Memorandum #02-09: PDF 17 MB Adoption of the Revised Regulations Governing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and Liquid Waste Management: Consideration of Business Impact Statement
Chair Giunchigliani declared the public hearing open.
The following is a verbatim transcription of the public hearing concerning Memorandum #02-09.
Dr. Sands: That is the adoption of the Proposed Regulations Governing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and Liquid Waste Management and Consideration of Business Impact Statement. And again, Mr. Naim Qazi, plan review manager and staff will provide a briefing on this and be able to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Giunchigliani: It’s your day today.
Naim Qazi: I would like to ask your permission to talk a little bit longer on this issue. We have worked on this issue for the last two years and finally we have reached this point. We are proposing changes and revisions to our septic systems regulations. Please note that the last time these regulations were amended was in 1994 when the liquid waste management was added; otherwise all the information was taken from adoption in 1984. The current regulations are out of date. It includes provisions for clay pipes, asbestos metal, septic tanks that are no longer in use. The current regulations do not include the latest waste water treatment technology used by US EPA. The current regulations do not include some of the recommendations included for preventive maintenance of individual sewage disposal systems brochures as well as the information we put on the website. During the 2005 legislative session Nevada Revised Statute was changed. We have reviewed our Memorandum of Agreement with the state, who has jurisdiction over commercial septic systems in Clark County. The Memorandum of Agreement is at the end of this package. We have added an ISDS hearing officer process to better deal with compliance issues and public complaints. We believe that this management of septics will fall in line with the solid waste management and enforcement process. Your approval of these regulations will clarify the operations and assist in protection of the public. We have not added any regulation in the statute. We have not received any complaint from the public. In the past we’ve tried to implement individual septic system regulations but were not successful. Therefore we are asking for an enforcement authority. Some of the benefits we will have from these regulations revisions are: number one: we have ordered the certification of ISDS to protect potential home buyers. There is currently no Nevada state law that requires certification of septic systems prior to the sale of the property, unlike California, Arizona, Utah. SNHD’s certification of septic systems is often requested for FHA and FHA-backed loans. This will protect potential home buyers and the lender. There is no cost to the public with the adoption of these revised regulations. And presently we are not asking for any increase in fees. These regulations will not impact the building department. We have made every effort to reach out to the community; we informed and helped them understand the proposed changes. We publicized the workshops via newspaper announcement. We have conducted three workshops: one here, one in Sandy Valley and one in Overton. We went to Sandy Valley in the night-time to accommodate community request. And most of the questions asked by the public were related to their individual situation or clarification, which we have answered appropriately. Questions and suggestions pertaining to proposed rules and regulations are addressed and incorporated as appropriate, except one suggestion that was made by Mr. Sam Carter, who is from the Orenco System, to change the nitrate level from 20 mg per liter to 10 mg per liter. The level of 20 mg per liter was established by EPA; therefore we have to follow this standard. This package that you have, ladies and gentlemen, proposed regulations and detailed of comments and answers. And lastly, my staff members Dan LaRubio and Adrian Brown have done a great job in putting this package together, conducting public workshops and working with the state to amend their regulations, are here to answer questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Adrian Brown: Just a point of clarification, the change Orenco System were asking for was to change to 10 parts per million to 20 parts per million, and that change we couldn’t accommodate because of US EPA requirements.
Chair Giunchigliani: Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Weekly has a question.
Member Weekly: Thank you very much. And I’d just like to say, sir, that you’re absolutely right. Your staff, Mr. LaRubio and Mr. Brown, have been absolutely wonderful for us. And I know we’ve had to deal with a number of controversial issues with this matter, and I can tell you to have that type of enforcement in place truly helps us tremendously. And so I just want to commend those two gentlemen publicly, because they’ve been…
Mr. Qazi: Thank you so much.
Member Weekly: … to a number of our meetings and they’ve helped us through a number of these particular issues. So I want to put that on the record and am definitely in support of these.
