Prince William County Sewer Plan
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Prince William County Sewer Plan as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,808
- Pages: 12
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT
SANITARY SEWER
SA – Add “Sanitary” to the title to distinguish from storm sewer.
Intent
Service Authority comments denoted as “SA”. Health Department comments denoted as “HD”.
The intent of the Sewer Plan is to facilitate the provision of adequate wastewater treatment and cost-effective sewer facilities in a manner consistent with development as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map in compliance with the Occoquan Policy, the Potomac Embayment Standards, and Virginia Department of Health Sewer Regulations; and to address existing and potential conditions that could otherwise adversely impact the natural environment and public health, safety, and welfare. Public sewer is planned and mapped for the Development Area. New development in the Development Area will occur with the provision of public sewer facilities, except in the Semi-Rural Residential (SRR) designation, where on-site sewerage systems may also be used. Development in the Rural Area shall occur without public sewer facilities, except where provided for in this chapter—to address specific public health concerns or to serve a specific public facility. Any extension of public sewers into the Rural Area, however, shall not be used as a justification for increasing the residential densities that are shown on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map for the Rural Area. The Sewer Plan discourages alternative decentralized on-site sewerage systems in the Rural Area, where more than one lot is to share such a system.
SA – Delete dashes. On-site sewerage systems should be discouraged in the SRR area; the primary option should be connection to public sewer with the exception being on-site sewerage systems. Public sewer should be permitted in the Rural Area, so long as the land use plan is followed and densities are not increased beyond those allowed by the land use plan. HD – Change “Alternative” to “decentralized onsite” sewerage. If the extension of sewer does not allow higher density and if the homes are clustered at rural residential densities, then there may be less land disturbance than with individual on-site systems on each lot. “Decentralized” on-site systems serving multiple lots should not be allowed unless operated by the Service Authority. Prior SA boards have said they would only 3/28/2007 SS-1
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT operate them at a cost borne by the homes served, which has been prohibitive. Consideration also needs to be given to allow the individual parcels which would contain an on-site system owned by the lot it serves but the “on-site system parcel” would only contain the system and a replacement area.
The Sewer Plan includes the following components: • •
Intent, Goal, Policies, and Action Strategies Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Projects (fold-out map)
GOAL: Provide economically feasible and environmentally sensitive systems of wastewater and sewage collection, conveyance and treatment to serve existing and proposed development, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map and discussed in the Long-Range Land Use Plan. SEW-POLICY 1: Continue sewer system planning within the development area, so that the costs of system expansions and increases in system capacity will continue to be borne by new development. SEW-POLICY 2: Ensure adequate sewer capacities needed to support planned growth in the Development Area, in accordance with the densities, intensities and locations for new development—as shown in the Long-Range Land Use Plan and Map and in a costeffective manner.
Should this be combined with SEWPolicy 2? SA – No SA – Delete dashes.
ACTION STRATEGIES: 1.
Revise the sewer plans for the County based on the Long-Range Land Use Plan This will need to be coordinated with Map. An analysis—including but not limited to the following subjects—should be any changes to the Long-Range Land incorporated into the Sewer Plan following adoption of each five-year update of Use Map 3/28/2007 SS-2
CURRENT CONTENT the County’s Comprehensive Plan, in instances where Comprehensive Plan policies or Long-Range Land Use Plan designations or development densities are amended and would have a direct impact upon existing sewer plans, or as part of any required public facility review for sewer extension(s):
2.
•
Potential shortfalls in utility capacities and proposed methods for addressing identified shortfalls.
•
Identification of capital needs, based upon identified shortfalls in utility capacities and identification of potential funding sources. This analysis should consider the relevancy of phased construction as a means to address capital needs.
COMMENT SA – Delete dashes. This strategy should end with the first sentence. The SA is chartered to support the Comprehensive Plan with public sewer in conformance with the land use plan. The remainder of this text is normal business practice of the service authority and is included in the service authority CIP process.
