storage capacity for the non-evaporative months. According to subsection 6.8.3.9, ET and ETA systems must be sized to accept total flow in less total flow out for a one-year period. The capacity must take into account site-specific design information, including wastewater flow rates, precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, and soil absorption.

 

            COMMENT NO. 219:  Subsection 6.8.3.9.B does not need to reference the soil application rate procedure. That regulation already applies to this subsection.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have deleted the reference in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 220:  In subsection 6.8.3.9.D, change "may need to" to "must."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 221:  Add "The" to the beginning of the last sentence in subsection 6.8.4.4.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 222:  In subsection 6.8.4.5, it is not clear how soil depth should be measured after settling, when this should be inspected, and who should do the inspection.

            RESPONSE:  There are a number of methods to measure soil depth, two of which are soil cores or pot-holing. This information must be provided by the system owner with certification and as-built plans provided in accordance with section 6.8.5. As-built plans are required within 90 days of construction.

 

            COMMENT NO. 223:  Subsection 6.7.4.6 is redundant with the new language in subsection 6.7.2.3 (now subsection 6.8.2.2).

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the requirement for berms around ET and ETA systems to divert runoff is mentioned in both subsections 6.7.4.6 and 6.8.2.2 and have amended the circular to delete the language in subsection 6.7.4.6.

 

            COMMENT NO. 224:  Why does section 6.8.5 require an O & M plan for an ET or ETA system? ET and ETA systems are very simple to construct. O & M plans don't seem necessary.

            RESPONSE:  The operation and maintenance of an ET or ETA system is important to insure proper functioning. Although the construction of the systems may be simple when compared to other systems, regular monitoring of effluent levels within the system can alert operators to problems that can be rectified before system failure. Information regarding the O & M of a system would be included in a plan and should be available to the system owner.

 

            COMMENT NO. 225:  In subchapter 6.8, the ET and ETA Trench Design Schematic has what appears to be a regulatory statement: "Gravel trenches or leaching chambers required for sand media. Trenches or chambers are not required for gravel media."  This language is not found in the body of the circular. DEQ should add this language to subchapter 6.8 or delete it from the schematic.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree that the statement "Gravel trenches or leaching chambers are required for ET and ETA systems constructed with a sand media. These methods of distribution may be used, but are not required, for ET and ETA systems constructed with a gravel medium." is regulatory in nature and have amended the circular to add this language to subsection 6.8.3.6.

 

            COMMENT NO. 226:  Drip systems can be used on slopes steeper than 25 percent. DEQ-4 now incorporates the slope restriction found in the ARMs. While it would require a rule change, DEQ should consider adopting language that would allow drip systems on steeper slopes.

            RESPONSE:  The comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, the board and department may consider a future rulemaking to address this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 227:  The requirement that a replacement drainfield cannot be installed within the same footprint of an existing drainfield should not apply to drip systems. A drip system would be an excellent replacement system over an existing system since it uses only the topsoil and vegetation for treatment and disposal.

            RESPONSE:  ARM 17.36.320(3) requires that proposed subsurface sewage treatment areas must include an area for 100 percent replacement of the system. The suggested amendment would require amending an administrative rule. Accordingly, the suggested amendment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, placing a drip system over an existing drainfield is already a possibility. Applicants who would like to use a drip system as a replacement over an existing system may request a variance.

 

            COMMENT NO. 228:  The last paragraph in section 6.9.1 should be moved to section 6.9.3.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that standards relating to the required size of a subsurface drip system should be grouped together and have amended the circular to move the last paragraph in section 6.9.1 to subsection 6.9.3.4.

 

            COMMENT NO. 229:  Subsections 6.9.3.3.A and B are redundant with 6.9.3.1. DEQ should eliminate the redundancy.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that both 6.9.3.3.A and B are redundant with 6.9.3.1 and the circular has been amended to delete the sentence "[w]astewater and gray water entering a subsurface drip system must include both primary and advanced treatment as described in this circular."

 

            COMMENT NO. 230:  It is not clear what "minimum wastewater characteristic criteria" means regarding drip irrigation systems. The filtration, BOD₅, and TSS reduction provided by advanced wastewater treatment is necessary, but the meaning of this language is not clear.

