HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-21-1993 - VIII-C ORANGE COUNTY 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. \/$-C
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 21, 1993
SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Oversight in Orange County
DEPARTMENT: Board of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : Yes INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Gordon
& Verla Insko ext. 2130
1) Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program, 9/14/93
2) Functions of a Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program in Orange County
(Chart) -9/13/93
3) Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program, 4/10/93
4) "Attachment 1" from a previous staff memo "Monitoring and Maintenance
of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" 8/12/92 (Includes 3 pages
of charts outlining the types of DEH and DEM systems)
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-5401
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
PURPOSE: To present a report from Commissioners Alice Gordon and Verla
Insko concerning the status of the Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance
(M & MA) program and related issues. This report is a summary of their
work and will be augmented by their oral report at the meeting.
BACKGROUND: Orange County has been considering the implementation of a
M & MA program for many months. To facilitate this program, Commissioners
Gordon and Insko volunteered to study it and report back to the Board. At
their initial meeting last spring, they formulated a set of four
principles to guide their decisions and outlined a framework for
considering the M & MA program. That information is summarized in a memo,
"Monitoring & Maintenance Assurance Program" dated April 10, 1993 .
This fall, meetings between the two Commissioners and between Commissioner
Insko and the staff have led to the formulation of the following two
documents:
1) A memo, "Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program, " dated September
14, 1993 . This comprehensive program includes the M & MA program as
a subset. The memo serves three purposes:
(a) explains and justifies the concept of a Wastewater
Treatment Oversight Program
(b) presents recommendations concerning all wastewater
treatment systems in Orange County, except DEH Type I and Type
II systems.
(c) identifies some issues that need further clarification.
2
Board of Commissioners Meeting Date: 9/21/93
Page 2
2) A chart which summarizes the functions of the Wastewater
Treatment Oversight Program.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
1. Endorse the general approach to oversight of the county's wastewater
treatment systems that is outlined in the April 10 memo entitled "Monitoring
and Maintenance Assurance Program" and the September 14 memo entitled
"Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program" .
2 . Approve the specific recommendations and request the specific information
outlined in the September 14 memo entitled "Wastewater Treatment Oversight
Program" .
3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program (WTOP)
FROM: Alice Gordon & Verla Insko
TO: Board of County Commissioners
The purpose of this memo is to 1) ' explain and justify the concept
of a Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program (WTOP) , 2) present
recommendations concerning all wastewater treatment systems in
Orange County, except for DEH Type I and Type II systems, and 3)
identify some issues that need further clarification.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OVERSIGHT PROGRAM
Prior discussions on wastewater treatment systems in Orange County
centered around the Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program
(M&MA) . This program includes only those systems the Orange County
Health Department (OCHD) monitors for a fee. To understand the
county's role in protecting the environment and the public health,
it is necessary to review all of the health department functions
related to wastewater treatment systems. We are calling the
aggregate of these existing and proposed functions the Wastewater
Treatment Oversight Program (WTOP) .
Goal
The goal of the Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program is to
protect the environment and the public health.
Principles to guide Board of County Commissioners decisions:
1. Fiscal responsibility - No additional cost to taxpayer
2 . Role of local government - Minimal increase in the role of
government
3 . Public health - Effective implementation of the goal
4 . Growth patterns - Adherence to county policies
These principles are explained more fully in the April 10 memo,
4
Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program, September 14, 1993
"Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program"
Functions of the WTOP:
Education Informing owners about inspection schedules and
maintenance steps to extend the life of their
system, what repairs will be needed if the system
fails, and the consequences of not making repairs.
No fees are charged for this service.
Systems included: All
Monitoring Performing basic steps necessary to determine if
system is in good operating condition, ordering
repairs as needed to restore faulty or failing
system to full operating condition, reinspection to
assure that repairs are made.
Fees will cover the full cost of this service.
Operations Management: Directing the ' operation of a
wastewater treatment system, including
responsibility for regular monitoring, handling the
necessary paperwork, and making repairs. A written
contract between the owner and manager required.
This function will be performed by the private
sector. Orange County will monitor the private
certified operators and report companies with below
standard performance.
No fees as Orange County does not perform this
function
Maintenance: Making repairs necessary to faulty or
failing systems.
This function will be performed by the private
sector. Orange County will inspect repairs as part
__ of its monitoring function.
No fees as Orange County does not perform this
function, except that Orange County will continue
to perform minor repairs for no fee.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We can recommend approval of the M&MA program if the first two
recommendations below are acceptable to the board and if the issues
needing further clarification are resolved.