Alternative sewer systems that serve more than one lot conflict with the second paragraph of the intent of the sewer chapter, although that paragraph cites the Rural Area and this cites SRR area. If we • Analysis and recommendations regarding the provision of public service to users of small private sewage treatment plants, alternative decentralized on-site do not want them in the Rural Area on 10 acre lots, we should not entertain allowing sewerage systems that serve more than one lot and on-site sewerage systems. These facilities may already be existing or may occur in the future, in locations them in the SRR on smaller lots. designated Semi-Rural Residential (SRR) on the Long-Range Land Use Plan HD – Change “alternative” to Map or in other locations, such as for certain public buildings and sites. “decentralized on-site” to be more clear and to be relevant to current usage. Agree that decentralized on-site systems serving multiple lots should be discouraged based on how the county has developed to date. “Alternative systems” has been a floating term that should only mean systems that provide more treatment than a conventional septic tank and drainfield. We should cease using the term “alternative”. Require existing structures, whose failed sewerage system (as determined by the Has the Health Department determined Prince William County Health Department) has no on-site remediation and where additional areas or sites that would the property line is located within 300 feet of a public sewer line with adequate require this? capacity, to connect to such line. SA – Not to the SA’s knowledge. The 3/28/2007 SS-3
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT option to utilize an on-site remedy should be discouraged if public sewer is within 300 feet. Another on-site facility would only create another potential failure. The cost of these extensions must be borne by the homeowners or by the county via grants or other financing options, the SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers.
3.
4.
Plan for adequate facility capacity allocations from the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority to meet projected needs for those portions of western Prince William County that are included within the Development Area. Expand the H. L. Mooney treatment plant to accommodate projected need as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
5.
Plan and coordinate with the Dale Service Corporation to prepare strategies to accommodate projected needs within its service area, as reflected by the LongRange Land Use Plan Map.
6.
Recognize that the Prince William County Service Authority and the Dale Service
HD – Agree. In most cases where the system has failed a replacement area was not designated and the repair system cost usually equals or exceeds the cost of the sewer extension. The sewer extension causes less disturbance than the repair. Has this been done? SA – Yes, routine business practice of the SA. Has this plant been expanded and is there any additional capacity or area for expansion? SA – Mooney is currently in a design/build expansion to 24 mgd. It is authorized to expand up to 32 mgd and can be with retrofit technology. Has this been done?
3/28/2007 SS-4
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT
Corporation are the primary providers of sewage treatment to the County. 7.
8.
9.
Design and plan for sewer facilities only in accordance with the densities, intensities, and locations for new development in the Development Area that are shown in the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
Require all future development within the Development Area, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map, to connect to public sewer facilities, except in those locations designated SRR, where on-site sewerage systems are also permitted.
Require new development in the Development Area to fund the capital costs
Is this reflected on the fold-out map? SA – This is just a restatement of Sewer Policy-2. Yes, the map reflects it but, the sizing is only approximate and cannot be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined, slope as well as diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe. Should we be planning for future connections in all of the SRR area? SA – Absolutely, since it is in the Development Area, it should be required at the time of development. The primary option should be the connection to public sewer in all of the development area, with the exception or waiver being on-site sewerage systems. The proliferation of onsite septic systems only creates a future problem. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. HD – Present ordinance requires a 100% replacement area designated on the SRR lot so that the two systems should serve the residence for 35-75 years. Sewer does not need to be planned for these areas except on a very long-term basis. SA – This is just a restatement of sewer 3/28/2007 SS-5
CURRENT CONTENT associated with expanding sewer facilities, including line extensions and plant capacity expansions in coordination with the Prince William County Service Authority and in conjunction with the Long-Range Land Use Plan. 10.
11.
12.
Evaluate the existing Design and Construction Standards Manual standards for average daily wastewater flow by land use type at least every five years.
Monitor failures, as determined by the Health Department, to existing on-site sewerage systems, to determine the need for future extension of public sewer facilities within the Development Area. Such future extension, however, is not to be seen as a reason for an increase in residential densities above those specified on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
Prepare a standard policy and regulations to require existing and future
COMMENT policy 1. All new development regardless of location must fund the capital cost associated with expanding sewer facilities required to serve that development. Have we done this? SA – The flow rates are still valid for design, however, a flow rate for the urban residential areas should be established due to the high densities planned in these areas. Has the Health Department determined areas or sites that need this? SA – The cost of these extensions must be borne by the homeowners or by the county via grants or other financing options. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. HD – A working group should be established to identify areas where lots do not have repair areas and low density sewer may be needed for on-site system replacement. All on-site system replacements must connect to the sewer to lower the per dwelling cost of such extensions. An innovative funding plan is needed so that property owners could begin paying into a long-term fund to pay for the extension over the years before it is needed. Has this been done? 3/28/2007 SS-6
CURRENT CONTENT development to install appropriate pre-treatment facilities, in accordance with the Prince William County Service Authority or Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority Pretreatment Regulations or Policies, and to connect to public sewer facilities if such development is—or promotes—a health hazard.