Member Crowley: Madam Chair?
Chair Giunchigliani: Yes?
Member Crowley: I have two questions, and you can take them in any order you want. The first one is that with the certification required of the home buyer before he can sell his home, if it has an ISDS, how does a home owner who has an older ISDS that isn’t perhaps built to what would be today’s standard, how do they get that certification without replacing the entire unit. And let me ask a second question and they you can roll them together probably, roll your answers together. Then also, how extensive can their repairs be before they trigger a requirement that the entire system be replaced with something that is up to today’s standards.
Mr. Brown: Okay, to answer your first question. Whenever we do a certification, an inspector goes out, the septic tank lid has to be removed, there’s an inspection inside the septic tank, along with the records, and based on that on-site inspection it’s determined whether or not the septic system can be expected to function satisfactorily and that report is submitted and management signs off on the certification.
Member Crowley: So it’s a certification of functionality not necessarily materials of construction or piping, it’s just functionality.
Mr. Brown: Exactly, because that’s what’s stated on the certification that FHA requires from us. To answer your question regarding repairs, if you’ll look, we came up with a definition for repairs in the revised regulations, and that is on, give me a second please, that is item 1.57 and we say what the ISDS repair is and based on that definition, if it falls outside of the definition then we would necessitate installation of a new system.
Member Crowley: Could you repeat back for us what that definition is?
Mr. Brown: Okay, sure, I can read it for you. ISDS repairs, section 1.57: “At the discretion of the health authority, the repair of an individual sewage disposal system is any action that allows for the unrestricted movement of effluent, which includes: the flushing and unplugging of solid pipes, installation and repair of inlet and outlet tees, and the removal and replacement of solid pipes only. Repairs include, without limitation: adding a distribution box, adding a riser for septic tank lid(s), septic tank lid replacements, centering connection to manifold (header line), adding an end cap to leach line(s), and the installation of aeration risers. Repair work does not require the issuance of an ISDS permit; however, an inspection by the Health Authority at the applicable fee may be required (see Section 16).
Member Crowley: So, for example, if someone had a tank that needed to be replaced, that would probably not be considered a repair.
Mr. Brown: They would need to apply for a permit.
Member Crowley: OK. But if there isn’t a leach field…the leach field isn’t really part of the ISDS, is it?
Mr. Brown: Well, it is. Then the individual sewage disposal system includes both the septic tank and the soil absorption field.
Member Crowley: If they make repairs on that…
Mr. Brown: It doesn’t require a permit from us…
Member Crowley: OK, even though it wasn’t stated in here…
Mr. Brown: For example, if there’s like a distribution box that’s going to be switched out, we’d have to inspect to make sure that the distribution box is installed per regulation.
Member Crowley: OK.
Mr. Brown: And that would require a permit, because when it comes down to issuing a permit, then there’s a concern about proximity to municipal sewer, which can bring in a whole list of other requirements.
Chair Giunchigliani: Let me follow up on that, if I might, because a leach field was the other question. So it’s considered an ISDS, just another form. Now usually engineering-wise there’s a certain, you require a percolation test and then there’s a block wall that’s below grade…
Mr. Brown: Correct.
Chair Giunchigliani: … and also has to be in place, correct?
Mr. Brown: You’re talking about the volume match. And we define what a volume match is in the revised regulations.
Chair Giunchigliani: OK. So if one is missing, because there’s been some, I know, on Mt. Charleston that were never properly done. Someone goes to sell, they would have to…
Mr. Brown: They would have to uncover…
Chair Giunchigliani: … come into compliance.
Mr. Brown: …exactly, because if we…we cannot certify a system that doesn’t meet the regulation and we can’t see the extended function satisfactorily when we inspect it and see what the repairs are, there’s a permit that needs to be applied for.
Chair Giunchigliani: And none of this impacts gray water, or reclaimed water, just effluent that you’re dealing with?
Mr. Brown: No, it doesn’t.
