Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4, .- <br /> PAGE 3 <br /> • <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 /> cooperatively with the State and then either have DEM or DHS assist in those <br /> implementations. Unfortunately, based on the Hazen and Sawyer 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 other 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 three to five years. The value <br /> of the bond could be based on the cost 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 certain 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 on <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 />