COMMENT SA – Isn’t this in the county sewer ordinance? Delete dashes.
13.
Maintain an inventory of local systems—small private sewage treatment plants, alternative sewerage systems, and on-site sewerage systems—throughout the County.
SA – Delete dashes.
14.
Focus future publicly funded capital improvement programs for sewer facility expansion projects into the Development Area, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
SA – Not needed.
15.
Prohibit the use of privately owned and privately operated treatment plants for new development projects.
Is this a current regulation? SA – The Occoquan policy limits the number of treatment plants in the Occoquan basin. We have spent thirty years and millions of dollars removing these small systems in Prince William County, we should not add new problems.
16.
Utilize the fold-out Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Projects map to identify the general or approximate location, character, and extent of the features shown thereon. Such features shall be planned, sited, and buffered to provide compatibility with surrounding existing and planned land uses, and shall meet the appropriate policies and action strategies of the Community Design Plan and the Long-Range Land Use Plan.
HD –agree with the SA. These small community treatment plants do not have an economy of scale or a reliable funding plan to avoid the very large capital costs of operation, maintenance, and future replacement. SA – The Community Design Plan does not address water and sewer and should not be referenced here. The sizing on the map is only approximate and final sizing can not be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined, slope as well as 3/28/2007 SS-7
CURRENT CONTENT
17.
Continue to Uupdate local sewer ordinances and pretreatment regulations and/or policies, as appropriate.
COMMENT diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe Haven’t we been doing this with DCSM updates?
SEWER POLICY 3: Prohibit the extension of public sewer into the Rural Area, except under special circumstances that maintain the land use densities delineated in the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map and uphold the policies and action strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. ACTION STRATEGIES: 1.
All new development within the Rural Area shall be served by individual-lot, onsite sewerage systems. Public sewer systems—except under the special circumstances that are outlined in the action strategies contained herein, and as specifically permitted under the action strategies in the Nokesville Sector Plan for the “core area” identified in that sector plan—shall not be extended into the Rural Area.
SA – Use commas rather than dashes. The proliferation of on-site septic systems only creates a future problem. If the land use plan is adhered to strictly, public sewer becomes an economic issue a developer or homeowner must address, and conforms to the Sewer Policy 2, AS-7, and Sewer Policy 3, AS-11 and 12. HD – Most lots permitted for an onsite system since 1989 have a 100 replacement area designated for repair needs. We would only want to consider sewer extensions into the Rural area if it can be assured that the properties served will remain at current low densities.
2.
Support a 100-percent reserve requirement for all drainfields—or equivalent mechanisms for achieving the same goal, regardless of percolation rate—for all developments in the County that are not developed with public sewer.
Isn’t this a current regulation? HD – Correct- this is a local ordinance. Exceptions only for lots recorded prior to 1989. May want to delete this strategy. 3/28/2007 SS-8
CURRENT CONTENT 3.
4.
COMMENT
Develop, adopt, implement, and enforce a periodic waste disposal system maintenance reporting septic tank pump-out and reporting program in order to ensure proper waste disposal.
Are we doing this?
Encourage the Prince William County Health District to permit the use of individual-site alternative sewerage systems that do not require surface water discharge.
Does the Health Department permit this?
HD – A listing of septic systems and when they were last pumped is in place and is posted on the County website under the health district. Change “waste disposal system” to ‘Septic tank pump-out program” or delete strategy.
SA – Most of the on-site alternative systems do not discharge into surface waters.
5.
Develop a Wellhead Protection Program and Groundwater Recharge Zone Protection Program—utilizing procedural guidelines and information available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee—to protect or improve the groundwater quality and prevent well contamination from faulty or improperly located private waste disposal systems.
HD – Discharges are not allowed for new homes in the Occoquan watershed. They are allowed for existing homes in any watershed when the on-site system cannot be repaired on the property and public sewer is not available. Please consider elimination of this strategy. Have we done this? SA - Delete dashes. There are already State requirements for separation of wells and septic system drainfields. This strategy is already in the Potable Water chapter, but probably should be in the Environment chapter. HD – This has only been done for small public water supply wells serving 25 or 3/28/2007 SS-9
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT more persons.