1. Fees. Develop a fee structure that includes charges for all
5
Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program, September 14, 1993
monitoring activities (e.g. DEH Type III systems) . Include a
provision for regular evaluation of the schedule to assure
costs are covered, including the cost of all new personnel
hired to implement this program.
(At the May 4 , 1992 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
directed staff to develop projected costs of the M&MA program
and a fee schedule that would fully fund the program) .
2 . Management Entity for Type IV Systems. Private sector
companies should be the management entity for DEH Type IV
systems. The OCHD should inspect these systems every 18
months (or some other justifiable period) and charge a fee to
recover the cost of the inspection.
The OCHD proposed that it serve as the management entity for
Type IV systems. We were not persuaded that the private
sector would not perform this function adequately.
3 Education. Establish an education program for all systems.
Begin by summarizing the educational activities currently in
place for all systems including the type of technical
information given for system operation and the consequence to
the owners if their systems fail. The OCHD is currently
providing educational material to owners of Type II systems;
i.e. , conventional single family systems >481 gpd.
4 Financial Guarantees to Insure Repairs. Develop and present
to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval a plan
that requires financial guarantees by owners to repair their
failing systems. (Omit DEH Type I and II systems)
ISSUES NEEDING FURTHER CLARIFICATION
The Board of County Commissioners should discuss the following
issues to determine what impact they have for Orange County and/or
to give the staff direction. These items required modest staff
effort.
M&MA Program_Issues
1. DEM Systems. The state charges fees for some services; the
county is proposing to charge for inspections. Regarding
these systems:
For which services does DEM charge?
Do proposed Orange County services duplicate any services
provided by the state?
Wake and Mecklenburg Counties have reportedly encountered
problems trying to collect their inspection fees. What
are the problems? Have they been resolved? How?
6
Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program, September 14, 1993
2 . Private Management Entities. Private operators have been
serving as private management entities for DEH Type IV and V
systems for more than a year. The Board of County
Commissioners should request information on the number of
private management entities, whether their performance meets
county standards, and any other relevant experiences with them
for the period from July 1, 1992 to August 31, 1993 .
3 . Inspection. Staff base their recommendations concerning the
frequency of inspections on the "best professional judgment of
staff. " The program has a significant impact on citizens.
The Board of County Commissioners should request better
justification and documentation.
4. Definition of Minor Repairs. During routine inspections, OCHD
staff sometimes make minor repairs for no fee.
What is a minor repair?--
5. Conventional Septic Systems <481 gpd (DEH Type. TI Systems)
The OCHD initialy recommended an inspection schedule for these
systems. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to
implement an education program as a first step. That has been
implemented. Although we have no recommendations to make at
this time about an inspection program for DEH Type II systems,
this issue could be raised again by a Commissioner or a staff
person.
Large Complex Systems (DEM and DEH)
These issues will require considerable staff work and Board of
County Commissioners discussions, but they should be addressed
within the next several months.
1. Location of Large Complex DEM systems.
The memorandum of agreement with the state outlines the
County's inspection role with regard to these large systems.
In addition, it may be advisable to develop guidelines to
regulate- where these DEM systems are placed in the county.
Staff should prepare a report on the feasibility of
implementing provisions in our zoning ordinance or elsewhere
for governing the location and use of these systems. DEH
systems should also be considered for this kind of regulation.
2 . Public Management Entities for large DEH systems. (See item
5 on the second page of the April 10 memo) We have not found
a financially viable plan for creating a public management
entity (PME) in Orange County. This question needs further
study. Note that no DEH Type Vc, Vd. or VI systems currently
exist in Orange County. One alternative is to take some kind
of action that would discourage their use here.
FUNCTIONS OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT OVERSIGHT PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY
Alice Gordon and Verla Insko, September 13, 1993
Below is a chart summarizing functions related to the operation of wastewater treatment
systems, along with corresponding recommendations by Commissioners Gordon and Insko.
SHOULD FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM OWNER AND /OR OPERATOR BE
FUNCTION
SHOULD ORANGE
COUNTY PERFORM THE
FEES
PERFORMANCE
FUNCTION?
GUARANTEES * **
EDUCATION
YES **
NO **
- - - --
MONITORING
YES
YES
Inspections
Sample Testing
YES
YES
or Other
When Appropriate
Services
OPERATION
NO *
N/A *
YES **
Management
Maintenance
NO
N/A
YES **
* Staff recommendation is different from above
** Staff made no recommendation or provided a set of alternatives.
* ** Examples of performance guarantees are performance bonds, and one -time lump suln
payments.