            RESPONSE:  Advanced treatment systems reduce the amount of BOD₅ and TSS in wastewater and are necessary for subsurface drip systems. The level of treatment can vary, but the minimum amount is generally a reduction to 30mg/l BOD₅ and 30 g/ml TSS. These levels of treatment have been found to be achieved through the systems outlined in Chapter 7. The board and department agree that the language should be clarified and have amended subsection 6.9.3.3.B in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 231:  DEQ should delete the following unnecessary words: in the first sentence of subsection 6.9.3.3.C, take out "for all subsurface drip systems" and in the third paragraph of C, take out "on all systems" in the first sentence and "in all soil types" in the second sentence.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the phrases "on all systems," "for all subsurface drip systems," and "in all soil types" do not contribute to the clarity of the regulation and the circular has been amended to delete the references.

 

            COMMENT NO. 232:  DEQ should require all subsurface drip systems to operate in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the manufacturer's specifications should be the requirement and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.9.3.3.C now requires operation "at pressures indicated in the manufacturer's specifications."

 

            COMMENT NO. 233:  In subsection 6.9.3.3, the automatic backflush is unnecessary. As long as the system can be flushed manually, and the orifices are 1/8 inch in diameter, the requirements should not be different than a pressure-dosed system. Additionally, local equipment distributors may not be able to provide equipment that complies with this requirement. Engineers should be allowed the discretion to determine if this is necessary.

            RESPONSE:  Backflushing of system lines and filters are necessary to prevent clogging of both the drip line and the emitters and is required in this circular. The emitters used in a subsurface drip system are smaller than typical 1/8 inch diameter orifices used in a pressure-dosed system and, therefore, require different flushing techniques. Automatic backflushing insures that the pressures recommended by the manufacturer are achieved. Most manufacturers recommend automatic backflushing for their systems and the pumps to provide this service should be available through local equipment distributors. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 234:  In subsection 6.9.3.3.E, the second paragraph seems out of place because it refers to more than supply and return manifolds. Consider creating a new subsection.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the information regarding the materials and design criteria used for subsurface drip components would make sense as a separate subsection and have amended the circular in response to the comment to add a new subsection 6.9.3.3.F and to renumber the subsequent subsections.

 

            COMMENT NO. 235:  Drainback of drip lines is essential. Does subsection 6.9.3.3.G refer to excessive drainback?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that drainback is important for subsurface drip system drip lines and is required as shown in subsection 6.9.3.3.G.

 

            COMMENT NO. 236:  Remove the language "for all systems" from subsection 6.9.3.3.K.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the phrase "for all systems" does not contribute to the clarity of the regulation and have amended the circular to delete that phrase from subsection 6.9.3.3.K.

 

            COMMENT NO. 237:  Subsection 6.9.3.3.L seems to be contradictory. The language for valve boxes is given as both "must" and "should."

            RESPONSE: At least one air/vacuum relief valve is required at all high points of the supply or manifold lines of the system and must be included in the design. This subsection has been reviewed by both the manufacturers of Netafim and Geoflow subsurface drip systems and common practice was included as "should" requirements. Those requirements were not necessary to protect public health and safety and have been deleted. The board and department agree that this subsection should be clarified and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Subsection 6.9.3.3.L now states "[a]ir/vacuum relief valve(s) must be installed at the high point(s) of each supply or return manifold. All valves must be installed in a valve box with access to grade and include a gravel sump. They must have constant venting to the atmosphere."

 

            COMMENT NO. 238:  Installation within frozen ground, or when there is not adequate time to revegetate, can create system function issues. The reviewing authority should have the authority to determine the installation season for drip irrigation systems.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that seasonal timing for the construction of a subsurface drip system may be important to system functionality and have amended the circular in response to this comment. Subsection 6.9.3.5 now provides the reviewing authority with the discretion to direct the timing for installation based on weather conditions.

 

            COMMENT NO. 239:  Table 6.10-1 dealing with gray water systems reveals an inconsistency in the daily flow rates of DEQ-4. Section 3.1.2 states that the daily flow per person is 100 gpd using a normal system. With modern toilets using 1.6 gallons per flush, this number cannot be correct unless the average person is flushing a toilet 31 times per day. The average person does not use 100 gallons per day.

