Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-17-1989
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Agenda - 01-17-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2017 9:37:45 AM
Creation date
3/10/2017 9:35:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/17/1989
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
, <br /> . • PACE 2 <br /> , . <br /> . . ' <br /> based on treatment plant lagoons with a land application of some 400 acres of <br /> distribution or fields. There are two primary regulatory agencies involved. One <br /> ( <br /> agency has a larger role than the other--the North Carolina Division of <br /> Environmental Management. They permit construction of all package treatment <br /> plants, discharge to surface water, land application treatment plants and most low <br /> ' pressure injection systems. Low pressure injection systems which are privately <br /> owned and do not treat processed water - for instance industrial waste-are <br /> regulated by the Division of Health Services. Both DEM and DHS have adopted <br /> : minimum design criteria and other regulations that control the design, construction <br /> and operation of the alternative systems. The North Carolina Utility Commission <br /> also has a role because many of these facilities are operated by investor owned <br /> utility companies licensed under the Utilities Commission. Again, operation by <br /> developers or other private entities who do not charge for the service, as well as, <br /> P Homeowners Association are not subject to the regulations of the Utility <br /> Commission. A major part of the study was the case history review. In summary, <br /> eighteen different facilities were looked at in Wake, Durham, Orange and Chatham <br /> , Counties. Facilities were viewed in this immediate geographic area because at <br /> : least in two of the three systems soil characteristics play a very important role <br /> , <br /> , in the successful performance of the system. Five package treatment plants were <br /> r <br /> - looked at, three land application systems and five low pressure injection systems. <br /> t Cordell then summarized the conclusions and recommendations of the Study. <br /> Anticipated growth in Orange County is likely to place increasing demands on the <br /> ,. <br /> County Commissioners to consider the use of alternative treatment technology. <br /> Historically, growth in the County has been encouraged in areas with access to <br /> , <br /> , public sewer. As the County continues to grow, development will undoubtedly move <br /> into areas where either the soils are marginal and unsuitable for conventional <br /> Y septic systems or inaccessible to existing public sewer systems. Some, if not many <br /> of these areas could be served by alternative treatment systems. Based on the case <br /> history review, Hazen and Sawyer has concluded that the technology of the systems <br /> . is sound and can provide a reliable method of wastewater treatment and disposal. <br /> P Unfortunately, the case history review indicates that this acceptable level of <br /> ., <br /> performance is all too often not achieved. Shortcomings with respect to design, <br /> construction and operation and maintenance of the system has been identified in the <br /> report. Although design and construction problems have occurred, there is no <br /> question that improper or_incomplete-operation and-maintenance. of- the systems- ... ..._ __. <br /> , <br /> account for a disproportionate_share of reported failures. It- is unfortunate that <br /> failure of some of.the systems overshadows-the. successful_treatment- performance of- <br /> the systems that are operating. They continue to provide a-reliable form of <br /> wastewater treatment. The successful-systems -have been well designed by . -- <br /> professional engineers with specific expertise and experience._ They have been <br /> properly constructed by knowledgeable -and traineticontractors.and they are:operated <br /> by qualified individuals who understand both the technical basis of the design, and - <br /> P implement corrective action, if necessary, to insure continued successful . . . . . <br /> ' operation. Preventive maintenance and continuous monitoring are also key_ . . <br /> components of the successful systems. Failing or unsuccessful systems suffer from <br /> , <br /> , one or more problems including inadequate system design that may limit or inhibit <br /> •• - <br /> ] performance, poor construction and inadequate operation and maintenance. We <br /> • * - believe there are modifications that can be made to the current institutional <br /> , <br /> , • arrangements and public policies that control alternative systems with the goal of <br /> insuring that all of the alternative systems installed realize the success that <br /> only a few systems can now demonstrate. While the need to modify the policies may <br /> . be generally recognized, there is no clear consensus in the field as to how best <br /> • achieve this result. In hopes of encouraging continued discussion, the report <br /> suggested several strategies for consideration by the Commissioners. These are <br /> . . - . <br /> : I . • ' ' •- <br /> - : <br /> . : <br /> t <br /> . . <br /> . , <br /> . . . <br /> • . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.