Chair Giunchigliani: And didn’t we just get some kind of…somebody owed us money based on a lawsuit or something and they were giving us money to educate about pharmaceuticals in the water, because part of this deals with, in your effluent disposal?
Mr. Brown: I’m not privy to that.
Chair Giunchigliani: I just read something in the paper that somebody got paid, part of what their agreement was in lieu of dollars was to give the health district money for educating people on how to properly dispose of their drugs.
Dr. Sands: No one’s contacted us about that yet, but we’ll be on it.
Chair Giunchigliani: You’ll be right on that one!
Laughter
Chair Giunchigliani: And then finally, for me at least, an FHA question. So they’re the only ones that are required…
Mr. Brown: Currently they are the only lending agency that requests certification from the local health authority. There are times where other lenders may request it if they have suspicion that there are things that need to be looked at.
Chair Giunchigliani: And so as we in the local governments are dealing with a portion of the stimulus package that’s coming down on foreclosures and planning, I know we did stuff with training people for energy efficiencies and things like that. We might have to modify, or make sure our housing staff in our various localities are aware of this requirement as we try to put people into foreclosed homes. And I don’t think that there would not be an allowance for utilizing funding for that part of it, but it may not be part of the plans right now. So we should, just maybe, kind of, remember that that’s a component, possibly. Any further questions from Board members?
Member Crowley: Just a general comment and that’s I want to share Commissioner Weekly’s comment. I want to compliment you on the presentation of this information, because it was easy to read, you could see where the changes were, the language made sense, so thank you.
Mr. Qazi: Thank you very much.
Chair Giunchigliani: Jim?
Member Christensen: I, too, want to say it’s a great presentation. The one question that always dogs this Board is, and this doesn’t speak to it, is the density of the ISDSs and the question of we’re going to have to, at some point in time, bite the bullet to say and figure out if there’s any more ISDSs allowed and/or do you have to hook up to a public sewage system. So I’m just, you know, having sat here for ten years, we still have yet to bite that bullet. And that date is coming soon.
Chair Giunchigliani: Will this regulation and changes be on our website, then, so the public can access it?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Chair Giunchigliani: And to follow up on that, Jim, that’s an excellent point. The County, actually, with the Water Rec I have several homeowners’ associations, whatever, public housing that are private, that built their own systems. And now the folks are coming to the County saying “let me in, we want to hook up to the county standard” and so on and so forth. And staff actually has a consultant that’s looking at…we can’t pay for that – that’s not our responsibility. Those people pay for that. But what standard do they have to come to and then how can we let them…and we’re actually looking at our policy to no longer allow for, if they want to build it, it has to be built to county standards at the get-go, not after the fact when they try to come in. So that is a policy, that at least in Clark County, we just recently did. So maybe the other jurisdictions may want, well we’re all county, but I think North Las Vegas has your own treatment. Shame on you. But anyway, but I think that may not be a bad idea to take a similar policy/direction that they have to come up to whatever your standard is to hookup in order to be part of their permitting for constructing that housing division, so that you don’t have the issue of how they can then later connect upon request, which would save them money in the long run and the taxpayers who should not be obligated to it. Any other further comments from the Board? A motion?
Member Crowley: Move for approval.
Member Christensen: I’ll second.
Chair Giunchigliani: And second…
Dr. Sands: Excuse me – you have to get public comments.
Chair Giunchigliani: I apologize. I’ll come right back to that. Does the regulation include the change from the 20 to the 10, the correction?
Mr. Brown: That was just a clarification because the letter that we got from Orenco, they were trying to ask us to change the requirement.
Chair Giunchigliani: OK. Alright. And we’ll now open this for public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to testify, please come forward, state your name. Good morning.
Julie Charburn: Good morning, Chairwoman. My name is Julie Charburn; I’m with the Clark County Water Reclamation District. I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak this morning. First I would like to answer one of your questions – it was the Water Reclamation District that is going to be working on the prescription drug disposal program and we will be working with the health district on that program.