6.
To serve a public facility—such as a school, fire station, or library—allow for the extension of public sewer into the Rural Area.
7.
Within the Rural Area, permit the voluntary use of public sewer systems in a subwatershed that has a documented history of sewerage system failures, as determined by the Health Department.
8.
9.
Require existing structures whose failed sewerage systems have no on-site remediation—and where the property line is located within 300 feet of a public sewer line with adequate capacity—to connect to such line.
Permit existing structures whose property line is within 1,000 feet of a sewer line extended into the Rural Area under the conditions of AS-6, AS-7, or AS-8 above to connect to the line, if there is adequate capacity on that line.
10. Where appropriate, the Prince William County Service Authority will make reasonable efforts to accommodate existing structures along the length of proposed
SA - This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system. HD – Existing homes using septic systems should not have to wait for system failure before being allowed to connect to public sewer at allowable densities. A much higher level of treatment is usually provided by public sewer over a conventional septic system. Redundant with SEW-Policy 1 & 2 Action Strategy 2 SA - Delete dashes. Not in Sewer Policy1. The option to utilize an on-site remedy should be discouraged if public sewer is within 300 feet. Another on-site facility would only create another potential failure. SA – This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system. HD - Agree with SA SA – This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they 3/28/2007 SS-10
CURRENT CONTENT sewer lines; however, no guarantee of service will be made and no increase in capacity beyond that shown on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map shall be provided.
COMMENT are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system.
11. The existence or extension of a public sewer system to serve a site shall not promote increased densities that would not otherwise be allowed given the application of the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan and relevant compatibility issues.
SA – Combine action strategy 11 and 12
12. The existence or extension of a public sewer system in the Rural Area shall not provide justification for altering the land use classifications on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
SA - Combine action strategy 11 and 12
13. Where a sector plan or planning study recommended in the Long-Range Land Use Plan and approved by the Board of County Supervisors calls for extension of public sewer into the Rural Area, permit such extension, so long as such action is consistent with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan.
SA - The extension and connection policy of any such plan or study should be carefully planned to create a sustainable utility system that is capable of serving the community, subject to the plan. Properties on both sides of a street should be able to receive service from a sewer line run in the street; likewise both sides of a drainage basin. The full extent of a sub-shed with failing on site septic systems should be determined so that the public sewer system to remedy the problem is adequate to solve the whole problem, even if done in phases, without the expense of paralleling mains in the future. Pockets without service should not be created within the community.
14. The cost of any extensions/connections of/to a public system must be borne by the property owners connecting to the system.
HD - Agree with SA SA - This strategy does not mention failing on-site sewerage systems. Does that mean that it only applies to schools, libraries, fire 3/28/2007 SS-11
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT
stations and other public buildings? If not, it conflicts with other Policy-3 strategies since it implies no limitation on what property can be served. The strategy is redundant with Sewer Policy 2, AS-9. Consider combining 14 and 15 or deleting 14. SA - The cost of these extensions must be 15. Investigate the feasibility of obtaining grant funds for use by the County for sewer borne by the homeowners or by the county extension to areas with a high potential for on-site waste disposal system failure. via grants or other financing options. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. Consider combining 14 and 15. 16. Permit sewer extensions to areas of historical significance in the rural area to allow SA - This appears inconsistent with the previous parts of Sewer Policy-3. This for the continued preservation of historic buildings and sites and to allow for extension strategy would permit new infill expanded public use or new infill development that is in keeping with the historic development while previous action has character of the area. denied even existing vacant lots in problem areas to connect which should be likewise viewed as infill development. SP – updated to 2030 SEWER CHAPTER PLAN MAPS The Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Project Map that illustrates this plan reflects existing sewer facilities and proposed facility improvements. The data shown on the map includes the range of pipe sizes already existing or planned by the Service Authority for that particular system or area.
SA - Size ranges are for proposed pipes only, but the sizing is only approximate and cannot be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined. Slope as well as diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe.
3/28/2007 SS-12
COMMENT
SANITARY SEWER
SA – Add “Sanitary” to the title to distinguish from storm sewer.
Intent
Service Authority comments denoted as “SA”. Health Department comments denoted as “HD”.
