Adopted Amendments: N.J.A.C. 7:50-2.11, 5.27, 5.28 and 6.84
Adopted New Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.21 through 10.23
Proposed: February 4, 2002 at N.J.R. 722(a)
Adopted May 10, 2002 by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission,
Annette M. Barbaccia, Executive Director
Filed: July 15, 2002 with substantive and technical changes not requiring additional public notice
Authorized by: New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Authority: N.J.S.A. 13:18A-6j
Effective Date: August 5, 2002
Expiration Date: Exempt
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses:
In association with publication of the proposed amendments in the February 4, 2002 edition of the New Jersey Register, the Pinelands Commission transmitted the proposal to each Pinelands municipality and county, as well as to other interested parties, for review and comment. Additionally, the Pinelands Commission:
Placed advertisements of the public hearing in the five official newspapers of the Commission, as well as on the Commission’s own web page;
Submitted the proposed amendments to the Pinelands Municipal Council pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:18A-7f;
Distributed the proposed amendments to the news media maintaining a press office in the State House Complex; and
Published a copy of the proposed amendments on its web page at www.nj.gov/pinelands.
A formal public hearing was held before the Commission on March 11, 2002. Approximately 25 people attended the hearing. Oral testimony on the rule proposal was received from six individuals. The hearing record can be reviewed by contacting Betsy Piner, Pinelands Commission, P.O. Box 7, New Lisbon, NJ 08064.
Written comments by regular mail, facsimile or e-mail were accepted until April 5, 2002 and were received from 16 parties.
Forms of comment and a list of commenters follows:
Written Comments (*indicates oral comments were also submitted)
February 19, 2002 letter from Joseph M. Maher, Department Head, Atlantic County Department of Regional Planning and Development
February 27, 2002 letter from Barbara Sachau
March 20, 2002 letter from Robert J. Ingenito, Acting Environmental Health Coordinator, Ocean County Board of Health
Undated letter from Nicholas Bontempo
April 4, 2002 e-mail from David Henry, Health Officer, Montgomery Township Health Department
April 4, 2002 letter from Christopher B. Jepson, Section Manager, BCM Engineers
April 5, 2002 e-mail from Mark Lubbers, Vice-President, Aquapoint, Inc.
April 5, 2002 letter from Steven R. Ewing, Secretary, Pinelands Municipal Council
April 3, 2002 letter from Michael J. Gross, Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla
April 5, 2002 e-mail Allyson Blodig, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator, Bio-Microbics, Inc.
April 5, 2002 e-mail from Joshua Gliptis, Project Engineer, Cromoglass Corporation
April 5, 2002 facsimile from Keith Dobie, President, F.R. Mahony & Associates, Inc.
April 5, 2002 letter from Charles M. Kuperus, Secretary, New Jersey Department of Agriculture
*April 2, 2002 letter from Joanne Harkins, Director of Land Use and Planning, New Jersey Builders Association
April 5, 2002 letter from Steven R. Brick, President, Brick Realty Enterprises, Inc.
April 5, 2002 letter from Rich Shinkovich, III, Facilities Coordinator, Ashco-A-Corporation
Oral Comments (no written comments submitted)
March 11, 2002 testimony of John Sarappa, Sarappa Septics
March 11, 2002 testimony of Harry S. Monesson
March 11, 2002 testimony of Francis Pandullo
March 11, 2002 testimony of Nelson Euler
March 11, 2002 testimony of Sandy Mersky
Oral comments were recorded on magnetic tape which is on file at the Commission's office at 15 Springfield Road, New Lisbon, New Jersey. Written comments may be examined or the tapes may be heard during normal business days from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
The Commission’s response to the comments is set forth below.
COMMENT: One individual suggested that copies of the deed notices being required for RUCK septic systems pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(1)(F) and for the five pilot program systems pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6viii be provided to local boards of health and kept with the plans and approvals of such systems.
RESPONSE: The Commission agrees that it would be helpful to keep one copy of the deed notice on file with the plans and approvals at the local board of health or other repository for these documents in addition to filing such deed notices with the county clerk. Such a requirement will be suggested for incorporated into the municipal ordinances which will need be adopted in order to implement the pilot program.
COMMENT: Three individuals commented on the provisions set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(2)(A) which will govern the continued use of pressure dosed septic systems in the Pinelands. Two of these individuals stated that the rule provides an insufficient "grandfather" period for the use of pressure dosed systems on lots of less than 3.2 acres, suggesting that either the continued use of such systems should be permitted for an indefinite period if a Certificate of Filing is received prior to the effective date of the rules or that applicants be able to obtain Certificates of Filing for such systems for a period of one year after the rules take effect. It was suggested that this longer time period is necessary to allow for continued residential development on lots of less than 3.2 acres while the use of the pilot program systems is being phased in. The third individual objected to the "grandfather" period being provided on the basis that it would result in a rush to obtain approval for as many pressure dosed systems as possible when there are already some 1,800 existing pressure dosed systems which do not meet CMP water quality standards. This individual further stated that the Commission ought to require the remediation of those existing pressure dosed systems not in compliance with the CMP.
RESPONSE: The rule strikes an appropriate balance between the Commission’s desire to terminate the use of pressure dosed septic systems which do not meet the two parts per million (ppm) water quality standard contained in N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv on lots smaller than 3.2 acres and the development community’s concern with impacts on projects which are in the pipeline. N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(2)(A) provides the opportunity for pressure dosed systems to be installed up to two full years after the effective date of the rules. The Commission continues to believe this is a sufficient period of time and fully expects that some, if not all, of the pilot program systems will be authorized for use in many municipalities within that period, thereby providing a number of options for applicants seeking to build on lots under 3.2 acres in size. In fact, it is anticipated that some applicants who will be authorized to use pressure dosed systems will voluntarily switch to pilot program systems because of the environmental benefits of using these systems (e.g., cleaner water). The Commission will take steps to facilitate the pilot program systems’ being authorized for use.