            RESPONSE:  The design flow rates for whole house wastewater and gray water reflect the difference in flow stream origins from different fixtures or sources in a typical residence or commercial building. Gray water systems collect water from showers, sinks, baths, and washing machines. Combined black water and gray water wastewater systems collect wastewater from gray water sources along with kitchen and toilets. Maximum total hourly flows as high as 100 gallons per hour are not unusual from whole house systems given the variability of typical fixture and appliance usage characteristics and residential water use demands. Hourly flows exceeding this amount can occur in cases of plumbing fixture failure or appliance misuse such as a broken pipe or fixture or dripping faucets. The design flow rates for gray water and whole house systems in this circular are intended to reflect peak water usage for a residence or commercial business along with a factor of safety. The factor of safety required for gray water systems is smaller due to the exclusion of both black water uses and in some cases kitchen sources. It is the department's and board's intent to provide guidance for design that is reasonable and that will protect most systems from hydraulic overloading and premature failing. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 240:  Why is storm water excluded from drip irrigation systems?

            RESPONSE:  Rainwater is excluded from all onsite wastewater systems to insure proper functioning and attenuation of expected peaks. The inclusion of rainwater into a drip irrigation system would cause large peaks in hydraulic loading and over sizing of components and potential operational issues when flows decrease. Reasonable estimates of flow rates are required to insure proper functioning of the system. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 241:  Subsection 6.10.3.13 should be rewritten. It makes more sense to start that subsection with the phrase "[w]hen a supplemental year round system is used …."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.10.3.13 should be clarified and have amended the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 242:  "Whole house wastewater" is a confusing term. Use "black water" instead.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that subsection 6.10.3.13 should be clarified and have amended the circular in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 243:  Remove the "and" from the end of subsection 6.10.4.6.A. This subsection should be consistent with the rest of the lettered statements in the circular.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 244:  Subsections 6.11.2.3 and 6.10.3.4 are redundant.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the two subsections are redundant and have amended the circular to delete subsection 6.10.3.4 and renumber the subsequent subsections.

 

            COMMENT NO. 245:  The language pertaining to covering with straw or geofabric should be consistent throughout the circular.

            RESPONSE: The board and department agree and have amended section 6.3.3 and subsections 6.1.5.4, 6.7.3.5, 6.7.4.5, 6.8.4.3, 6.11.3.5, 7.2.2.11, and 8.4.2.7 of the circular in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 246:  The last sentence in subsection 6.11.3.6 should be rewritten to say "High clay or silt content soils may not be used for backfill." This is more direct than using the ambivalent term "avoided."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 247:  Subsection 6.11.3.6 has a good description for backfill requirements. That description should be used for all systems.

            RESPONSE:  The backfill requirements for systems in this circular vary depending on design. In some cases, sands are required and in others, loams. Beds are unique in that often the native soil is used for backfill prior to a topsoil cap. Accordingly, the circular needs to explain the criteria for each system's backfill requirements differently. The suggested change has not been made.

 

            COMMENT NO. 248:  The second sentence in section 6.11.4 should start with the word "Gravelless."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that section 6.11.4 omitted the word "gravelless" and has amended the circular in response to the comment. Section 6.11.4 now starts with the word "gravelless."

 

CHAPTER 7 ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

 

            COMMENT NO. 249:  In section 7.1.1, the phrase "special consideration" is too vague. Consider rephrasing this section to allow the reviewing authority to impose additional design requirements for systems with extremely low BOD₅ levels.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that section 7.1.1 could provide more specific guidance and have amended the circular in response to the comment to state that "[t]he reviewing authority may impose additional design requirements for systems with extremely low BOD₅ levels to insure adequate treatment of effluent in the soil."

 

            COMMENT NO. 250:  The same typographical error appears in subsections 7.1.1, 7.4.1 and 7.6.2. The word "are" should be replaced with "area."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Subsections 6.1.4.3.A, 6.7.1.A, 7.1.1.A, 7.2.1.A, 7.3.1.A, 7.4.1.A, and 7.6.2.A have been amended to change the word "are" to "area."