The intent of the Sewer Plan is to facilitate the provision of adequate wastewater treatment and cost-effective sewer facilities in a manner consistent with development as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map in compliance with the Occoquan Policy, the Potomac Embayment Standards, and Virginia Department of Health Sewer Regulations; and to address existing and potential conditions that could otherwise adversely impact the natural environment and public health, safety, and welfare. Public sewer is planned and mapped for the Development Area. New development in the Development Area will occur with the provision of public sewer facilities, except in the Semi-Rural Residential (SRR) designation, where on-site sewerage systems may also be used. Development in the Rural Area shall occur without public sewer facilities, except where provided for in this chapter—to address specific public health concerns or to serve a specific public facility. Any extension of public sewers into the Rural Area, however, shall not be used as a justification for increasing the residential densities that are shown on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map for the Rural Area. The Sewer Plan discourages alternative decentralized on-site sewerage systems in the Rural Area, where more than one lot is to share such a system.
SA – Delete dashes. On-site sewerage systems should be discouraged in the SRR area; the primary option should be connection to public sewer with the exception being on-site sewerage systems. Public sewer should be permitted in the Rural Area, so long as the land use plan is followed and densities are not increased beyond those allowed by the land use plan. HD – Change “Alternative” to “decentralized onsite” sewerage. If the extension of sewer does not allow higher density and if the homes are clustered at rural residential densities, then there may be less land disturbance than with individual on-site systems on each lot. “Decentralized” on-site systems serving multiple lots should not be allowed unless operated by the Service Authority. Prior SA boards have said they would only 3/28/2007 SS-1
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT operate them at a cost borne by the homes served, which has been prohibitive. Consideration also needs to be given to allow the individual parcels which would contain an on-site system owned by the lot it serves but the “on-site system parcel” would only contain the system and a replacement area.
The Sewer Plan includes the following components: • •
Intent, Goal, Policies, and Action Strategies Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Projects (fold-out map)
GOAL: Provide economically feasible and environmentally sensitive systems of wastewater and sewage collection, conveyance and treatment to serve existing and proposed development, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map and discussed in the Long-Range Land Use Plan. SEW-POLICY 1: Continue sewer system planning within the development area, so that the costs of system expansions and increases in system capacity will continue to be borne by new development. SEW-POLICY 2: Ensure adequate sewer capacities needed to support planned growth in the Development Area, in accordance with the densities, intensities and locations for new development—as shown in the Long-Range Land Use Plan and Map and in a costeffective manner.
Should this be combined with SEWPolicy 2? SA – No SA – Delete dashes.
ACTION STRATEGIES: 1.
Revise the sewer plans for the County based on the Long-Range Land Use Plan This will need to be coordinated with Map. An analysis—including but not limited to the following subjects—should be any changes to the Long-Range Land incorporated into the Sewer Plan following adoption of each five-year update of Use Map 3/28/2007 SS-2
CURRENT CONTENT the County’s Comprehensive Plan, in instances where Comprehensive Plan policies or Long-Range Land Use Plan designations or development densities are amended and would have a direct impact upon existing sewer plans, or as part of any required public facility review for sewer extension(s):
2.
•
Potential shortfalls in utility capacities and proposed methods for addressing identified shortfalls.
•
Identification of capital needs, based upon identified shortfalls in utility capacities and identification of potential funding sources. This analysis should consider the relevancy of phased construction as a means to address capital needs.
COMMENT SA – Delete dashes. This strategy should end with the first sentence. The SA is chartered to support the Comprehensive Plan with public sewer in conformance with the land use plan. The remainder of this text is normal business practice of the service authority and is included in the service authority CIP process.
Alternative sewer systems that serve more than one lot conflict with the second paragraph of the intent of the sewer chapter, although that paragraph cites the Rural Area and this cites SRR area. If we • Analysis and recommendations regarding the provision of public service to users of small private sewage treatment plants, alternative decentralized on-site do not want them in the Rural Area on 10 acre lots, we should not entertain allowing sewerage systems that serve more than one lot and on-site sewerage systems. These facilities may already be existing or may occur in the future, in locations them in the SRR on smaller lots. designated Semi-Rural Residential (SRR) on the Long-Range Land Use Plan HD – Change “alternative” to Map or in other locations, such as for certain public buildings and sites. “decentralized on-site” to be more clear and to be relevant to current usage. Agree that decentralized on-site systems serving multiple lots should be discouraged based on how the county has developed to date. “Alternative systems” has been a floating term that should only mean systems that provide more treatment than a conventional septic tank and drainfield. We should cease using the term “alternative”. Require existing structures, whose failed sewerage system (as determined by the Has the Health Department determined Prince William County Health Department) has no on-site remediation and where additional areas or sites that would the property line is located within 300 feet of a public sewer line with adequate require this? capacity, to connect to such line. SA – Not to the SA’s knowledge. The 3/28/2007 SS-3
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT option to utilize an on-site remedy should be discouraged if public sewer is within 300 feet. Another on-site facility would only create another potential failure. The cost of these extensions must be borne by the homeowners or by the county via grants or other financing options, the SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers.