In order to clarify the Commission’s intent in the grandfathering of certain applications proposing the use of pressure dosed septic systems, a change is being made at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(2)(A). Rather than requiring that a Certificate of Filing, Certificate of Completeness or preliminary zoning permit be issued prior to the effective date of the rules in order for an application to be considered to be grandfathered, this section will now require only that a complete application for development be submitted to the Commission pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.2 or to a Pinelands municipality which has implemented an alternative permitting program pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-3.81 et seq. prior to said date. The effect of this change is that applicants who file complete applications shortly before the rules take effect will be able to proceed with use of pressure dosed systems even though a Certificate of Filing or other formal determination of completeness is not issued until after the rules take effect. Such applicants must still receive the necessary local board of health approvals within a year of the effective date of the rules and install their pressure dosed systems within a year of obtaining those approvals. However, they will not be penalized by what may be the Commission’s inability to respond to all of the applications received by issuing Certificates of Filing within a matter of days. The intention of the Commission was to issue Certificates of Filing or other completeness documents for any application completed prior to the rules taking effect. If a significant number of applications are received shortly before the rules take effect, this may not be possible. It is anticipated that this change will affect a relatively small number of applicants.
As for the suggestion that the Commission require remediation of existing pressure dosed systems, New Jersey has a long established practice of not requiring the replacement or retrofitting of existing septic systems which were legally installed and in compliance with the requirements which were in effect at the time of plan approval and system construction. Typically, such systems need to be upgraded only upon the occurrence of a system failure as defined at N.J.A.C. 7:9A, generally resulting in sewage on the ground, backing up into a building or contaminating a well with fecal coliform bacteria. When such conditions are determined to exist, it is common for the local health authorities to require that systems be upgraded to come into compliance, or as close to compliance as feasible, with existing standards. N.J.A.C. 7:9A3-3 further requires that any existing septic system which is determined to be malfunctioning or which serves a realty improvement in which either a change of use or expansion is proposed is required to be altered so as to be brought into compliance with current standards. The Commission feels this is adequate. It is anticipated that many of the existing pressure dosing systems will eventually be replaced by the alternate technology systems as the pressure dosing systems age.
COMMENT: One individual stated that any proven technology which meets minimum performance standards should be permitted to be used in the Pinelands and suggested that such a provision might help to mitigate the "monopolistic business circumstances" which could result if only a handful of technologies are authorized. Another individual suggested that the Commission should have the ability to approve the use of systems other than those being authorized in the pilot program when such systems become available and are determined to be acceptable.
RESPONSE: N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(3) provides the opportunity for use of other on-site septic wastewater treatment systems if certain conditions are met. Establishment of the pilot program in no way eliminates this opportunity. Currently, only pressure dosed septic systems are authorized on lots as small as one acre. Under the pilot program, up to four systems (FAST, Cromaglass, Bioclere and Amphidrome) could be authorized for use on one acre lots. Currently, only RUCK and pressure dosed septic systems are authorized for use on 1.5 acre lots. Under the pilot program, there will be six systems (FAST, Cromaglass, Bioclere, Amphidrome, Ashco RFS III and RUCK) which may be used on lots of that size.
COMMENT: One individual stated that the establishment of a pilot program at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.21 is unnecessary and that the Commission should simply adopt rules which authorize the five alternate design wastewater treatment systems for use in the Pinelands, thereby simplifying administrative processes and recognizing that the five technologies in question have been extensively used and tested elsewhere in the country.
RESPONSE: While the Commission acknowledges that the fundamental microbiological treatment processes that are employed in the five pilot program technologies are not new, it does not agree with the contention that a pilot program is unnecessary because these technologies have been extensively used and tested in other locations. Beginning in 2000, the Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee on Alternative Septic Systems undertook an extensive investigation of small scale alternative design wastewater treatment systems which provide both nitrification and denitrification of treated wastewater. The findings of that investigation are contained in the Committee’s "Final Report" dated August 24, 2001 which is available at the Commission’s office. This report indicates that alternative small scale denitrifying technologies have been approved for use in a few other states. However, in most of those cases, management and monitoring of the systems is required to assure proper system performance. Florida, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all currently approve the use of alternative technology systems within what might be termed piloting or monitoring programs. Furthermore, the need for careful long term evaluation of alternative technology systems is clearly recognized throughout the country as is evidenced by the need for programs such as the National On-Site Demonstration Program which is managed by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to actively evaluate alternative, innovative and emerging technologies for advanced small scale wastewater treatment. The existence of this and other technology "proving grounds" is a clear indication of the evolving nature of the state-of the-art in advanced wastewater treatment. Lastly, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) , in partnership with the USEPA has a program for NSF certification of small scale treatment systems on the basis of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal; however, NSF has yet to develop a certification protocol for nitrogen removal. This is further evidence of the innovative, cutting edge nature of nitrogen removal using small scale on-site treatment system technology.
The alternative technology systems included in the Pinelands Pilot Program all rely on a process of biological nitrogen removal which is indeed a process which is based upon sound scientific and engineering principals. The process is a combination of biological nitrification followed by biological denitrification. The process of biological nitrification used in large scale treatment systems relies on the careful monitoring of dissolved oxygen levels, pH and alkalinity and effective treatment is generally dependant on the manipulation of these variables by the system operator to obtain adequate nitrification. The denitrification process similarly requires careful monitoring and the addition of a supplemental carbon source is generally required for efficient denitrification. The alternate treatment systems included in the pilot program are innovative, however, in the approach taken to achieve nitrification and denitrification without relying on a supplemental carbon source or the addition of alkalinity. In addition, large scale systems which collect and treat wastewater from a large number of sources have the benefit of averaging of wastewater characteristics whereas the pilot program systems are subject to much greater variability in wastewater characteristics resulting from flow originating from just a single residence.
The Commission continues to believe that the most appropriate means of implementing the recommendations of its Ad Hoc Committee is through establishment of a pilot program.