 

            COMMENT NO. 251:  Requiring a separate, full-size replacement area is not always feasible. While this may be appropriate for larger public systems, this is a very difficult standard for the small lot situation that we often deal with in local permitting.

            RESPONSE:  A separate subsurface absorption replacement area, sized without reductions, protects a landowner's ability to continue to use their property in the event of a system failure. Failure of a system with advanced treatment is likely due to site conditions that were not apparent at the time of design or beyond the abilities of the advanced treatment system. Requiring a full-size replacement area insures that, when a system fails, the owner of the property will have flexibility to design an adequate replacement system without site constraints. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 252:  In section 7.2.1, the word "were" is used when it should say "where."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular to correct the typographical error in sections 7.1.1, 7.2.1, and 7.3.1.

 

            COMMENT NO. 253:  DEQ should allow the area to be reduced by 50 percent if six inches of sand, meeting ASTM C-33, is applied over infiltrative surfaces having percolation rates faster than three minutes per inch.

            RESPONSE:  A reduction for the sizing of an infiltrative surface is allowed by systems that include advanced treatment, not because there is an application of ASTM C-33 sand, but because of historical evidence that these systems produce lower amounts of BOD₅ and TSS than standard absorption systems and adequate treatment levels of effluent are achieved. Subsection 1.1.3.3 and section 2.1.7, Table 2-1.1(a) both reference soils that have very fast percolation rates and situations where the formation of an initial biomat can be problematic. In these environments, it is important to slow the rate of effluent through the soil matrix so that an effective biomat can form. To slow the rate of effluent and to help formation of the biomat, ASTM C-33 sand, or equivalent, is applied to the infiltrative surface. It has not been demonstrated that a reduction in absorption area results in adequate effluent treatment for sand-lined trenches and beds. The two scenarios are different and the circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 254:  In subsection 7.4.7.1, DEQ should keep the language from the last version of DEQ-4, unless there will be a prohibition on using effluent disinfection in conjunction with ATUs.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that sampling ports for ATUs using effluent disinfection are an important part of the design of these systems and have amended subsection 7.4.7.1 to state that "[f]or ATUs using effluent disinfection to meet the fecal coliform criteria, the sampling port must be located downstream of the disinfection component, including the contact chamber if chemical disinfection is used, so that samples will accurately reflect disinfection performance."

 

            COMMENT NO. 255:  In subsection 7.4.7.2 the reference to section 7.4.6 does not address protection against unauthorized intrusion. Should subsection 7.4.7.2 actually reference subsection 7.4.4.2?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the incorrect section was referenced and have amended subsection 7.4.7.2 of the circular to reference subsection 7.4.4.2 instead of section 7.4.6.

 

            COMMENT NO. 256:  In section 7.5.2, is the EPA manual that is listed the current version of this document?

            RESPONSE:  The EPA manual referenced in section 7.5.2 is the, On-Site WastewaterTreatment Systems Manual (February 2002). If other, more recent versions exist, they were not referenced as part of this rulemaking and are not applicable to this circular.

 

CHAPTER 8 MISCELLANEOUS

 

            COMMENT NO. 257:  In section 8.1.1, DEQ should replace "retention" with "storage" to keep this section consistent with the definition of a wastewater treatment and disposal system. Using consistent language reduces the potential for someone to argue that a holding tank is not a wastewater treatment and disposal system.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that consistent terminology should be used whenever possible and have amended section 8.1.1 in response to the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 258:  Section 8.1.4 should say "... in Chapter 5 ...."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have made the suggested change to the circular.

 

            COMMENT NO. 259:  Holding tanks that are not properly stabilized will stress at the sewer pipe inlet if the tank is emptied during high ground water season. We have seen multiple leaks because of this in tanks that are emptied frequently. In section 8.1.6, DEQ should require that an engineer or other qualified party insure that tanks are stabilized against flotation. We have tanks in our county that are in high ground water settings and we find it important that the stabilization be calculated by an engineer or qualified party, i.e., the pre-cast concrete company, since this is an expertise not commonly held by the local health authority.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that buoyancy and flotation of holding tanks must be evaluated and stabilized where high ground water conditions exist. The board and department also agree that it is important to have a qualified individual make this determination. The board and department have amended the circular in response to the comment and section 8.1.6 now states that such tanks "must be evaluated for buoyancy by a qualified individual and flotation prevented. The tanks must be a single pour (seamless) tank design ...."

