HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-06-1994-IX-A 1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 6, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # 'rX_A
SUBJECT: Monitoring and Maintenance Program for on-site alternative
technology waste treatment systems
DEPARTMENT: Health Department PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X—No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Health Director ext.. 2400
Chart
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To bring back before the BOCC the Monitoring and Maintenance
Program, related inspection frequency options and a revised
inspection fee schedule for review and approval
BACKGROUND: At the 17 May 1994 public hearing on the Monitoring and
Maintenance (MMA) Program, staff presented information on
two frequency-of-inspection options which could be
utilized to monitor the various types of on-site
alternative technology wastewater treatment systems
included in the program. The options presented (see the
attached chart) differ significantly in terms of
monitoring/maintenance inspection theory. The theory
behind Option I is that, while some level of system
inspection is necessary, there is insufficient cause to
embark on a course of frequent - and expensive - inspection
without solid evidence that the expense is justified.
Specifically, Option I advocates providing inspections for
DEB-regulated systems at frequencies which are mandated by
state health regulations. This option also advocates that
DEM-regulated systems be inspected at frequencies specified
for DEB systems of similar treatment process complexity.
However, Option I does provide for increased inspection
frequencies at specific systems or types of systems where
normal inspections, complaints of operating failures and
nuisance conditions or operating records indicate a need to
provide more frequent inspections. The theory behind
Option II is that a) most or all systems will eventually
fail to provide adequate waste treatment, due to
preventable operator deficiencies or mechanical failures;
G
and b) the only way to ensure that these lapses in
treatment quality do not have long-term impact on the
environment, public health or the life span of the system
is to provide inspections of a frequency sufficient to
detect and correct problems before serious damage can
occur. Option II advocates that inspections take place
from two to three times more frequently than Option I (at
the basic or "no problem" level) at correspondingly greater
expense. Option II recommended inspection frequencies are
based on the experience of Orange County and other area
local health staff.
At the public hearing, there was minimal public comment on
the overall MMA program, the financial surety issue or
either of the two options for inspection frequencies.
Public input was limited to written material submitted by
two citizens and oral comment by one citizen and the chairs
of the Board of Health and the OWASA board. General oral
and written citizen comment dealt primarily with the impact
of the proposed inspection fees on system owners. Citizens
questioned the time and costs calculated for each
inspection and generally advocated that costs to system
owners be minimized by less frequent inspections, lowered
inspection fees or by abolishing inspection fees. The
comments from the Board of Health chair were addressed
primarily to the history of and justification for the
proposed program, the inspection frequency options and the
proposed fee structure. The Board of Health recommended
that 1) DEH regulated systems be inspected at Option I
frequencies and DEM regulated systems be inspected at
Option II frequencies; and 2) the proposed fee structure be
implemented. The Health chair also asked that strategies
for assuring the financial surety of waste treatment
systems be implemented through agencies other than the
Health Department. The OWASA chair, speaking as a
representative of OWASA recommended that 1) OWASA and the
County work together to provide design review, monitoring,
and maintenance of certain types of systems; and 2 ) the
County work with OWASA and Hillsborough to insure the
availability of the waste treatment capacity and facilities
necessary to accept additional septage resulting from the
program's requirements for more frequent septic tank
pumping. Speaking as a private citizen, the OWASA chair
supported treatment system inspections at Option II or
greater frequencies.
In response to concerns about MMA program inspection costs
that have been expressed by members of the BOCC and the
public, staff have developed a revised proposal for the
program' s inspection fee structure. The primary purpose of
the revised fee structure is to to provide a more equitable
method of assigning and recovering program costs by
separating costs and charges for initial inspections from
those for follow-up inspections. The original fee
3
structure was developed under an assumption that the number
of billable inspections per year would be far less than the
number of actual inspections. More specifically, it was
assumed that owners of every system coming within the scope
of the program would pay only one inspection fee, although
most would get one initial and at least one follow-up
inspection. It was also assumed that second, third or more
follow-up inspections would be required in some cases to
insure proper system operation. The revised fee structure
provides for a reduced fee for the initial inspection and
an additional fee for each follow-up inspection. Fees for
follow-up inspections could be less than the initial
inspection fee due to the reduced scope of follow-up
inspections and an incrementally reduced level of
paperwork. The revised fee structure can provide the funds
to cover program costs. It can also provide a more
equitable cost distribution by insuring that owners of
systems which require additional attention pay for any
additional sevices received. Staff estimates that an
initial inspection fee of $54.00 and follow-up inspection
fee of $32.00 will provide full cost recovery for the
inspection program. Staff recommends that the fees be
rounded to $55.00 and $30.00 respectively. In future
years, the rate of follow-up inspections that will be
required may diminish. If the re-inspection rate does
diminish, total inspection costs (adjusted for inflation)
should also diminish.
RECOM(ENDATION: The Manager recommends that the BOCC:
1) Endorse the level of service (Option I or Option II)
to be provided by the Monitoring and Maintenance
Program for DEH regulated systems;
2) Endorse the level of service (Option I or Option II)
to be provided by the Monitoring and Maintenance
Program for DEM regulated systems;
3) Request that the Board of Health and support staff
develop a Memorandum of Agreement with DEM which
does not commit Orange County to assuming unwanted
DEM responsibilities but which will allow Health
Department staff to participate in
a) the review and approval process for DEM system
design and siting
b) inspection/oversight of new system construction;
c) periodic field inspection of system operations;
d) review of system operational reports for
indications of permit non-compliance
e) instigation of enforcement proceedings as
necessary
4) Direct staff to develop local rules, regulations,
etc. , that can implement financial surety strategy
for approval by the BOCC.
5) Adopt the revised fee structure for initial and
follow-up system inspections