COMMENT: Two individuals expressed concern with the implementation of the pilot program at the municipal level, noting that while N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)1 specifies that the alternate design wastewater systems may only be installed in those municipalities which have adopted amendments to incorporate the standards of the pilot program in their local land use ordinances, there is nothing in the amendments which requires municipal adoption of such ordinances. Concern was also expressed with the amount of time it might take for municipal adoption and Commission certification of appropriate ordinance amendments and what this could mean for applicants seeking to build on lots of less than 3.2 acres in size who will no longer be able to use pressure dosed septic systems.
RESPONSE: Just as the Pinelands Protection Act and the CMP recognize that local governmental participation is fundamental to achieving the goals of the Act and the CMP, the Commission recognizes that municipal participation is a critical component of the pilot program now being authorized. This program will be successful only with the full cooperation and support of Pinelands municipalities. The Commission does not believe that the best way to ensure such cooperation and support is to mandate the adoption of ordinances or the approval of the pilot program systems. Instead, the Commission intends to meet with municipal representatives to explain the provisions and benefits of the pilot program, draft model ordinances for use by the municipalities and provide whatever additional assistance may be necessary to facilitate implementation of the program. These efforts will occur during the period between the Commission’s adoption of the rules and their effective date (publication in the New Jersey Register), as well as throughout the duration of the pilot program. The Commission acknowledges that some delay in the implementation of the pilot program will be unavoidable, given the time required for a municipality to adopt an ordinance and for the Commission to complete its certification process. The Commission will, however, make every attempt to ensure that time is minimized, particularly in those municipalities which have zoning districts where residential development on lots of less than 3.2 acres is allowed and sewer service is either not permitted or anticipated. This is not to say that there will not be some municipalities which, despite the Commission’s efforts, either choose not to participate in the pilot program or do not adopt the necessary ordinances in a timely fashion. Should this prove to be a more widespread problem than anticipated, the Commission may choose to revisit the issue at that time and take a different approach.
COMMENT: A number of individuals expressed concerns that the procedural requirements imposed on the manufacturers by N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2 will create time delays in when a pilot program system can actually begin to be used. This section requires the manufacturers’ submission and Executive Director’s approval of specifications and engineering designs (prototypes) for the pilot program systems, descriptions of automatic dialing systems, monitoring protocols, maintenance manuals, sample warranties and maintenance contracts and sample deed notice. Beyond the time implications of these requirements, it was also submitted that the requirements are unnecessary as the pilot program systems have been extensively and successfully used elsewhere.
RESPONSE: The Commission continues to believe that the procedural requirements cited by the commenters are necessary to ensure that the pilot program systems function as anticipated in the Pinelands. The commenter is correct that alternate technologies have been approved and used in other states. As noted previously, the Commission’s research indicates that most of these other state programs require management and monitoring of the systems. The Commission believes such requirements are likewise appropriate in the Pinelands.
In the interest of minimizing the time required to implement the pilot program, the Commission intends to continue working closely with the system vendors to see that prototypical design drawings and specifications, auto-dialer details, monitoring protocols, manuals, warranties, maintenance contracts and sample deed notices are developed, submitted, reviewed and approved in a timely manner. While to some extent implementation of the program requires that the five vendors themselves take the first step, the Commission has every expectation that this will occur in short order. For its part, the Commission will be working to develop and provide models for the vendors to utilize and modify as necessary. As is the case with the provision of model ordinances for municipal consideration, it is anticipated that this will be accomplished during the several month period between adoption of the rules and their anticipated effective date.
COMMENT: Two individuals commented on the requirement at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2iii for manufacturer submission of a monitoring protocol for the pilot program technologies. One individual indicated that having each manufacturer provide a separate monitoring protocol specific to each technology will lead to confusion, non-standard sampling techniques and non-comparable data. This individual suggested that the Commission be responsible for establishing minimum sampling standards and protocols, both to simplify administration and assure uniformity. The other commenter stated that the monitoring protocol should be provided by a reviewing wastewater engineer rather than by the manufacturers of the technologies being authorized.
RESPONSE: The purpose of requiring each vendor to submit a monitoring protocol is to allow each system manufacturer discretion in designing the appropriate sample collection port or mechanism appropriate to each technology. As some systems discharge effluent under pressure and other systems discharge via gravity, the Commission will permit each vendor to design a sample collection procedure best suited to the system. As part of the review and approval process required in N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2iii, the Executive Director will make a determination as to whether the proposed protocol meets the objectives of the pilot program and is consistent with the Department of Environmental Protection Field Sampling Procedures Manual and with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Consistency among sampling protocols for the five pilot program systems will be encouraged to the extent practical.
COMMENT: One individual commented that the Commission itself should develop the deed notice language required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2vi and provide a model to the manufacturers for their use.
RESPONSE: The Commission appreciates this suggestion and intends to provide such a model to the five manufacturers for their consideration and use.
COMMENT: Two individuals expressed concern with the minimum lot size requirements set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)3 for the five pilot program technologies. Both of these individuals stated that the lot sizes being established are too small, based on a general belief that the Commission has been authorizing too much development in the Pinelands. One commenter suggested that 10 acres be required for all residential development in the Pinelands and the other stated that the Commission should seek to limit the potential for growth.
RESPONSE: The amendments and new rules being adopted in no way affect permitted residential densities or minimum lot size requirements in the Pinelands Area. They merely allow for the possible use of other types of wastewater systems in areas which are already zoned to permit unsewered development on lots of less than 3.2 acres in size. No additional development on one acre lots beyond that already authorized in municipal ordinances which have been certified by the Commission will result from the pilot program. Further, the Commission is comfortable with the requirements specified in N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)3 and feels that there is a reasonable expectation that the five pilot program systems will be able to comply with CMP water quality standards on the specified lot sizes.
COMMENT: Two individuals submitted comments on the requirements and procedures at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)5. One individual requested that copies of the Executive Director’s annual and interim reports on the pilot program be provided to the Pinelands Municipal Council. The other commenter raised questions as to the use of the review of local approvals process as a means for disallowing continued use of a particular pilot program system. Specifically, it was noted that an applicant would not necessarily specify which of the pilot program systems was proposed for use when an application for development is initially filed with the Commission. In addition, a concern was raised that the Commission’s ability to "instantly stop" further installations of a specific system would cause problems in terms of contracts between applicants and manufacturers and suppliers. It was suggested that the rule be amended so that the authority to instantly stop installation is explicit and specifically includes provisions to void contracts for the system in question while Commission review is pending and until such time as a final determination is made.