3.
4.
Plan for adequate facility capacity allocations from the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority to meet projected needs for those portions of western Prince William County that are included within the Development Area. Expand the H. L. Mooney treatment plant to accommodate projected need as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
5.
Plan and coordinate with the Dale Service Corporation to prepare strategies to accommodate projected needs within its service area, as reflected by the LongRange Land Use Plan Map.
6.
Recognize that the Prince William County Service Authority and the Dale Service
HD – Agree. In most cases where the system has failed a replacement area was not designated and the repair system cost usually equals or exceeds the cost of the sewer extension. The sewer extension causes less disturbance than the repair. Has this been done? SA – Yes, routine business practice of the SA. Has this plant been expanded and is there any additional capacity or area for expansion? SA – Mooney is currently in a design/build expansion to 24 mgd. It is authorized to expand up to 32 mgd and can be with retrofit technology. Has this been done?
3/28/2007 SS-4
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT
Corporation are the primary providers of sewage treatment to the County. 7.
8.
9.
Design and plan for sewer facilities only in accordance with the densities, intensities, and locations for new development in the Development Area that are shown in the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
Require all future development within the Development Area, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map, to connect to public sewer facilities, except in those locations designated SRR, where on-site sewerage systems are also permitted.
Require new development in the Development Area to fund the capital costs
Is this reflected on the fold-out map? SA – This is just a restatement of Sewer Policy-2. Yes, the map reflects it but, the sizing is only approximate and cannot be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined, slope as well as diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe. Should we be planning for future connections in all of the SRR area? SA – Absolutely, since it is in the Development Area, it should be required at the time of development. The primary option should be the connection to public sewer in all of the development area, with the exception or waiver being on-site sewerage systems. The proliferation of onsite septic systems only creates a future problem. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. HD – Present ordinance requires a 100% replacement area designated on the SRR lot so that the two systems should serve the residence for 35-75 years. Sewer does not need to be planned for these areas except on a very long-term basis. SA – This is just a restatement of sewer 3/28/2007 SS-5
CURRENT CONTENT associated with expanding sewer facilities, including line extensions and plant capacity expansions in coordination with the Prince William County Service Authority and in conjunction with the Long-Range Land Use Plan. 10.
11.
12.
Evaluate the existing Design and Construction Standards Manual standards for average daily wastewater flow by land use type at least every five years.
Monitor failures, as determined by the Health Department, to existing on-site sewerage systems, to determine the need for future extension of public sewer facilities within the Development Area. Such future extension, however, is not to be seen as a reason for an increase in residential densities above those specified on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
Prepare a standard policy and regulations to require existing and future
COMMENT policy 1. All new development regardless of location must fund the capital cost associated with expanding sewer facilities required to serve that development. Have we done this? SA – The flow rates are still valid for design, however, a flow rate for the urban residential areas should be established due to the high densities planned in these areas. Has the Health Department determined areas or sites that need this? SA – The cost of these extensions must be borne by the homeowners or by the county via grants or other financing options. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. HD – A working group should be established to identify areas where lots do not have repair areas and low density sewer may be needed for on-site system replacement. All on-site system replacements must connect to the sewer to lower the per dwelling cost of such extensions. An innovative funding plan is needed so that property owners could begin paying into a long-term fund to pay for the extension over the years before it is needed. Has this been done? 3/28/2007 SS-6
CURRENT CONTENT development to install appropriate pre-treatment facilities, in accordance with the Prince William County Service Authority or Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority Pretreatment Regulations or Policies, and to connect to public sewer facilities if such development is—or promotes—a health hazard.
COMMENT SA – Isn’t this in the county sewer ordinance? Delete dashes.
13.