J
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Commissioners and Manager
FROM: Alice Gordon
DATE: April 10, 1993
SUBJECT: Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance Program (M&MA
Program)
Moses has asked me to write down the results of the meeting on the
M&MA program which Verla and -I had not long ago. This memorandum
is written for that purpose.
At our meeting Verla and I agreed that four principles should guide
our decisions on the M&MA program. We also agreed that we needed
to have certain questions answered before we could make our
decisions. After the meeting I thought a little more about the
program and concluded that the decisions could be grouped into five
different areas, so I have used those five areas and the four
principles as a framework for this memorandum.
FOUR PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE OUR DECISIONS
1. Fiscal responsibility. The program should be implemented in a
fiscally responsible way. For example, fees collected should pay
for county services rendered. The role of performance bonds should
be considered where appropriate.
Questions to be asked for each of the five decision areas given
below: What does the inspection fee cover (employees, materials,
other) ? Why are the same fees charged for all kinds of systems?
Can we really recover all of our own costs? If we do not recover
all costs, when does that occur and what is the reason? What are
the broader fiscal impacts of the M&MA program? (e.g. Does it
encourage residential growth? If so, what is the fiscal impact?)
2 . Role of local Government. The role of local government should
be minimized. For example, when the county considers new programs,
there should be minimal bureaucracy created. Also, there should be
minimal conflict of interest in internal county functions.
Finally, the county should not take on functions which could be
effectively handled by private enterprise or the state.
Questions to be asked for each of the five decision areas given
below: What is the justification for the inspection frequency?
3 . Public health. The county should take the steps necessary to
protect the public health.
Questions to be asked for each of the five decision areas given
below: Is the proposed effort necessary for the protection of the
public health? Could the collection of more systematic information
about groundwater in Orange County, such as that being proposed by
the Water Resources Committee, help address these questions
concerning the steps necessary to protect groundwater?
4 . Growth patterns. To the extent that the M&MA program affects
county growth patterns, it should be implemented to promote county
policies, or at least to be neutral.
Questions to be asked for each of the five decision areas given
below: What existing or proposed county policies are impacted by
the M&MA program? Does the proposed M&MA program carry out those
county policies?
FIVE AREAS IN WHICH DECISIONS ARE TO BE MADE
Each of these five areas of the M&MA program should be judged by
the four general principles stated above. In addition, the
following specific questions -need to be answered.
1. Inspection of mobile home parks.
•
Specific questions to be answered for this area: Not much
information is given. What is involved in these annual
inspections?
2 . Monitoring of DEH-regulated systems. (Types I and II
excluded. )
The monitoring proposed in this area is the most similar to ongoing
county programs. Note: The M&MA program "Report of Costs and
Fees" (June 29, 1992) excludes Type III as a component of the
program, but the August 1992 documents include Type III.
3 . Monitoring of DEM-regulated systems. (New and existing systems
handled together. ) Currently the state does inspections for these
systems. To undertake monitoring in this area a memorandum of
agreement with the state must be executed.
Specific questions to be asked for this area: Is it necessary to
monitor these systems, or can the state do an adequate job? If we
enter into a_ memorandum of agreement with the State of North
Carolina, will the state still collect fees? If they do, can the
county still collect any fees for this service? Will these fees
duplicate the state fees?
4 . Management entities for DEH systems for which a private
certified operator is sufficient: Type IV and Type Va and Vb.
(New systems handled separately from existing systems. ) In the
M&MA program it is proposed that the Health Department be the
management entity for Type IV systems.
Specific questions to be asked for this area: It appears that
there is a conflict of interest if the Health Department both
10
monitors and manages. How can this conflict be resolved? Can
private enterprise effectively handle this management function?
Who certifies the local operators? Can the county license
operators for Orange County? Should a performance bond be
required? In what circumstances?
5. Management entities for DEH systems for which a public
management entity is required: Type Vc and Vd, and Type VI. (New
systems handled separately from existing systems. ) The question of
how this area should be handled remains unresolved.
Specific questions to be asked for this area: What public
management entities are available for this task? Should the county
get involved if no pubic management entity is available?
This memorandum gives my understanding of the principles Verla and
I believe should be followed, and of the questions which she and I
believe should be answered. However, there are two disclaimers:
(1) Due to the pressure of time, I had to submit this memorandum
before Verla could review it. Therefore, she will have an
opportunity to offer her comments later. (2) Due to the
complicated nature of the subject matter and the fact that the
contents of several documents were reviewed, it is possible that
something has been overlooked- or misunderstood. In that case, the
memorandum will have served to facilitate communication and the
staff is invited to make any corrections that are necessary.