RESPONSE: There is nothing in N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)5 which implies the need for an applicant to identify the specific type of septic system to be used when submitting an application for a Certificate of Filing from the Commission. If no system is specified, Certificates of Filing for unsewered residential development on lots of less than 3.2 acres will merely note the need to utilize one of the pilot program systems (or a RUCK system on lots of at least 1.5 acres) for purposes of compliance with Comprehensive Management Plan water quality standards. Septic permits subsequently issued by local boards of health and submitted to the Commission for review will obviously need to identify the technology being approved. It is these local approvals, as well as associated municipal building permits, which are subject to the review procedures referred to in N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)5 and set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.31 and 4.42.
The term "instantly stop installation" in the rule summary was used in the context of the Commission’s having the ability to cease the continued use of a technology which has been determined in an annual or interim report to have a significant problem. The mechanism for the "instant stop" would be through the existing review of local approvals process. A local approval does not take effect until the Commission issues a letter indicating that no review by the Commission of that approval is necessary. In the absence of such a letter, the project could not proceed, thus eliminating the potential to install an alternative technology system which has been deemed to be problematic. If an Executive Director’s report indicates a problem with one or more systems, no approvals for such a system or systems would be allowed to take effect once the report was issued, resulting in an "instant stop" to the utilization of that system or systems. The current rules require that a hearing be scheduled when an approval is not allowed to take effect, giving applicants and vendors an opportunity to address the issues raised by the Executive Director’s report. The Commission would expect that contracts negotiated between technology providers and builders would contain a provision indicating that the contract obligation to purchase a treatment unit would become void if the technology were to be eliminated from the pilot program.
Copies of the Executive Director’s annual and interim reports will be provided to all interested parties.
COMMENT: Three individuals objected to the limitation on the number of pilot program systems that may be installed in any one subdivision provided at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6i. These commenters submitted that the 10-system limit is unnecessary and should be eliminated as the systems in question have proven performance records in other states. One of the commenters also noted that while the 10-system limit may be intended to encourage the use of community systems, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection "has not adopted regulations authorizing the use of community systems" and therefore the Commission has created a "catch-22" situation. Finally, it was submitted that if initial indications are that a particular pilot program technology is performing well, the rule should provide flexibility and discretion to the Executive Director to permit more than 10 of that particular technology to be used in a single development.
RESPONSE: By limiting the number of a single technology to no more than 10 units in a single subdivision, the rule provides protection from the potential for localized water quality degradation which might result from concentrating multiple units which may not attain the anticipated level of nitrogen reduction. The Commission is aware that the pilot program systems have been used in other states; however, as detailed above, the use of these systems has been limited and subject to management and monitoring requirements. The Commission continues to believe that the 10-system limitation and other requirements associated with the pilot program are appropriate and necessary, given the unique resources of the Pinelands which the Commission is charged with protecting.
While the rule would encourage the use of community based wastewater treatment systems in areas where permitted (Pinelands Villages, Pinelands Towns and Regional Growth Areas) and proximity of residences makes their use practical, it does not negate or otherwise affect the Department of Environmental Protection’s authority to review community systems and issue the required treatment works approvals and, if necessary, NJPDES approvals. No additional procedural requirements are imposed on applicants by the 10-system limitation. The only consequence is that those applicants proposing more than 10 units who elect not to use community systems will have to work with more than one pilot program system vendor. This will help to assure use of multiple technologies and the avoidance of monopoly situations. Based on past experience, the Commission believes it is unlikely that many subdivisions of more than 10 units utilizing individual on-site systems will be proposed.
The pilot program requires at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)5 that the Executive Director submit an annual report to the Commission describing the installation, maintenance and performance data for each technology. If the Commission were to determine, based on such a report, that there is a compelling reason to modify the limit of 10 alternative design pilot program systems utilizing the same technology in any one development, the Commission could propose to alter the provisions of the limitation at that time through the normal rulemaking process.
COMMENT: Two comments were received on N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6ii which requires that each pilot program system be equipped with automatic dialing capability and that mechanical malfunctions be reported to the Executive Director within five days of their occurrence. One individual suggested that the auto-dialer used to report a system malfunction be programed to call the local licensed treatment system operator, not the manufacturer or its agent in order to save time and allow for timely response to an alarm condition. This individual also requested that a 10-day period be provided for the reporting of malfunctions. The second commenter requested a 45-day period.
RESPONSE: The rule provides for the auto-dialer to contact the manufacturer or its agent. Nothing in N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6ii precludes the manufacturer from having the dialer notify a local treatment system operator who would be serving in the capacity of the vendor’s agent under the provisions of the pilot program. The Commission continues to believe that the five-day reporting period is appropriate; therefore, no change is being made.
COMMENT: Four parties commented on N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6iv which sets forth requirements for effluent sampling and the reporting of lab analysis results to the Executive Director. One individual recommended that only an independent certified third party should be permitted to collect and analyze effluent quality samples to minimize the potential for deception and fraud. Another party stated that composite sampling should be permitted whereby samples from individual homes would be combined and analyzed in the aggregate. This would facilitate evaluation of the overall efficiency (percent removal) of a technology, not in terms of individual system performance but in the aggregate. It was suggested that this approach would help reduce analytical costs. A third party recommended that the Commission require the sampling of all pilot program systems, not merely a representative sample, so as to provide a more complete database upon which to base evaluation of the pilot program. One individual recommended that a protocol be developed for obtaining influent samples as a diagnostic tool for troubleshooting in the event that effluent concentration limits are not met. One party submitted that the Commission should simply require quarterly sampling as a standard condition of approval and further indicated that the phrase "responsible for providing resources" is unnecessarily confusing as the collection and analysis of effluent samples is a standard requirement of the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment systems, one which would be part of a standard service contract between the manufacturer and the homeowner. Finally, a request to extend the period within which lab results must be reported from five to 45 days was submitted, as was the suggestion that the Commission develop standardized reporting forms and define penalties for non-compliance with the sampling and reporting requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6iv in the CMP.