 

            COMMENT NO. 260:  In subsection 8.2.2.2, DEQ should require that, in high ground water settings, vault toilets must have a stabilized design by an engineer or other qualified party.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that, in high ground water sites, vault toilets should be protected against flotation and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Subsection 8.2.2.2 now requires that a "vault must be evaluated for buoyancy by a qualified individual and flotation prevented."

 

            COMMENT NO. 261: Local governments are permitted to install vault toilets under ARM 17.36.918.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that vault toilets may be approved under ARM 17.36.918 and have amended the circular in response to the comment to delete the reference to "public recreational facilities operated by governmental institutions" from subsection 8.2.2.2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 262:  Subsection 8.2.2.4 should specify that the construction standards for an unsealed pit privy are found in subchapter 8.3.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the applicable section of the circular should be referenced when additional requirements are stipulated. Subsection 8.2.2.4 now refers the reader to section 8.3.2.

 

            COMMENT NO. 263:  In subsection 8.3.3.3, add the word "abandoned" before pit. Also the requirement that the abandoned pit should be marked does not make sense. After a short amount of time there is no health or safety hazard to be concerned about.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the requirements in subsection 8.3.3.3 apply to abandoned pit privies and that the requirement, that they be marked as abandoned, is an undue burden to the property owner. The circular has been amended in response to this comment and subsection 8.3.3.3 now states "[the] abandoned pit must be filled with soil, which is free of rock. There must be sufficient fill material to allow for 12 inches or more of settling." The requirement that the site must be marked has been deleted.

 

            COMMENT NO. 264:  Section 8.5.2 should make it clearer that "100 percent replacement site" refers to having enough room to put in a full-size system.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the requirements for replacement area for a waste segregation replacement site should be clarified and have amended the circular in response to the comment. Section 8.5.2 now provides that the replacement site have "adequate area for a full-size system if waste segregation is not used."

 

            COMMENT NO. 265:  Subsection 8.5.3.1.K should refer to MCA Title 75, Chapter 10 not the ARMs.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree and have amended the circular to make the correction.

 

            COMMENT NO. 266:  Subsections 8.5.3.1.A and 8.5.3.2.B seem to have some unnecessary requirements. DEQ should strike the word "either" and the phrase "or demonstrate through a third party." We recommend replacing the word "provide" with "have."

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that requiring the applicant to provide documentation, as to whether the composting or incinerating toilet meets the requirements of NSF Standard 41, is unnecessary, if the unit has documentation. The board and department believe that a third independent party can certify that a composting toilet or incinerating toilet is able to meet the testing requirements of NSF Standard 41 without actual certification from the National Sanitation Foundation. The circular has been amended and subsections 8.5.3.1.A and 8.5.3.2.B now reflect that the applicant must have documentation or demonstrate that the unit is able to meet testing criteria.

 

            COMMENT NO. 267:  In subsections 8.5.3.1.K and 8.5.3.2.G, DEQ requires compliance with CFR Part 503 and Title 75, Chapter 10, Part 2, MCA. These subsections are too lengthy to be easily understood. If it is not possible to simplify the requirements and include them in the circular, then we suggest DEQ create guidance to assist local reviewing authorities and the regulated community with determining and understanding disposal requirements.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department understand that the requirements for disposal under 40 CFR Part 503 and Title 75, Chapter 10, Part 2, MCA, are extensive. This is the reason they are not included in the circular and are adopted by reference. The department is available to work with reviewing authorities and the regulated community to aid in understanding the disposal requirements. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 268:  Subsection 8.5.3.2.F should be reworded to make it clear that the device must be able to handle the maximum possible load that would be experienced during full time usage.