Maintain an inventory of local systems—small private sewage treatment plants, alternative sewerage systems, and on-site sewerage systems—throughout the County.
SA – Delete dashes.
14.
Focus future publicly funded capital improvement programs for sewer facility expansion projects into the Development Area, as reflected by the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
SA – Not needed.
15.
Prohibit the use of privately owned and privately operated treatment plants for new development projects.
Is this a current regulation? SA – The Occoquan policy limits the number of treatment plants in the Occoquan basin. We have spent thirty years and millions of dollars removing these small systems in Prince William County, we should not add new problems.
16.
Utilize the fold-out Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Projects map to identify the general or approximate location, character, and extent of the features shown thereon. Such features shall be planned, sited, and buffered to provide compatibility with surrounding existing and planned land uses, and shall meet the appropriate policies and action strategies of the Community Design Plan and the Long-Range Land Use Plan.
HD –agree with the SA. These small community treatment plants do not have an economy of scale or a reliable funding plan to avoid the very large capital costs of operation, maintenance, and future replacement. SA – The Community Design Plan does not address water and sewer and should not be referenced here. The sizing on the map is only approximate and final sizing can not be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined, slope as well as 3/28/2007 SS-7
CURRENT CONTENT
17.
Continue to Uupdate local sewer ordinances and pretreatment regulations and/or policies, as appropriate.
COMMENT diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe Haven’t we been doing this with DCSM updates?
SEWER POLICY 3: Prohibit the extension of public sewer into the Rural Area, except under special circumstances that maintain the land use densities delineated in the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map and uphold the policies and action strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. ACTION STRATEGIES: 1.
All new development within the Rural Area shall be served by individual-lot, onsite sewerage systems. Public sewer systems—except under the special circumstances that are outlined in the action strategies contained herein, and as specifically permitted under the action strategies in the Nokesville Sector Plan for the “core area” identified in that sector plan—shall not be extended into the Rural Area.
SA – Use commas rather than dashes. The proliferation of on-site septic systems only creates a future problem. If the land use plan is adhered to strictly, public sewer becomes an economic issue a developer or homeowner must address, and conforms to the Sewer Policy 2, AS-7, and Sewer Policy 3, AS-11 and 12. HD – Most lots permitted for an onsite system since 1989 have a 100 replacement area designated for repair needs. We would only want to consider sewer extensions into the Rural area if it can be assured that the properties served will remain at current low densities.
2.
Support a 100-percent reserve requirement for all drainfields—or equivalent mechanisms for achieving the same goal, regardless of percolation rate—for all developments in the County that are not developed with public sewer.
Isn’t this a current regulation? HD – Correct- this is a local ordinance. Exceptions only for lots recorded prior to 1989. May want to delete this strategy. 3/28/2007 SS-8
CURRENT CONTENT 3.
4.
COMMENT
Develop, adopt, implement, and enforce a periodic waste disposal system maintenance reporting septic tank pump-out and reporting program in order to ensure proper waste disposal.
Are we doing this?
Encourage the Prince William County Health District to permit the use of individual-site alternative sewerage systems that do not require surface water discharge.
Does the Health Department permit this?
HD – A listing of septic systems and when they were last pumped is in place and is posted on the County website under the health district. Change “waste disposal system” to ‘Septic tank pump-out program” or delete strategy.
SA – Most of the on-site alternative systems do not discharge into surface waters.
5.
Develop a Wellhead Protection Program and Groundwater Recharge Zone Protection Program—utilizing procedural guidelines and information available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee—to protect or improve the groundwater quality and prevent well contamination from faulty or improperly located private waste disposal systems.
HD – Discharges are not allowed for new homes in the Occoquan watershed. They are allowed for existing homes in any watershed when the on-site system cannot be repaired on the property and public sewer is not available. Please consider elimination of this strategy. Have we done this? SA - Delete dashes. There are already State requirements for separation of wells and septic system drainfields. This strategy is already in the Potable Water chapter, but probably should be in the Environment chapter. HD – This has only been done for small public water supply wells serving 25 or 3/28/2007 SS-9
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT more persons.
6.
To serve a public facility—such as a school, fire station, or library—allow for the extension of public sewer into the Rural Area.
7.
Within the Rural Area, permit the voluntary use of public sewer systems in a subwatershed that has a documented history of sewerage system failures, as determined by the Health Department.