RESPONSE: The language in the rule indicates that the technology vendor will be responsible for funding the laboratory monitoring of wastewater effluent during the minimum three year monitoring period during which quarterly effluent sampling is required. The rule does not require that the sampling be done by the vendor and, in fact, the Commission anticipates that in most cases, sampling will be done by representatives of the State certified laboratories who will be completing the analysis required by N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6iv. All procedures required by such laboratories for the collection and analysis of effluent samples will need to be followed. The Commission appreciates the concern that there would be an opportunity for deception or fraud unless an independent third party were charged with collecting the required effluent samples and will make every effort to ensure that opportunities for such activities are minimized.
The Commission concurs that it would be in the best interest of the system vendors to sample and analyze all systems as opposed to sampling from a limited number of systems. However, the rule was deliberately drafted to provide the opportunity for a manufacturer or agent to request a reduction in the systems sampled where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Executive Director that sufficient information would be obtained to enable evaluation of a technology. The Commission continues to believe that is appropriate to provide this flexibility.
The Commission recognizes that obtaining influent data may be useful in troubleshooting if a system has a problem. However, comparing monitoring results from influent samples with monitoring results from effluent samples is inherently complex because all of the subject systems involve a process by which nitrified wastewater is commingled with raw wastewater. The Commission would be interested in exploring ways to overcome this limitation with any vendor who chooses to pursue influent monitoring. The Commission believes the system manufacturers are best positioned to develop a diagnostic troubleshooting protocol.
The Commission sees no reason to extend the reporting period for laboratory data beyond the required five day period. The analysis being completed by the laboratories is fairly straightforward and common and should be able to be provided in a short time period. To facilitate this process, the Commission intends to develop standardized reporting forms for use by all technology vendors. As for the suggestion that penalties for non-compliance be specified in the CMP, N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)5 clearly indicates that if the Executive Director determines that a manufacturer or its agent is not adhering to any of the requirements of the pilot program, subsequent local approvals for a development proposing the use of that manufacturer’s system shall be determined to raise a substantial issue with respect to conformance with the CMP. In other words, further installations of that particular system would be discontinued until such time as the manufacturer demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the pilot program. This would include the effluent sampling and reporting provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6iv.
COMMENT: Comments on N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6v were received from four parties. One individual suggested that a licensed professional engineer should be required to certify proper installation of a pilot program system as it is impractical for the system manufacturer to do so, given that the manufacturer’s field representatives are not engineers and their firms do not have the resources to remain onsite to observe the entire installation of components provided by others. Another of the commenters concurred and further suggested that county inspectors or design engineers might be best equipped to perform the necessary certifications. A third party objected to the requirement for certification of proper installation on the basis that it is unnecessary and will cause delays in the approval and construction process. This individual also suggested that Board of Health inspectors should be trained and certified on the installation of the five pilot program systems. Finally, one party expressed the opinion that a strong regulatory component will be necessary to ensure that systems are properly installed.
RESPONSE: The Commission does not anticipate delays as a result of the manufacturer’s certification of as-built construction. Many of the technology vendors insist on having the right of final approval as they have a vested interest in the proper functioning of each system. The Commission does not intend to create a new certification program for alternative system installers. The Commission does intend to assist in the development of training programs for design engineers, system installers, and health department inspection personnel; however, the certification of as-built construction will be required from the technology manufacturer, or agent (pertaining to the vendors treatment system components) and from a State licensed professional engineer pertaining to the entire system (including the residence design flow, system invert elevations, system location, disposal field construction, disposal field soils, etc.)
The vendor will be required to certify the proper installation of the denitrification treatment unit. This requirement serve to protect the technology vendor from a situation in which a system fails to meet performance expectations due to improper installation. The majority of technology vendors are in full support of the program requirement that provides them with the opportunity to observe the installation prior to backfilling and obscuring the system from view. There is no existing certification program for septic system installers and the Commission does not see the need to establish a certification program for Pinelands installers.
COMMENT: Nine parties submitted comments on N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii which requires that each pilot program system be covered by a five-year warranty and maintenance contract, that the system manufacturer or its agent conduct an annual inspection and complete any necessary maintenance or repairs, and that any such maintenance and repairs be reported to the Executive Director and local board of health within 10 days. One individual recommended that a 25-year warranty be required. Another questioned the practicality of a five year warranty and five year maintenance contract and whether all of the pilot program system manufacturers have agreed to these provisions, the implication being that the provisions are onerous, especially for systems that have been proven effective in other states. A third party indicated that the requirements of this section will have significant cost implications for consumers, perhaps making the sale of the pilot program systems cost prohibitive for most homeowners. It was also submitted that the rule lacks standards regarding what needs to be covered in the warranty and maintenance contract.
With respect to requirements for periodic inspections, one party stated that such inspections should be the responsibility of the board of health or a newly formed entity, rather than the manufacturer. This same party indicated that it seemed likely the required inspections could be performed at a cost to the homeowner which would not exceed the cost for typical public sewer service. Another party stated that only licensed New Jersey wastewater treatment plant operators should be authorized to complete inspections and repairs; the manufacturer should not be charged with this responsibility. This individual further suggested that inspections be performed within one month of installation to verify proper operation of the system and that subsequent site visits and inspections be governed by effluent sampling requirements (e.g., either quarterly or monthly visits). Another individual stated that while the rule provides for access to a property upon reasonable notice by the local board of health, the Commission and its agents for inspection and monitoring purposes, local boards of health are already authorized to gain access without reasonable notice for purposes of investigating reported septic system malfunctions.
Finally, one party noted that repairs to malfunctioning systems must be reported to the local board of health immediately (per N.J.A.C. 7:9A-3.4(b)), not within 10 days as specified at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii. Another party requested that the manufacturer be given 30 days to report maintenance and repair activities to the Executive Director, rather than the 10 days required in the rule.