            RESPONSE:  The usage of an incinerating toilet is highly variable and definitive estimates are not readily available. It is the intent of this circular to provide practical design guidance for the reviewing authority where those standards exist. Requiring that an incinerating toilet be capable of accommodating full- or part-time usage is not for sizing purposes but for operational purposes. This is to insure the incinerating toilet can be utilized in all settings.  The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 269:  Subsections 8.5.3.1.L and 8.5.3.2.J state that the owners of composting and incinerating toilets shall maintain the waste disposal system. This statement could be made for any wastewater system. It is not clear why it is stated here. Perhaps this is related to smell that may be considered a public nuisance?

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that all wastewater systems must be maintained to insure proper function and to protect public health. Composting and incinerating toilets, however, are unique systems that require continuous attention. Improper maintenance can lead to cleaning difficulties, public health concerns due to unprocessed material, and a public nuisance due to smell. It is particularly important that owners maintain the waste segregation systems for composting and incinerating toilets. For this reason, subsections 8.5.3.1.L and 8.5.3.2.J have not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 270:  DEQ should require deed restrictions to insure that the requirements in sections 8.6.3 and 8.6.4 are fulfilled.

            RESPONSE:  Section 8.6.3 requires that future property owners must be made aware of all permit, monitoring, operation, and maintenance requirements of an experimental system. Section 8.6.4 imposes these requirements. However, other adequate methods, such as written notice, are available, and the board and department wish to allow sellers flexibility. A deed restriction is one possible method of disclosure. Sections 8.6.3 and 8.6.4 have not been changed in response to this comment.

 

APPENDIX A PERCOLATION TEST PROCEDURE

 

            COMMENT NO. 271:  DEQ should not remove Percolation Test Procedure II from Appendix A. Method II was incorporated as an approved method of determining percolation rates in the transition from WQB-4 to circular DEQ-4. In the same transition, the pre-soak time for Test Method I was reduced from a minimum 8-hour pre-soak to a 4-hour pre-soaking period (unless soils met sandy soils draining criteria). Frequently, Method I tests performed in finer soil fractions (<0.4 gpd/ft²) utilizing the 4-hour pre-soak have yielded results that are not consistent with site soils and exhibit faster percolation rates than should be associated with site soils. In all cases where a second Method I test was conducted utilizing a minimum 8-hour pre-soak, a percolation rate consistent with soils was achieved. Conversely, when conducted according to prescribed procedures and graphically extrapolated utilizing the "best straight line of fit," Method II tests have consistently provided percolation rates in accordance with the site soils regardless of soil consistencies. It is also significant to note that Method II is much more efficient and cost-effective in terms of both the time required and the volume of water that must be supplied for completion of percolation test using this method versus Method I.

            RESPONSE: The results from the Method II percolation tests are highly variable depending on the experience of the site evaluator and the type of soil. Method I and Method II, of Appendix A, are similar in efficiency and accuracy for coarse, fast-draining soils, but differ significantly in fine, slow-draining soils. Under Method I, fine, slow-draining soils are required to have a 4-hour pre-soak whereas no pre-soak is required for Method II. Method I requires a minimum of one hour of testing after the pre-soak to achieve statistically consistent readings. Method II requires the evaluator to take seven readings and provide a graphically extrapolated best-fit line to determine final percolation rate. While Method II may be more cost and time efficient than Method I, it may not yield reliable results, because it often takes more than seven readings to achieve saturation of the soil. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 272:  I am happy the DEQ took out the Perc Type II test from Appendix A.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department acknowledge the comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 273:  It is our firm belief that Percolation Test Procedure II is a viable tool for site analysis that should remain within the accepted procedures and not be combined with the Appendix B soil and site characteristics. It is our opinion that a percolation test can stand alone as the one test that provides a useful, real world, cost effective tool. When it is combined with soil and site characteristics it can diminish the actual in-the-field results that percolation tests provide with other more theoretical soils characteristic data. We wish to point out that using only the soils and site characterization in Appendix B can often require a significant increase in the cost of the site analysis created by the extensive soils testing that we feel is not justified and will stop many projects from moving forward. It is our request that the percolation test procedure be allowed to stand alone in Appendix A and the applicability of the results, as it has always been, up to the discretion of the reviewer.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department have not proposed that percolation tests must be combined with the Appendix B soil and site characteristics. While test pits evaluated in accordance with Appendix B are required for all sites, percolation tests are not. Test pit evaluations have consistently proven a reliable method to determine in-situ soil types, whereas the accuracy of percolation tests vary significantly depending on the skills of the site evaluator and the soil types. It is the intent of this circular to provide guidance to determine the most accurate method for determining soil types and consequently system sizing. The board and department understand that, in some situations, additional information regarding soils is necessary. As stated in section 2.1.5, the reviewing authority may require percolation tests when the soils are variable or other conditions create the need to verify system sizing. The circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

