Agenda - 11-03-2004-9e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

treatment technology was not yet approved far use in the state of North Carolina and its use could involve a more extensive and protracted approval process. As alternatives to the Innovative Design recommendation, County staff proposed consideration of two other design/build options, both of which included a secondary treatment system component, Innovative Design representatives appeared at the BOCC meeting to provide additional information in support of their recommendation that was lower in overall cost but appeared to be unsubstantiated, Fallowing discussion among the parties, the BOCC directed staff and the consultants to come together outside the meeting and bring back a single proposal in writing, During the summer break, staff met twice with Innovative Design to attempt to arrive at a common understanding on the capacity and remaining life of the existing nitrification field, a projected waste flow determination, treatment methodologies and system permitting guidelines and requirements, In the process, staff re-assessed the facility's waste flow projections, utilizing those flow rates specified for specific facility uses, user traffic, floor space, etc,, by State environment health permitting regulations applicable to on-site wastewater treatment systems. Staff upheld its original conclusions that permitting a treatment system for an expanded facility use would require beginning the system design permitting process with an initial design flow of 6000-gpd, with or without flow equalization. After meeting with on-site wastewater treatment system permitting staff of the NC Division of Environmental Health, staff determined that the permitting process does provide for a partial reduction in the regulation-specified design flows based on historical flow records of the subject facility and an the use of water savings plumbing fixtures (law flow toilets, etc.). However, staff also determined that these reductions would not prove to sufficient to allow the use of the existing nitrification field without a significant expansion into the Vincent property, Staff discussed their conclusions with Innovative Design and shared them with Commissioners Brown and Halkiotis, who in their roles as liaison to the Northern Human Services Center Task Force confirmed the staff position. The correspondence and phone conversations that ensued between the County staff and Innovative Design in pursuit of next steps, however, continued to reveal a difference in direction, Different technical opinions surfaced over the need and process to investigate the remaining capacity of the existing nitrification field and ultimately whether or not the current contract with Innovative Design would have to be modified to accommodate a different scope of work and provide them with additional compensation, County staff was unable to reach a compromise arrangement with Innovative Design that would have facilitated their participation in the design phase while maintaining what they believed to be the technical integrity of the project. As a result, County staff felt the most appropriate measure would be to suggest that the contractual arrangement might be better ended and the project pursued on the basis of work already accomplished, Innovative Design concurred with the proposition that its contract be terminated and submitted a final invoice for its services, County staff next proposed to recommend that the BOCC consider two design options for construction of the wastewater treatment system at Northern that could be undertaken in-house. llnder these options, Engineering and Environmental Health staff would be responsible as "Project Representatives" for the County and to coordinate the design and State permit process, Actual construction bids for the system would be let by Purchasing and awarded by the BOCC,