RESPONSE: The rule establishes minimum maintenance standards and requires the technology vendors to submit sample warranty and maintenance agreements to the Executive Director for approval. The Executive Director will attempt to assure consistency among vendors in these items during the review process so as to ensure a "level playing field" while at the same time providing some discretion to each vendor with regard to unique aspects of their technology. Indications from the vendors is that a five year warranty and five year maintenance contract can and will be established under the pilot program. The Commission does not agree that the program requirements are onerous and would point out that the pilot program warranty and maintenance requirements have received informal endorsement from other states in which enhanced denitrification systems have been used as an effective means of addressing challenges encountered in those programs.
The pilot program sets out the requirement that the technology vendors provide the Commission with a sample warranty which must be approved by the Commission. The Commission will work with the vendors in developing warranty language which will reflect the Commission’s intention that system components be warranted to be free from defects in workmanship and materials for a period of five years from the date of installation. It is the Commission’s intent that parts and labor required to make repairs to a malfunctioning system be covered under the terms of the warranty at no additional cost to the owner. The Commission recognizes that some cost may be borne by the system purchaser to facilitate the warranty; however, it is the Commission’s opinion that this cost can be considered up-front by a potential purchaser and can be considered in relationship to the other alternative technology options. System performance (nitrate nitrogen reduction to the degree expected under the terms of the pilot program), while not envisioned by the Commission as a warranty item, will be monitored by the Commission and will serve as the fundamental basis for the continued authorization of a technology in the pilot program.
As for the suggestion that a longer warranty be required, N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii specifically requires that the five-year warranty being required as part of the pilot program be renewable. This was done to allow for the possibility that the Commission may determine as part of its overall evaluation of the pilot program pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23 that continued installation of one or more of the pilot program systems should be authorized beyond the five-year pilot period subject to various monitoring and maintenance requirements. Such requirements could very well include an extended warranty period, the duration of which would be determined at the time of the Commission’s decision to proceed with authorization of the system or systems.
The Commission acknowledges the existing provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:9A-3.4(b) and has amended N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii to be consistent with the existing reporting requirements set forth therein.
With respect to access issues related to inspections, the Commission acknowledges the authority of local boards of health to access a property where there is reason to believe a public health violation may exist. Nothing in the rule supersedes that authority. The provisions at N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.84(a)5iv(1)F and N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii are intended to give local boards of health as well as the Commission the ability to monitor and inspect systems on a regular basis, not just when they believe a malfunction may have occurred. The Commission continues to believe that providing "reasonable notice" to property owners of the intent to perform such inspections is appropriate.
COMMENT: Three individuals stated that because the pilot program systems will require approval by the Department of Environmental Protection, the timing of the Department’s approval mechanism to authorize use of pilot program systems in the Pinelands is critical. One individual submitted that the Department’s approval process will be long and involved, thereby delaying implementation of the pilot program. The other individuals stated that the Commission should delay adoption of the rules until Department of Environmental Protection authorization of the pilot program systems has been obtained.
RESPONSE: The Department of Environmental Protection was an active participant in the Ad Hoc Committee’s evaluation of alternate design technologies and in the Commission’s development of the rules now being adopted. The Department has assured the Commission that a "generic treatment works approval" or other method of expedited approval for the pilot program systems will be in place coincident with the effective date of the rules.
COMMENT: Three comments were received on N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(b) which indicates that property owners will not be held liable for the poor performance of their pilot program septic systems if the systems have been properly operated and maintained. One individual submitted that property owners must be held responsible for poor system performance. Another individual suggested that the intent of this provision be clarified. The third commenter stated that the system manufacturers and their agents should not be held liable for system performance.
RESPONSE: The intent of N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(b) is to provide purchasers of pilot program systems with the assurance that they will not be required to pay for the replacement of a technology which fails to fully comply with nitrogen removal performance expectations. Property owners will continue to be held responsible for maintaining their systems in a manner does not violate the provisions of N.J.S.A. 26:3b-1 and N.J.A.C. 7:9A-3.4(b) which may result in the transmission of disease causing microorganisms due generally to the hydraulic failure of a disposal system. Even in the unlikely situation where substandard nitrogen removal occurs, it is likely the system would provide enhanced treatment beyond that provided by a conventional or pressure dosing system. System manufacturers and their agents will be held responsible for those items covered by the five-year warranty and maintenance contract required by N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6vii.
COMMENT: One individual objected to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23(b) which provides for the automatic expiration of the pilot program after five years unless the Commission takes action to extend the program. This individual recommended that the rule be rewritten so that the pilot program would be terminated only if the Executive Director determines that one or more of the pilot program systems is not performing successfully. A concern was also raised with the fact that the five year sunset provision of the rule begins at the effective date of the rule and not from the date when a certain number of municipalities authorize use of a system. Therefore, there will be less than five years to test the systems. Another individual asked that the rules be amended to provide that "the existing rules are reinstated if and when the Commission should determine during the program period or at its conclusion that it will not continue to allow the use of alternative septic systems."
RESPONSE: The Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee and consultant, Dr. Anish Jantrania, determined that the alternative wastewater treatment systems should be evaluated under Pinelands conditions within the scope of a pilot program. The rule requires the Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program using a comprehensive list of criteria, including not only system performance but also maintenance requirements, maintenance and installation cost, installation, operation and maintenance problems and frequency of problems, ease of remedying problems, and the number of systems from each technology vendor evaluated within the pilot program. The success of the program will be evaluated in its entirety using these criteria and a presumption of success would be premature.
The rules provide for a minimum of three years of effluent laboratory analysis (on a quarterly basis). The five year life of the pilot program was established in recognition that there would be a period of time from the effective date of the rules until the first systems are installed and monitored. The Commission believes that the five year time frame should be sufficient to evaluate the technologies. However, N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23(c) does provide for the extension of the pilot program beyond the five year period in instances where insufficient data is available to render a conclusion with regard to a particular technology. Although additional systems would not be permitted to be installed during that extended period, the additional monitoring data which would be provided will facilitate evaluation of the program.