            COMMENT NO. 274:  In tight clay type soils, a longer saturation period is necessary in order to achieve accurate percolation results.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that, in tight clay type soils, a longer saturation period is necessary in order to achieve accurate percolation results. ETA systems using clay, silt, and silty clay soils must have a minimum 24-hour pre-soak as required in section 6.7.1.

 

            COMMENT NO. 275:  The introduction to Appendix A states that percolation tests "are" needed and this is not always the case.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that percolation tests are not always needed to determine absorption system site suitability or to size the absorption system, and have amended the circular in response to the comment. The introduction to Appendix A now states that percolation tests "may be" needed.

 

            COMMENT NO. 276:  In Appendix A, it may be useful to label the SANDY SOIL TEST as such and label the other soils as OTHER SOIL TEST. Under soaking, it speaks of sandy soil test, but it is not immediately clear where to go for this test method

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that labeling the test procedure for different soil types may be useful to the site evaluator. Appendix A of the circular has been changed in response to this comment.

 

APPENDIX B SOILS AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION

 

            COMMENT NO. 277:  Appendix B should be revised. Rather than recommending that soil texture be lab verified, state that the reviewing authority can require lab analysis of soil texture.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department agree that the reviewing authority should be able to require laboratory confirmation of soil texture and results adjusted when necessary. Appendix B of the circular has been changed in response to this comment.

 

APPENDIX C GROUND WATER OBSERVATION WELL INSTALLATION AND MEASURING PROCEDURES

 

            COMMENT NO. 278:  The definition of seasonally high ground water includes "to the upper surface of the zone of saturation." If this means the highest level saturated, ground water monitoring pipes will not pick this up. The pipes will only measure the level where free water reaches. This should be clarified.

            RESPONSE:  Seasonally high ground water, as defined in section 1.2.76, means the depth from the natural ground surface to the upper surface of the zone of saturation, as measured in an unlined hole or perforated observation well. This means the highest level saturated, and, although this will not be seen in ground water monitoring pipes, it will be seen in an unlined hole. Further clarification is not needed, and the circular has not been changed in response to this comment.

 

APPENDIX D OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

 

            COMMENT NO. 279:  We support requiring service contracts for proprietary and high strength treatment systems in Appendix D.

            RESPONSE:  The board and department acknowledge the comment.

 

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

 

            COMMENT NO. 280:  I would like DEQ to make all of the external references available for review. It is difficult to obtain things like the American Concrete Institute standards or an ASTM standard or other standards. We have to pay to get those online. Many of these documents are also referenced in other DEQ circulars. As an example, ACI 318 is a collection of circulars of a variety of different issues. I would like to see DEQ make the specific language from these references in circular available, or make the reference material available so that we could review it against what is being proposed.

            RESPONSE:  2-4-307, MCA, sets forth the standards that must be followed when an agency adopts publications by reference. The department has complied with these requirements. A notice of amendment for adoption of rules for Circular DEQ-4 was published and mailed to interested parties allowing the public additional time to review and comment on all standards that were adopted by reference. A web link to those references was published on the DEQ Subdivision web page and the comment period was extended to July 5, 2013. All references mentioned in proposed Circular DEQ-4 are available for viewing at the Helena Office. In addition to complying with the requirements of 2-4-307, MCA, the board and department have added a new appendix in response to this comment. Appendix F provides additional information where individuals may find the documents adopted by reference.

 

 

            4. No other comments or testimony were received.

 

Reviewed by:                                                BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

 

 

 

/s/ John F. North                                   By: /s/ Robin Shropshire                                   

JOHN F. NORTH                                         ROBIN SHROPSHIRE

Rule Reviewer                                             Chairman

 

Certified to the Secretary of State, November 4, 2013.