8.
9.
Require existing structures whose failed sewerage systems have no on-site remediation—and where the property line is located within 300 feet of a public sewer line with adequate capacity—to connect to such line.
Permit existing structures whose property line is within 1,000 feet of a sewer line extended into the Rural Area under the conditions of AS-6, AS-7, or AS-8 above to connect to the line, if there is adequate capacity on that line.
10. Where appropriate, the Prince William County Service Authority will make reasonable efforts to accommodate existing structures along the length of proposed
SA - This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system. HD – Existing homes using septic systems should not have to wait for system failure before being allowed to connect to public sewer at allowable densities. A much higher level of treatment is usually provided by public sewer over a conventional septic system. Redundant with SEW-Policy 1 & 2 Action Strategy 2 SA - Delete dashes. Not in Sewer Policy1. The option to utilize an on-site remedy should be discouraged if public sewer is within 300 feet. Another on-site facility would only create another potential failure. SA – This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system. HD - Agree with SA SA – This should include existing vacant lots in the sub-watershed, so long as they 3/28/2007 SS-10
CURRENT CONTENT sewer lines; however, no guarantee of service will be made and no increase in capacity beyond that shown on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map shall be provided.
COMMENT are not subdivided to less than sizes permitted by the land use plan, and participate in the cost of the sewer system.
11. The existence or extension of a public sewer system to serve a site shall not promote increased densities that would not otherwise be allowed given the application of the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan and relevant compatibility issues.
SA – Combine action strategy 11 and 12
12. The existence or extension of a public sewer system in the Rural Area shall not provide justification for altering the land use classifications on the Long-Range Land Use Plan Map.
SA - Combine action strategy 11 and 12
13. Where a sector plan or planning study recommended in the Long-Range Land Use Plan and approved by the Board of County Supervisors calls for extension of public sewer into the Rural Area, permit such extension, so long as such action is consistent with the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan.
SA - The extension and connection policy of any such plan or study should be carefully planned to create a sustainable utility system that is capable of serving the community, subject to the plan. Properties on both sides of a street should be able to receive service from a sewer line run in the street; likewise both sides of a drainage basin. The full extent of a sub-shed with failing on site septic systems should be determined so that the public sewer system to remedy the problem is adequate to solve the whole problem, even if done in phases, without the expense of paralleling mains in the future. Pockets without service should not be created within the community.
14. The cost of any extensions/connections of/to a public system must be borne by the property owners connecting to the system.
HD - Agree with SA SA - This strategy does not mention failing on-site sewerage systems. Does that mean that it only applies to schools, libraries, fire 3/28/2007 SS-11
CURRENT CONTENT
COMMENT
stations and other public buildings? If not, it conflicts with other Policy-3 strategies since it implies no limitation on what property can be served. The strategy is redundant with Sewer Policy 2, AS-9. Consider combining 14 and 15 or deleting 14. SA - The cost of these extensions must be 15. Investigate the feasibility of obtaining grant funds for use by the County for sewer borne by the homeowners or by the county extension to areas with a high potential for on-site waste disposal system failure. via grants or other financing options. The SA cannot justify the cost of running sewer mains to these areas to resolve on-site system failures at the expense of our rate payers. Consider combining 14 and 15. 16. Permit sewer extensions to areas of historical significance in the rural area to allow SA - This appears inconsistent with the previous parts of Sewer Policy-3. This for the continued preservation of historic buildings and sites and to allow for extension strategy would permit new infill expanded public use or new infill development that is in keeping with the historic development while previous action has character of the area. denied even existing vacant lots in problem areas to connect which should be likewise viewed as infill development. SP – updated to 2030 SEWER CHAPTER PLAN MAPS The Prince William County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Sewer Project Map that illustrates this plan reflects existing sewer facilities and proposed facility improvements. The data shown on the map includes the range of pipe sizes already existing or planned by the Service Authority for that particular system or area.
SA - Size ranges are for proposed pipes only, but the sizing is only approximate and cannot be determined until actual route survey and topography is determined. Slope as well as diameter determines the carrying capacity of a pipe.
3/28/2007 SS-12
Related Documents
Prince William County Sewer Plan
June 2020 2
Mifflin County Sewer Plan 0608
June 2020 2
Mifflin County Sewer Plan 0808
June 2020 1
Ferndale Comprehenisve Sewer Plan
June 2020 1