N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23 provides that at the conclusion of the pilot program, the Commission may choose to extend the pilot program, convert the pilot program to a non-pilot alternative technology approval with specified management requirements, or increase the minimum lot size required for use of an alternate design on-site wastewater treatment system if it is determined that CMP water quality standards cannot be met on lots smaller than a particular size. To reinstate the "existing rules" as the commenter is suggesting would mean that pressure dosed systems would continue to be allowed for residential development on less than 3.2 acres lots. This would not be an acceptable result, given that such systems will violate the CMP’s two ppm nitrate-nitrogen requirement on lot sizes smaller than 3.2 acres.
COMMENT: Two individuals expressed concern with the criterion provided at N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23(b)(1) which involves an evaluation of the level of nitrogen in the effluent of each pilot program system technology based on the results of the monitoring conducted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)6iv. These individuals indicated that the use of the value of 39.45 mg/l for nitrogen concentration in residential wastewater does not reflect current values due to widespread use of water conservation plumbing fixtures. Although concentration of nitrogen is higher due to water conservation, the total mass of nitrogen is consistent with Pinelands model assumptions (same mass of nitrogen diluted in less water). The commenters suggested that because the pilot program looks only at meeting a maximum concentration, it will therefore potentially judge a technology to fail to meet the effluent standard even in instances where actual percent reduction produces effluent with a mass of nitrogen which complies with the model’s intent. Another individual stated that the rule does not force the alternative systems to comply with the standard at all times; therefore, summer occupancy may be allowed to exceed limits if vacancy during winter months results in average discharge which meets the standard.
RESPONSE: The Commission acknowledges that water conserving appliances and fixtures can potentially result in higher wastewater constituent concentrations including nitrate nitrogen. However, the Commission is unaware of conclusive data at this time to support a revision to the nitrate dilution model nitrate-nitrogen assumed value of 39.45. Should the Commission become aware of credible data, it may consider future reevaluation of the nitrate dilution model. It should be noted that reevaluation of the nitrate dilution model would have implications for the use of all types of septic systems, not just those being authorized in the pilot program. All parameters contained in the model, in addition to the reduced flows resulting from water conserving appliances, would need to be examined as part of the reevaluation.
As the commenter acknowledges, water saving devices do not change the amount of nitrogen that is entering the septic system. In order to determine whether the pilot program systems are complying with the two ppm standard, it is the concentration of nitrogen in the effluent exiting the system that will determine whether the systems are complying with the two ppm standard at the property line. For example, a pilot program system whose effluent exiting the system is 14 ppm will meet the two ppm standard on a lot containing at least one acre based on the dilution model. The rule acknowledges that variability in wastewater effluent characteristics such as flow volume and nitrogen concentration may cause some fluctuation in treated effluent quality. The pilot program will seek to determine conformance with the effluent quality standard in the aggregate and performance expectations are that the systems will attain the standard on average. Safeguards in the pilot program would identify a technology group which consistently fails to meet performance expectations and provisions exist in the rule for the Commission to cease further approvals in such a case.
In addition, the Commission would welcome the provision of information and assessments related to the characterization of the quantity and quality of influent wastewater by the vendors participating in the pilot program in the interest of acquiring additional data for any future reevaluation.
COMMENT: One individual questioned the purpose of allowing for a second review of the pilot program to be completed after six years, notwithstanding the automatic expiration of the program after five years.
RESPONSE: N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23(c) would be implemented only if the Executive Director determines that an insufficient number of units of a specific wastewater treatment technology have been monitored and that therefore there is inadequate data to evaluate the specific technology under the pilot program. The rule effectively provides one additional year for evaluation of such a technology under the terms of the pilot program.
COMMENT: Four parties stated that design standards which currently apply to conventional and pressure dosed septic systems should not be applied to the pilot program systems. Examples cited were requirements for select fill, five feet to ground water, the size of disposal fields and minimum separation distances. It was suggested that the CMP be amended so as to eliminate the applicability of these requirements to the five pilot program systems.
RESPONSE: Except as it relates to the CMP requirement for five feet depth to seasonal high water table, these standards are established by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Commission defers to the Department as to whether these standards should be modified as they apply to the pilot program systems. The CMP’s five feet to seasonal high water table standard appropriately remains applicable to all types of on-site wastewater systems. While it is true that the alternative technologies provide a relatively high quality effluent, the systems do not remove pathogenic microorganisms to the extent which would be required to reduce minimum vertical and horizontal separation distances to zones of soil saturation, potable wells or surface water bodies. These systems rely on the effluent disposal field components including disposal field filter materials and underlying soils for attenuation of pathogen loads in the same manner as conventional and pressure dosed septic systems.
COMMENT: Several parties commented that State design flow requirements for on-site septic systems do not coincide with actual wastewater flow values for corresponding uses. As an example, a four-bedroom home design flow of 650 gpd may result in an improperly (over)sized treatment system which may lead to poor system performance.
RESPONSE: The Commission intends to work closely with the technology vendors and the Department of Environmental Protection in the process by which the Department authorizes the use of the pilot program technologies to overcome a design flow limitation. The solution to this issue would appear to lie in the Departments’s concern that adequate solids retention capacity and adequate disposal field area be available as is required by N.J.A.C. 7:9A. Since disposal field size requirements are not affected by these rules, this is not a concern. Provided a treatment system provides the minimum solids holding capacity (equivalent septic tank volume) in either a dedicated septic tank or a batch processing unit, it is the Commission’s understanding that the Department will very likely consider the unit adequately sized.
COMMENT: Three individuals stated that the Commission provided insufficient data in terms of the cost of the pilot program systems and, further, that the Commission’s cost comparison report was not released by the Commission in a timely fashion relative to public comment period.
