Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
MINUTES <br />ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH <br />November 20, 2008 <br />Board of Health Minutes Transcription completed by Anne Miles Cassell 3 November 20, 2008 <br />“safety net” provider was redefined for this study. Anissa Vines asked how many <br />practices were involved in the study. Dr. Nishikawa stated that 32 questionnaires were <br />distributed. Of these, 19 were returned, an overall response rate of 59%. Wayne <br />Sherman noted that all providers participating in the survey served all zip codes in the <br />area. <br /> <br />Basic healthcare services are being provided fairly universally among the safety net <br />practices. The areas where service is lower are ancillary services, such as x-ray, <br />pharmaceutical, etc. <br /> <br />One of the driving factors in developing this tool was to make it less labor intensive to <br />the user. Wayne Sherman said the tool does not allow making the determination if <br />there is enough of a specific type of service provider available. In spite of the <br />mentioned limitations of the tool, it does have value as an initial effort to assess <br />availability and accessibility of medical services to the residents of Orange County as <br />required by the North Carolina Administrative Code. No other tool is known to be <br />developed or in use by the state or county health departments. It was suggested that <br />this tool be shared at the state level for consideration of enhancements in order for it to <br />be useful as a template for other health departments to meet their mandated <br />responsibilities. <br /> <br />Chris Harlan commented that the role of the health department is to assure that the <br />services are available to the community and that it was surprising that no one had <br />come up with a tool to determine what the needs are and how they were being met <br />before now. <br /> <br />B. Well Rules Amendment <br /> <br />Orange County Board of Health adopted the current Groundwater Protection Rules in <br />June of 2008. Since implementation of July 1st, there are two areas of the rule that staff <br />recommend be considered for amendment. Tom Konsler explained the following: <br /> <br /> Section II (D) Well Casing: There is currently no requirement in the regulation for <br />any protection of the well opening upon completion of the drilling. Because <br />several weeks or months can pass before the pump and the seal are installed, in <br />order to protect the groundwater from contamination, a requirement was <br />proposed that a cover or cap be used on the top of the casing for protection. <br /> <br /> Section II (I): Subparagraph 3 was added, which is a requirement in the state <br />02C rules. Reinserting this language is necessary to retain rules at an appropriate <br />stringency level. The requirement for an enclosure is being eliminated as there is <br />no public health significance for this and the requirement delays staff approval <br />of the completed well. The requirement for specifications for a slab around the <br />well head was eliminated because the slab is not required by the rules. <br /> <br />Details regarding recommended slab construction and an enclosure will be given to <br />the well owner or permit recipient as informational recommendations as apposed to <br />requirements. These rules have been advertised for public comment as required. Upon <br />adoption of these rules, they will become effective November 21, 2008.