Chair Giunchigliani: I didn’t dream that. OK.
Member Barlow: Did you bring the check?
Laughter
Ms. Charburn: And generally, too, we also agree with your statement that you just made – we do believe that all stakeholder agencies and interest groups will need to work together in the future to address the poignancy of the septic system in the urban areas. We know that, you especially in your district, have a lot. We believe that agencies working with public health, planning, water resources and water treatment will need to collaborate not only on future regulations but for creative means to protect the environment and better manage our limited water resources. From the creation of funding programs for septic conversions to discussions on limiting septic permits for specific time duration, we believe that the subject is worth regional effort and we do look forward to working with everyone involved on that.
Chair Giunchigliani: Excellent.
Ms. Charburn: In regards to the specific regulations before you, we do ask for your consideration for two suggestions. One is that the requirement be added between section 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 stating that the application shall not be processed without an inquiry response to municipalities or agencies within the jurisdiction of the property or from the public works department setting forth whether the property fits the criteria to connect to a public system.
Chair Giunchigliani: Do you have that in writing that you can submit to staff or we can make copies?
Ms. Charburn: Staff already has it.
Chair Giunchigliani: OK, good.
Ms. Charburn: And also, to change section 2.4.5 which currently reads: “a letter from the municipal sewer agency within the jurisdiction of the property or from the public works department stating that they have no objection to the installation of the commercial holding tank” be changed to read “an inquiry response from the municipal sewer agency within the jurisdiction of the property or from the public works department setting forth whether the property fits the criteria to connect to the public sewer.”
Chair Giunchigliani: OK, to staff, is that, are those comments acceptable?
Mr. Brown: Yes, we are, let me explain the discrepancy. We got the response from Water Rec at 4:29pm on Friday. We had to send the Board of Health memo off that morning. We cannot make any changes when we send it off to you, so this is why this is being addressed…
Chair Giunchigliani: OK.
Mr. Brown: …at this time.
Chair Giunchigliani: Thank you for explaining that. Susan?
Member Crowley: And I do have a question, too. It sounds like what we’re doing is revising the language so that there has to be a response from the agency that the inquiry was made of before something can be granted as opposed to just an inquiry being made. Do you have any idea on how long it’s going to take one of the entities to respond back for a homeowner that wants to install…
Mr. Brown: Let me explain. Right now we use the Clark County GIS Open Door program, which has sewer line locations for the City of Las Vegas and Clark County – it’s a measuring utility that we use to make sure that the 400 feet is adhered to. If it’s at 410, 399, we call the engineering section at the Clark County Water Reclamation District for clarification and they normally send us a letter or they give us a verbal approval on the telephone and based on that we decide if we’re going to issue a permit or not.
Member Crowley: OK, so it’s…
Mr. Brown: Currently it’s in our operational plan at this time. But we specifically want it to be placed in the regulations.
Chair Giunchigliani: Do you have objection to the recommendations?
Mr. Brown: No, no. Thank you.
Chair Giunchigliani: We’ll work with you. OK, thank you very much.
Ms. Charburn: Thank you.
Chair Giunchigliani: Questions? Any further questions?
Member Crowley: I’ll amend my motion to …
Chair Giunchigliani: Let me just see if there’s anybody else that…Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on this regulation? OK, we’ll close the public hearing.
Member Crowley: I’ll amend my motion to include the changes that were just requested that our staff has agreed to.
Member Christensen: The Second agrees.
Chair Giunchigliani: Any further discussion? See none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Board members: Aye.
Chair Giunchigliani: Opposed? Motion carries. And we commend you and your staff.
Mr. Qazi: Thank you very much. I will take these people to lunch now.
Chair Giunchigliani: This was the easiest to read regulations. It’s really been very helpful. Thank you.
A motion was made by Member Crowley to adopt the proposed regulations as; seconded by Member Christensen and was unanimously approved.