RESPONSE: The report on "Cost Estimates for On-Site Individual and Cluster Alternative Wastewater Systems" which was distributed by the Commission during the public comment period contains findings which are generally consistent with earlier estimates of cost comparisons, including those included in the rule proposal. The cost study was done primarily to provide information to potential users of the systems. It was not intended to impact on the rule proposal unless it was determined that the costs of all the systems were so high as to effectively preclude their use for residential construction in the Pinelands. The Commission does not believe that the findings of the report concerning costs raise any issues of a significant nature and sees no need to extend the public comment period on these rules beyond the 60 days already provided. Further, much of the cost information was readily available from the pilot program system vendors. Finally, the Commission intends to track costs associated with the pilot program systems as part of its overall evaluation of the program pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23 and will seek to reduce such costs to the extent feasible and practical.
COMMENT: Support for the proposed amendments and new rules was expressed by seven parties, a number of whom indicated that the amendments and new rules are appropriate and warranted.
RESPONSE: The Commission agrees with the assessment of these parties and appreciates their support.
Summary of Agency-Initiated Changes:
The Commission is making changes to N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2 and 10.23(f) for purposes of correcting grammatical errors. Specifically, a colon is being added at the end of the first paragraph of N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.22(a)2 to make clear that manufacturers must submit all of the items required in subsections i. through vi. and the word "details" is being deleted from N.J.A.C. 7:50-10.23(f). These are changes in language only, with no change of substance involved.
Federal Standards Statement
Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. §471i) called upon the State of New Jersey to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Pinelands National Reserve. The original plan adopted in 1980 was subject to the approval of the United States Secretary of the Interior, as are all amendments to the plan.
The Federal Pinelands legislation sets forth rigorous goals which the plan must meet, including the protection, preservation and enhancement of the land and water resources of the Pinelands. The adopted amendments and new rules seek to ensure that the water quality standards of the CMP are met by eliminating the opportunity to use treatment systems which are now known to be ineffective on one acre lots and by establishing a pilot program to test whether five other technologies might allow for development on lots under 3.2 acres in size in a manner which is consistent with CMP water quality standards. Thus, the adopted amendments and new rules are in keeping with the goals of the Federal legislation.
There are no other Federal requirements which apply to the subject matter of these amendments and new rules.
Full text of the adoption follows (additions to proposal indicated in boldface with asterisks *thus*; deletions from proposal indicated in brackets with asterisks "*[thus]*".):
7:50-6.84 Minimum standards for point and non-point source discharges
(a) The following point and non-point sources may be permitted in the Pinelands:
1.-4. (No change.)
5. Individual on-site septic waste water treatment systems which are intended to reduce the level of nitrate/nitrogen in the waste water, provided that the following standards are met:
i.-iii. (No change.)
iv. The design of the system and its discharge point, and the size of the entire contiguous parcel on which the system or systems is located, will ensure that ground water exiting from the entire contiguous parcel or entering a surface body of water will not exceed two parts per million nitrate/nitrogen calculated pursuant to the Pinelands dilution model dated December, 1993, as amended, (Appendix A) subject to the provisions of (a)5v below and based on the following assumptions and requirements. For purposes of this section, the entire contiguous parcel may include any contiguous lands to be dedicated as open space as part of the proposed development but may not include previously dedicated road rights-of-way or any contiguous lands that have been deed restricted pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-5.30 or 5.47:
(1) (No change.)
(2) For pressure dosed septic systems:
(A) *[The]* *A complete application for the* proposed residential development *[received a Certificate of Filing, a Certificate of Completeness or a preliminary zoning permit]* *was received by the Commission pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-4.2 or by a municipality pursuant to an alternate permitting program certified by the Commission in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:50-3.81 through 3.85* prior to (the effective date of these rules), the proposed lot size and density are consistent with the provisions of this Plan and the municipal land use ordinances that have been certified by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:50-3, the proposed pressure dosed septic system receives approval from a local board of health within one year of (the effective date of these rules) and the system is installed within one year of the issuance of its approval by the local board of health; and
(B) (No change.)
(3) (No change.)
v.-ix. (No change.)
6. (No change.)
7:50-10.22 General Standards
(a) Alternate design pilot program treatment systems shall be authorized for residential use where the proposed lot size and density is consistent with the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:50-5 and the municipal land use ordinance that has been certified by the Commission pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:50-3 and provided that the following standards are met:
1. (No change.)
2. The manufacturer of the alternate design pilot program treatment system has submitted to the Executive Director and the Executive Director has approved*[.]* *:*
i.-vi. (No change.)
3.-5. (No change.)
6. Conditions for use of alternate design pilot program treatment systems are as follows:
i.-vi. (No change.)
vii. Each system shall be covered by a five-year warranty and a minimum five-year maintenance contract that cannot be cancelled and is renewable and which includes a provision requiring that the manufacturer or its agent inspect the system at least once a year and undertake any maintenance or repairs determined to be necessary during any such inspection or as a result of observations made at any other time, including when effluent monitoring occurs or is identified based on the results of any effluent monitoring. Said warranty and maintenance contract shall be consistent with the sample warranty and maintenance contract approved pursuant to (a)2v above. *[The]* *In addition to complying with the reporting requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:9A-3.4(b) concerning system malfunctions, the* manufacturer or agent shall report to the Executive Director and local board of health on *[such]* *all necessary* maintenance and repairs within 10 days and shall report to the Executive Director and the local board of health semi-annually as to the inspections conducted during the preceding six months including a description of any maintenance and repairs that were undertaken and the success of those measures and their costs;
viii.-xi. (No change.)
(b) (No change.)
7:50-10.23 Pinelands Commission approval and evaluation
(a-e) (No change.)
(f) If the Executive Director finds that this pilot program has been successful for one or more of the alternate design pilot program treatment system technologies based on the criteria set forth in (b) above, the Executive Director shall propose, within three months of the issuance of the report required in (b) above, an amendment to this Plan in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:50-7 to permit installation of said technology or technologies on a permanent basis. Prior to submitting that proposal, the Executive Director shall specify either in the report required in (b) above or in a separate report to the Commission the institutional and governmental arrangements necessary to ensure adequate maintenance and monitoring of each such technology and *[details]* the minimum lot size required for each such technology to comply with the water quality standards of N.J.A.C. 7:50-6, Part VIII.
(g) (No change.)