•
11
DEH (GROUND ABSORPTION) SYSTEMS
DEH SYSTEM JULY 1992 JULY 1992
CLASSIFICATION DEH REQUIRED DEH REQUIRED PROPOSED NUMBER FEES FOR
(SECTION, 1961) REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. OCHD M&MA OF EXISTING M&MA
FOR OCHD ME OPTIONS REVIEW FREQ. SYSTEMS PROGRAM
TYPE I
PRIVY, GREASE TRAP, N/A N/A N/A UNKNOWN N/A
COMPOSTING, CHEMICAL, AND
INCINERATING TOILETS
TYPE II*
CONVENTIONAL, SINGLE FAMILY N/A N/A N/A 12,000 N/A
DWELLING OR LESS THAN
481 GPD
TYPE III
CONVENTIONAL, NON-SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING, OR 1/5 YRS. N/A 1/5 YRS. 2,050 +
GREATER THAN 480 GPD
TYPE III -
PUMP CONVENTIONAL WITH 1/5 YRS. N/A 1/5 YRS. 950 +
A SINGLE PUMP •
TYPE IV 2/YR. •
LOW PRESSURE PIPE 1/3 YRS. OCHD, PME 2/YR.# 550 $200
SYSTEMS WITH A SINGLE OR PCO
PUMP
TYPE IV CME WITH
SYSTEMS WITH MORE THAN 1/3 YRS. 2/YR. 2/YR.# 10 $200
ONE PUMP; LESS THAN OCHD
3,001 GPD PCO OR PME
N/A-NOT APPLICABLE
GPD-GALLONS PER DAY OF WASTE FLOW(480 GPD=4 BEDROOMS)
DEH-DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-DEHNR
* -WILL NOT BE INCLUDED AT IMPLEMENTATION
# - ONLY IF OCHD IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED AS THE PME
M&MA-MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
CME-COUNTY MANAGEMENT ENTITY
+ THIS IS AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE
12
DEH (GROUND ABSORPTION) SYSTEMS
(continued)
DEH SYSTEM JULY '92 JULY '92
CLASSIFICATION DEH REQUIRED DEH REQUIRED PROPOSED NUMBER FEES FOR
(SECTION. 1961) REVIEW FREQ. REVIEW FREQ. OCHD M&MA OF EXISTING M&MA
FOR OCHD FOR ME OPTIONS REVIEW FREQ. SYSTEMS PROGRAM
TYPE V(a&b) 2-52/YR.
GREATER THAN 3000 GPD OR SAND 1 YR. PME OR 2/YR. 6 $200
FILTER PRE-TREATMENT SYSTEMS PCO
TYPE V (c&d)
LESS THAN 3001 GPD WITH 4-12/YR.
MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR 1 YR. PME 2/YR. 0 $200
CHEMICAL PRE-TREATMENT REQUIRED
TYPE VI
GREATER THAN 3000 GPD WITH 52-260/YR.
MECHANICAL, BIOLOGICAL, 6 MOS. PME 12/YR. 0 $1,200
OR CHEMICAL PRE-TREATMENT REQUIRED
OCHD-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT _
PCO-PRIVATE CERTIFIED OPERATOR
PME-PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ENTITY
GPD-GALLONS PER DAY OF WASTE FLOW
DEH-DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-DEHNR
M&MA-MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
CME-COUNTY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
13
DEM (NON GROUND ABSORPTION AND NPDES) SYSTEMS
DEM SYSTEM INSPECTION OPERATOR PROPOSED NUMBER FEES FOR
CLASSIFICATION BY DEM MAINTENANCE OCHD M&MA OF EXISTING M&MA
(NOT IN SECTION .1961) (ROUTINE) FREQUENCY REVIEW FREQ. SYSTEMS PROGRAM
SPRAY IRRIGATION
SFD * NONE 2/YR. 10 $200
(OCHD CLASS III)
SPRAY IRRIGATION
NON SFD * 1/WK. 4/YR. 5 $400
(OCHD CLASS III)
SAND FILTER
SFD * NONE 2/YR. 16 $200
(OCHD CLASS III)
SAND FILTER
NON SFD * 1/WK. 4/YR. 6 $400
(OCHD CLASS III)
PACKAGE PLANT
(OCHD CLASS VI) 2/YR. DAILY 4/YR. 9 $400
(EXCLUDING OWASA AND HILLS.)
SLUDGE
APPLICATION SITE NONE DURING 1/YR. 23 $100
(OCHD CLASS VII) APPLICATION
NPDES-NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
DEM-DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-DEHNR
SFD-SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
*-COMPLAINT RESPONSE ONLY
OCHD-ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M&MA-MONITORING AND.MAITENANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM
CME-COUNTY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM