Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~~ <br />generally divided in the areas of design, construction and operation, and <br />maintenance. The design of the facilities is regulated by DEM and/or the Division <br />of Health Services. The County could consider implementing higher design standards <br />than those two agencies presently have on the books. There is a legitimate <br />question as to whether the County can supersede the jurisdiction of the State in <br />regulating the issuance of the permit but in conversations with both DEM and DHS <br />there is some precedent for local government to enact higher standards <br />coopezatively with the State and then eithex have DEM or DHS assist in those <br />implementations. Unfortunately, based on the Hazen and Sawyex review they have <br />been unable to identify any design standards believed to be inadequate. To the <br />contrary, they believe the standards are generally adequate to insure proper <br />performance of the system. They doubt that higher design standards would result in <br />measurable overall improvement in system performance. A second possibility is that <br />the Commissioners could consider requiring posting of bonds or other sureties <br />guaranteeing the performance of the system over some limited period of time. Much <br />discussion centered around the question of if you have an alternative system, can <br />you require a bond to guarantee the performance of the system over the life of the <br />system. That was discussed with the Institute of Government and othex individuals <br />knowledgeable in the area and concluded that it is not practical to require a <br />developer to post a bond of indefinite life. A possible alternative that would be <br />viable would be for that bond to cover a period of there to five years. The value <br />of the bond could be based on the cast of providing an alternative system to the <br />particular development should the proposed treatment system fail to perform <br />adequately. The three to five year period was selected because they believe that <br />any design or construction related deficiencies would become evident early during <br />the process and would indirectly insure that the system was properly designed and <br />was properly constructed. That leaves operation and maintenance of the system. <br />The construction aspect of the alternative system appears to have the least <br />influence on their performance. The only deficiency noted is that there has been <br />evidence that sometimes there's incomplete follow through or incomplete involvement <br />of the design in the construction so that cextain facilities or components of the <br />design are never actually constructed. DEM has recently implemented a new <br />regulation that requires the principal designer to certify completion of the system <br />so it is too early to document the success of this new regulation from historical <br />records--we're cautiously optimistic that the new system is going to address the <br />continued involvement of the design professional. <br />The last element of the recommendation is operation and maintenance.. Based an <br />a case history study, it is clear that if the reliability of alternative treatment <br />systems is to be improved, the greatest opportunity for improvement lies in the <br />area of improved operation and maintenance. Reasons for poor operation and <br />maintenance of alternative systems are many but surely include lack of adequate <br />technical expertise and adequate financing and insufficient regulatory overview. <br />Historically, alternative systems have been operated under a whole range of <br />institutional arrangements including private land owners and developers, home <br />owners associations and private utility companies. Hazen and Sawyer does not see <br />any evidence that any of those institutional arrangements have escaped the problems <br />with improper operation and maintenance. The study suggested two possible <br />strategies for improving the operation and maintenance of the system. They range <br />from maximum involvement on the part of the County to minimum level involvement on <br />the part of the County. The maximum County involvement could be based on the <br />County becoming directly involved in the operation of the alternative system. The <br />basic premise in this policy consideration is that public operation and management <br />of the systems would be more responsive to insuring that the systems are properly <br />operated and maintained. Public operation would not necessarily mean public <br />