Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19911008 595 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION OCTOBER 8, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on Tuesday, October 8, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of the Agriculture and Planning Building on Revere Road in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a work session on conventional and alternative wastewater treatment systems in Orange County. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. ., Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and-Don Willhoit. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Environmental Health Supervisor Ron Holdway, Environmental Health Program Specialist Tom Konsler, Budget Director Sally Kost, Environmental Health Director Tony Laws, Health Director Dan Reimer, and County Engineer Paul Thames. OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Robert Rubin and Julie Andresen, Chapel Hill Town Council. Chairman Carey announced that this meeting will focus on policy issues that the Board may want to address in the proposed monitoring and maintenance program. The intent is to focus basically on policy initiatives the Board would like to see included in the proposed program. Commissioner Insko stated that she hopes that at the conclusion of this meeting the Board will be ready for the staff to bring back a recommendation on a monitoring and maintenance system. She would like to have a figure on what it will cost to implement different levels of service that the County could provide. She would like to see what a minimal acceptable program is and then list the add-ons that would enhance the monitoring and maintenance program. Commissioner Willhoit stated that he feels that what the Board can come up with are some areas for further study. He feels that the management entity is still missing from this proposal. Commissioner Gordon noted that the whole area being discussed is alternative systems. This monitoring and maintenance program is just one part. She would like to see what a minimal acceptable system would be and then start from there. She feels that the question of how this monitoring and maintenance program fits into the question about alternative systems is a larger question about the carrying capacity of the land, soil capacity for receiving wastewater, and any implications for land use planning that may �ome from this. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the focus should be on alternative system. He agrees that something needs to be done about conventional systems but that should be addressed at a separate meeting. He has a lot of 596 questions about conventional systems. He prefers to talk only about the alternative systems at this meeting. 11 Commissioner Gordon noted, that from the point of view of the Board of Health, the conventional systems need to be discussed because even though the number of each type of unit is small, the impact is large and that is why' the Board of Health did not want to eliminate the conventional systems from the picture. It still affects the soil and it could affect the public health. Chair Carey stated he does not want conventional systems excluded because the Board needs to decide whether and how to include these systems in a monitoring and maintenance plan. The scope of any plan should include conventional systems and their relationship to a monitoring and maintenance program, if any. Commissioner Gordon indicated she still wants to know the scope of this project, the kind of staff- time it will involve and the cost which will depend on what the Board includes in the program. Commissioner Insko asked if all the systems can be monitored and maintained satisfactory and if it is legally possible to exclude any systems from the County. Commissioner Willhoit referred to the terminology and classes of systems in the report and asked if this terminology is consistent with the State and the answer was no. A table on page 24 of this report compares the different . types of systems. With reference to a minimal program, Commissioners Insko and Gordon questioned what systems the County wants to support and if there are some that the County doesn't want to support, especially those that need a management entity or a public management entity. If there is no management entity or a public management entity, a decision needs to be made as to whether or not to allow them to be in the County. Commissioner Insko stressed that the County does not want to go out of their way to encourage something they don't want by putting county dollars into a management entity. The Board may want to determine what systems they want and also what systems the County must have because DEM permits them. Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that the method that would be most effective would be to decide on a case by case basis and to provide a method that requires the applicant to demonstrate by evidence that the system would work. Then the Board would have to make findings of fact that the system would work. If all the experts uniformly say the system will work, then the answer is no. However, if there are experts who question whether a particular system would work, either because the technology is flawed or because the conditions are not appropriate for that technology on that site, then there would be a factual question about which the Board would make a decision. He noted that there are three possibilities used in a regulatory process. The Board could, because of a weakness in the technology, decide not to permit a particular type of system until that weakness is corrected. The County Commissioners received local legislation for bonding which means that if the operator is not someone who can financially stand behind the system, the •v - 597 Board does not allow the system to be put in. Commissioner Willhoit stated that essentially all the systems would be acceptable almost anywhere in the County if they are operated to meet the required performance standards. It is the consequence of failure that is the problem. The use of alternative systems was not the issue in watershed protection if they were operated properly. Commissioner Gordon stated that with reference to the management entity, that the State has specified that certain types of systems need to have a public management entity. Geoffrey Gledhill stated that after the July 1, 1992 deadline, if the monitoring system is not in place, the County will not be able to have any locally permitted system unless the Board approves a public or private management entity. - - Julie Andresen stated there are actually two functions that must be in place. One is the management function where the County will have to have a contract with someone who is going to take care of the system. The other function is the review function and that is what every County Health Department will have to have in place to be sure it is done correctly. John Link stated that the Board will need to consider the extent of the role they want the Health Department to assume, whether it be a managing role, or a monitoring and maintenance role. The key question to answer is tow often and to what degree the County wants to develop a monitoring and maintenance program that will overview the management of these systems. The first stage of this program is to determine what the County wants the Health Department to do and how much of the cost should be borne by taxpayers as opposed to those who benefit from the effort. If a public management entity is not created for those types of systems that require one, they would be eliminated for now. The Board must agree on what they want DEM to continue and what they want the County to assume responsibility for. The Board started going through the system statistic list by Class for the purpose of identifying whether or not the types listed would require a private or public management entity. INDIVIDUAL CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS - CLASS 1 This does not require a management entity. However, there is a review proposal° for those systems that are over 480 gallons per day. The proposal indicates that for those systems over 480 gallons per day, the County would monitor (review) after July 1, 1992 every five years which is in the state regulations. INDIVIDUAL PUMP SYSTEMS - CLASS II This does not require a management entity. There is a review proposal beginning July 1, 1992 for a review every five years. On the low pressure systems, there is a management concern, but no management entity requirement. The County can put in place a management requirement. This '_ncludes all pump conventional systems. For the LPP systems, it is proposed that the review would be done once every three years with maintenance twice a year. Dan Reimer pointed out that in this classification, the County has 598 combined type 3 and 4 of the State categories which have slightly different requirements. Type three (3) has a monitoring requirement but not a. maintenance entity requirement. Type four (4) the low pressure pipe system has both a monitoring and public management entity requirement in the new State regulations. INDIVIDUAL SPRAY IRRIGATION AND DISCHARGING SYSTEMS - CLASS III This includes type 5 (sand filter discharge) The Department of Health does not regulate these systems. The discharge systems are DEM systems. These are repermitted every five years. The Board may want to consider entering into an agreement with DEM for the County to take over the operational requirements for these types of systems. Commissioner Insko questioned whether the county should be concerned about whether or not DEM is doing an adequate job monitoring these systems. Also, should the County be concerned that the DEM management requirements are adequate. She understands the problem is that these systems are not adequately being monitored. - Dr. Bob Rubin explained that when an operator sends a report into DEM, it is called a Daily Monitoring Report (DMR) . On that DMR they list their monitoring results for each month. After looking at several systems over the last year, the interesting thing was that for a couple of the systems, the monitoring result was the same every single month. If the County had adequate monitoring, they could in turn put pressure on the State for enforcement. Dr. Rubin explained that with a memorandum of understanding with DEM where all the responsibilities are spelled out, the County can initiate enforcement action faster than without such an agreement. : Dan Reimer stated that the sooner the County can initiate the enforcement action, the less the consequences of failure will be a problem for the citizens. The only way to keep this system out of the County would be by zoning restrictions. John Link stated that before a system is eliminated categorically, the staff would determine the cost of carrying out whatever monitoring or management function would be necessary to insure that the system is functioning properly. The owner of the system could be given an opportunity to pay for all the costs of monitoring and maintaining that system before eliminating any systems. PRIVATE CLUSTER SYSTEM - CLASS IV - (DEH Type 6) If this is a sandfilter or greater than 3, 000 gpd, it is proposed that a review would be done every year by the Health Department. If it is a system with package treatment, mechanical or biological chemical pretreatment or wastewater recycled system, it would be reviewed every six months. This can be a private management entity with a certified operator. The maintenance frequency may be anywhere from once a month to once a day depending on the size of the system. PUBLIC CLUSTER SYSTEM - CLASS V - (DEH Types 3, 4, 5, and 6) This is the same as Class IV. The level of monitoring and maintenance depends on the size of the system and technology used. Commissioner Insko asked that the staff complete the process that has been followed above for the remainder of the Classes and put all this information on a chart and return to the Board. Dan Reimer clarified that 599 he will put on a chart what the state requirements are for monitoring and anaging each type of system and each class. Commissioner Willhoit asked that the Board choose a class, talk about where the systems are, the conditions of these permits, the kind of monitoring done now, and what can be done to improve upon that. He asked what the procedure has been when approving a system. As to low pressure pipe systems, at this time the County does the site evaluation and comes up with a determination that the LPP is the type of system they need and issues the permit. They then do an elevation survey on that site, lay out every line in the system and design the system specifically to that site. They do six or seven installation inspections before the system is approved. The permit is $100. Right before the house is occupied or before final approval, they plug the pump in, adjust the valves in the system and -flush the lines. They - then issue an operation permit. If they get a chance to talk with the system user, they have pamphlets available to educate that person. What is being proposed is to increase the frequency of review. The new regulations from DEH effective July, 1992 require inspections at a frequency of three years. The County is proposing to do these annually. John Link stated that the staff plans to send information to those who they think have alternative wastewater systems. This information will provide an incentive to call in and initiate an inspection. Dan Reimer clarified that what the County has attempted to do is to intergrade the DEM and DEH systems into a system that addresses those concerns that these systems may fail in critical watershed areas. The Health Department wants to create a monitoring system that will assure that any of these classes or types, are operating well in Orange County. The requirement for the County to inspect low pressure pipe systems has been moved from 1991 to 1992. The County will be able to spend more time in checking the sludge and determining if the tank needs to be pumped, measure drawdown rates, etc. When a home sells, the lending institution requires a statement that the system is functioning. The County is not required to provide that statement by any law. However, this helps in monitoring the sewage systems in Orange County. In the monitoring and maintenance assurance program it is proposed . that anytime the County is requested to do an existing system review for a sale of a home, then that system be monitored periodically. In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, whenever a system is pumped, the private pumper is suppose to send a record of this to the State. The County charges $35.00 for a review of an existing system. John Link indicated it is his understanding from the above comments, that the information the Board wants is information on every single subsystem without it being driven by the State's class but to describe each system and include the frequency required and frequency recommended by the local health department. The type of system will be determined by the ultimate place of effluent. Dan Reimer indicated they would list all the DEH types and within those. the types which have different inspection requirements, list what the State 600 requires and what the County is proposing and then add to it all the DEN systems and what their current reporting requirements are and what the County. is proposing in terms of monitoring and maintenance. Commissioner Gordon asked that space be provided for the rationale for each recommendation justifying the frequency when they are different from the State requirements because the State is the minimum. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that it would be helpful to know what the operator is required to do and what permits they must have and the monitoring and maintenance requirements. Dan Reimer indicated that some of this information is on the summary of DEM monitoring reports included in the proposal. The Board agreed that it would be necessary to have another work session after the above information is prepared. - Chair Carey referred to the list of responsibilities on page 25 and 26 of the proposal and was told that some of these are current but most are proposed responsibilities. Commissioner Insko asked that the ones that are current be marked accordingly. The responsibilities of DEM are outlined in the memo of understanding which is included in the proposal. Commissioner Gordon asked for some indication of the minimum that is needed to protect public health and what would be add-ons above that and the cost benefits of those. She feels it important to set up a system to protect the public health but one that the County can afford. Dan Reimer indicated this could be answered in the justification of the frequency of the inspections and why it must be done at all or as often. Chair Carey made reference to the memorandum of agreement and stated that there are some things that need to be considered for incorporating into this agreement. These things include the Class VII sites and what Orange County can do about where they occur. Since the County does not permit these sites, the County will have to have an agreement with DEM for them to take into consideration what the County thinks is important about locating these sites. He asked that the agreement not be revised right now, but to keep this factor in mind for later. Dan Reimer stated that he will revise the chart to expand the description of each kind of system that requires a different inspection frequency from both DEM and DEH. In the process, he will not only include what is currently required as of July, 1991, but also what the County is proposing that is different from that and the justification. Under the. responsibilities section, he will clarified DEM's responsibility and the County's responsibility and he will examine the memorandum of understanding to clarify the County's role in the location of Class VII sites. With no further comments, the work session was adjourned at 9:45. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk