HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-18-1994-IX-A + 1
OR AN G E C 0 U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 18, 1994
Action Agenda
item # _ly
SUBJECT: Failure of Piney Mountain subdivision waste treatment system
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _..A_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Letter to County Manager County Engineer Extension 2300
Proposed BOCC resolution
Environmental Health report TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
DEM letter Hillsborough - 732-8181
Colonial Engineering letter Durham - 688-7331
City of Durham letter Mebane - 227-2031
Piney Mountain miscellaneous Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
information packet
PURPOSE: To present to the BOCC a petition from residents of Piney
Mountain subdivision requesting the County's permission to
construct and utilize a pump station and force main system
connecting Piney Mountain's existing sewer collection system
to the City of Durham's sewer collection system and to abandon
Piney Mountain's existing on-site ground absorption waste
treatment system which is malfunctioning and irreparable.
BACKGROUND: Piney Mountain subdivision is a development of fifty-eight
homesites on approximately 120 acres located within Chapel
Hill Township and the Rural Buffer approximately one mile
west of the Orange/Durham County line on the north side of
Mount Sinai Road (SR 1718) . Currently, twenty-four of the
homesites are undeveloped. Four of these remaining lots
are still owned by the developer of Piney Mountain. Waste
treatment for one homesite is provided by an individual on-
site waste treatment unit which existed prior to the
development. Waste treatment for all other existing homes
in Piney Mountain is provided by a community waste
treatment system consisting of two separate subsystems.
Each subsystem includes individual septic and pump tanks at
every home, a pressurized sewer collection system and a low
pressure ground absorption waste disposal system. The
treatment system be characterized as plagued by a multitude
of instances of non-compliance with regulatory
requirements, by design inadequacies, by installation of
nitrification lines in unsuitable soils, by maintenance and
operational problems and by frequent incidents where septic
tank effluent is discharged on the surface of the ground.
2
Beginning in 1987, the Piney Mountain waste treatment
system was permitted, constructed and operated by its
owner, North State Utilities Inc. or its subsidiaries,
which also owned and/or operated nine other similar systems
located in Wake, Durham and Mecklenburg Counties. The
Piney Mountain system was originally designed and permitted
to serve all of the homesites within the subdivision.
North State initially permitted and operated the Piney
Mountain system and its other systems under the regulatory
jurisdiction of the NC Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) and the NC Utilities Commission. Regulatory
authority over permitting and operational oversight for all
ground absorption systems was transferred to the NC
Division of Environmental Health (DEH) and local health
departments in July, 1992. At that time, and in accordance
with its new regulatory responsibilities associated with
the Piney Mountain waste treatment system, the
Environmental Health section of the Orange County Health
Department opened communications with North State
Utilities. The operating permit for the Piney Mountain
treatment system was due to expire on January 31, 1993 and
was to be renewed under the jurisdiction of the OC Health
Department. As a part of the permit renewal process, the
Environmental Health section began reviewing the Piney
Mountain system's existing permit and permit requirements,
design, remaining or unused treatment capacity, physical
plant condition, operational practices, etc. During this
process, the Environmental Health Section discovered that:
a) the system was not constructed in accordance with either
approved or as-built construction plans; b) did not contain
sufficient nitrification line necessary to accommodate
permitted waste flow; c) the number of existing bedrooms
(and resulting regulatory waste flow loadings) per home
averaged far in excess of the three bedrooms per home
envisioned in system design and permitting; d) permitted
total waste flow capacity was insufficient to serve all of
the homesites intended to be served by the systems;
e) sufficient nitrification field repair area was not
available as required by current or original permit
standards; and f) the system was receiving improper or
inadequate monitoring and maintenance. All concerned
parties were kept abreast of the Environmental Health
section's findings. As a result of these findings, the
Health Department declined to renew the system's operating
permit or issue improvement permits for the septic and pump
tank step systems for individual home sites. Environmental
Health staff continued to work with North State to
determine how the system's operating permit could be
renewed. During this process, North State Utilities was
directed to provide necessary information on the system,
make specified repairs and modify its operational and
maintenance practices.
3
In November 1992, while the Environmental Health section
was involved in the early stages of the discovery process
related to the regulatory and operational issues outlined
above, Dennis Osborne, president of North State Utilities,
resigned. His resignation deprived North State of its
resident expert on the design and operation of ground
absorption treatment systems. North State and its
treatment system operating subsidiary continued in business
under the direction of its vice-president. In early April
1993, North State's communications with several local
health departments began indicating that the company was
preparing to dissolve and abandon ownership and operation
of all of its waste treatment systems. In July 1993, North
State petitioned the NC Utilities Commission to be allowed
to abandon all of its systems. This petition was never
granted or denied but, in September 1993, Harrco Utilities
was appointed by the Utilities Commission as the emergency
operator for the Piney Mountain- treatment system.
Prior to North State Utilities' July 1993 petition to
abandon the Piney Mountain system, members of the Piney
Mountain homeowners' association, including owners of homes
and unimproved lots, had retained the services of an
attorney and a professional engineer with ground absorption
waste treatment expertise. Individual homeowners, the
homeowners' attorney and engineer worked with staff from
various County departments to determine how the treatment
problems at Piney Mountain could be corrected. Once Harrco
Utilities was appointed emergency system operation, its
staff also became active in efforts to resolve problems.
During the summer of 1993, an engineer working with the
Piney Mountain homeowners began the process of evaluating
various options for providing adequate waste treatment
for both the existing homes and the undeveloped homesites
within the subdivision. The engineer estimated that costs
to correct the readily apparent design and construction
flaws in the existing Piney Mountain system would be in the
$50,000 to $100,000. Due to a significant possibility of
undetected damage to the soils of the nitrification fields
resulting from chronic overdosing and neglect, the engineer
could not guarantee that recommended repairs would allow
the system to function adequately for any length of time.
The homeowners' attorney subsequently made a preliminary
inquiry to the Durham City Engineer regarding the
connection of the Piney Mountain sewer collection system to
Durham's sewer system by means of a pumping station and
force main. The City Engineer indicated that this was
possible, but that OWASA would have to agree to this
service extension in conformance with provisions of the
existing service area agreement between Durham and OWASA.
During discussions with County staff, the attorney and
consulting engineer were informed that extension of
municipal sewer service to any point within the Rural
4
Buffer area was expressly prohibited, except to address a
public purpose or a health hazard, by the County' s Water
and Sewer Policy. They were also informed that municipal
service extensions were expressly discouraged by the Joint
Planning Agreement involving the County, Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. Subsequent efforts on the part of the
homeowners, their attorney and engineer and Environmental
Health staff to resolve the waste treatment problems
focused on locating additional on-site areas which could be
used for nitrification fields and repair areas.
Environmental Health staff tested the soils at many sites
within existing home sites, undeveloped lots and open areas
in the subdivision, and they located several small areas
containing suitable soil. However, the total additional
area containing suitable soils was insufficient to provide
the acreage for nitrification field expansion with repair
area necessary to serve undeveloped lots. The new areas of
suitable soils were also insufficient to provide the
minimum repair area, even when added to existing repair
area, required by regulation for the existing system.
Upon completion of the unsuccessful effort to locate new
nitrification fields and repair areas, the Piney Mountain
homeowners and their consultants focused on investigating.
the feasibility of replacing the existing system with other
on-site waste treatment alternatives. They evaluated the
possibility of utilizing non-discharging spray irrigation
systems and a package waste treatment plant discharging to
Piney Mountain Creek, a tributary of New Hope Creek. The
consultants reported that spray irrigation was not feasible
due to the large area required to provide buffers between
spray fields and homesites, travel ways, wells, etc. The
consultants also informed homeowners that DEM would be
unwilling to issue a permit for discharge of treated wastes
to Piney Mountain Creek. DEM confirmed (see attached DEM
letter) that reported stream flow in Piney Mountain Creek
does not meet DEM regulatory discharge requirements for
minimum natural instream flow in receiving streams. The
homeowners also had their consultants evaluate the
suitability of the soils within the existing nitrification
fields. Their soil scientist reported that seventy to
eighty percent of the area in the existing nitrification
fields was unsuitable for use as a nitrification field by
virtue of one or a combination of unsuitable soils,
insufficient soil depth or slope. His findings were
essentially verified by a soils evaluation performed by
County Environmental Health staff during the week of
December 27, 1993. The Environmental Health staff reported
(copy attached to abstract) that a maximum of thirty-five
percent of the existing nitrification lines are installed
in soils which could be classified as suitable for the
installation. Additionally, the Environmental Health
report noted concerns regarding the large size of the
system that was installed in suitable soils. The report
5
also noted that staff had made no determination of overall
system treatment capacity through evaluation of factors,
other than soil suitability, which could produce additional
limitations on system performance and treatment capacity.
On the basis of the findings and rulings by various
engineers, soil scientists, sanitarians, etc. , Piney
Mountain homeowners have concluded that the existing waste
treatment system is doomed to fail, probably in the near
future and that it cannot be repaired or replaced by any
available on-site waste treatment technology. County
Environmental Health staff and the County Engineer concur
with this assessment. Harrco Utilities is currently under
order to make repairs to the existing system to bring that
system into provisional compliance with Health regulations.
Harrco, without benefit of the knowledge that most of the
existing nitrification field is located in unsuitable
soils, has proposed $200,000 in system repairs. The Piney
Mountain homeowners have chosen to appeal to Orange County,
other parties to the Joint Planning Agreement, OWASA and
Durham to allow the connection of the Piney Mountain sewer
collection system to nearest end of the City of Durham
sewer collection system. That point is near the Kerley
Road-Mount Sinai Road intersection, approximately 5000 feet
east of the Piney Mountain entrance on Mount Sinai Road.
RECOMMMMATION: Pursuant to the provisions, conditions and intent of
the County Water and Sewer Policy, the Manager
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1) acknowledge the impending and irreversible failure
of the Piney Mountain waste treatment with the serious
potential for adverse public health and environmental
.impacts; 2) acknowledge that waste treatment for the
Piney Mountain subdivision cannot be provided by any
available on-site waste treatment technology; 3) agree
in principle to allow the extension of sewer service,
dedicated solely to the approved homes and homesites
within the Piney Mountain subdivision, from the City of
Durham to Piney Mountain via a pump station and force
main; 4) encourage the homeowners to direct their
consultants to begin design and permitting of the pump
station/force main system; 5) direct staff to work with
the homeowners, the City of Durham, the Towns of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro and OWASA to develop system design
and operational codicils precluding any possibility
that sewer service from this system would be available
to any other users; and 6) direct staff to work with
the homeowners, the City of Durham, the Towns of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro and OWASA to develop a system
ownership and operational proposals satisfactory to the
Board.
6
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Mount Sinai Road, Orange County, N.C.
January 13, 1994
Mr. John M. Link, Jr.
Orange County Manager
200 S. Cameron Street
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Re: Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Petition for Permission to Install Pressurized Sewer Line
To Durham Municipal Sewer
Dear Mr. Link:
Petition to the Orange County Board of Commissioners
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association hereby petitions the Orange County
Commissioners for permission to install a pressurized sewer line from Piney Mountain
to the City of Durham sewer line at Kerley and Mt. Sinai Roads in Durham County.
Following approval, such a line will be constructed in accordance with specifications of
the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the City of Durham, and will be
restricted to the existing 58 lots originally designated to use the existing and failing low
pressure pipe community sewer system (LPP System). No new phases or additions to
the subdivision or adjacent to the subdivision will be permitted to utilize the line. By
letter dated December 22, 1993 (copy attached), Mr. Kenneth E. Wright, Durham City
Engineer has confirmed the willingness of the City of Durham to permit such an
installation and tie-in to the Durham City sewer line.
Enclosed is a draft of a resolution approving the installation which we propose for
consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
No Exception to Current Policy
Piney Mountain is not requesting an exception to existing policy. Rather, Piney
Mountain falls squarely within existing policy, which provides that sewer may be
extended into the Rural Buffer in cases of public health emergency, such as a failing
septic system. Since Piney Mountain has a failing septic system, it qualifies under the
existing policy.
In addition, Piney Mountain has exhausted all other possible solutions to its sewer
problem.
M
-2- 7
Unsuitable soils. You have already received copies of the soil testing report
dated November 16, 1993 performed by Barrett Kays & Associates (Kays Soils
Report). The Kays Soils Report indicates that 80%of the 10 acres of soils in the
primary nitrification fields at Piney Mountain are unsuitable. You will shortly be
receiving a report from Thomas Konsler, of the Orange County Health Department,
confirming the Kays Soils Report and stating that only 1.5 of the 7 acres of designated
repair area at Piney Mountain contain suitable soils. Piney Mountain has been unable
to locate sufficient additional suitable land to purchase.
LPP System Beyond Repair. You have also received copy of letter dated
November 24, 1993 from Paul K. Thames, Orange County Engineer, to Kathryn R.
Kalb, Operations Director with OWASA. The Thames letter indicates that even with
suitable soils (Mr. Thames was not aware of the Kays Soils Report when Mr. Thames
wrote his opinion), the LPP System at Piney Mountain is never likely to perform
adequately, regardless of the funds spent.
NPDES Treatment Plant Not Feasible. By letter dated December 8,
1993, Barrett Kays & Associates (Kays Stream Report - copy previously submitted)
reported on the preliminary low flow stream analysis for Pine Mountain Creek in the
Piney Mountain subdivision. The report concluded that the Pine Mountain stream was '
not suitable for an NPDES treatment plant. The Kays Stream Report was confirmed by
letter dated January 5, 1994 from A. Preston Howard, Director of the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) of the N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR) to the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
(copy attached). In addition, Mr. Vernon O. Harris, Jr., President of Colonial
Engineering, Inc. has by letter dated December 29, 1993 (copy attached), confirmed
that spray irrigation is not a suitable alternative for Piney Mountain, and concluded that
municipal sewer hookup is the best alternative available to Piney Mountain from an
environmental point of view.
Approval of Piney Mountain Installation Will Not Set a Bad Precedent
The best way to prevent future requests similar to that of Piney Mountain is to make
certain that government regulators look closely at proposals for subdivision with
private sewerage systems. In the case of Piney Mountain, regulators at DEM
approved a system that did not meet existing state standards, and the Orange County
Commission relied on the DEM approval in approving the construction of the
subdivision. You have already received a sample complaint recently filed by owners
of 30 lots in Piney Mountain against DEM.
Responsibility for enforcement of existing guidelines for sewer systems changed,
effective July 14,1993, from the DEM to the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) of
DEHNR. DEH, in turn, has delegated to local Health Departments primary
enforcement authority, and it was the Orange County Health Department which initially
Piney Mountain
8 .
-3-
identified defects in the Piney Mountain LPP System in the spring and summer of
1993. With proper administration of State regulations, future sewer systems in the
Rural Buffer can be designed, installed and maintained properly.
It is certain that no purchaser of a lot at Piney Mountain can be blamed for the failure of
our LPP System. The choice of unsuitable soils, the design, construction,
maintenance and approval of the LPP System were the responsibility of others. The
key to prevention of similar requests in the future, therefore, cannot lie in penalizing
current owners.
Approval As Soon As Possible
Thank you for facilitating communication between Orange County Staff and Piney
Mountain by arranging for meetings with your staff and by assigning Paul Thames to
act as liaison to Piney Mountain from Orange County. Thank you also for placing the
petition of Piney Mountain on the agenda of the January 18 meeting of the Orange
County Commissioners.
There is considerable urgency to Piney Mountain's petition. On December 1, 1993,
the emergency operator of the Piney Mountain LPP System, Harrco Utility Corporation,
submitted a request to make repairs totalling $207,610.57 (a copy of which you have
previously received). Harrco has never tested the Piney Mountain soils, and at the
time it recommended these repairs, Harrco did not have the results of the Kays Soils
Report. Thus, Harrco has made no determination as to whether the Piney Mountain
LPP System will operate adequately even after the these repairs are made. In fact, the
Kays Soils Report indicates the LPP System will not operate properly for long. Piney
Mountain has filed objection to Harrco's proposed assessment for capital
improvements to the Piney Mountain LPP System (copy previously submitted to you),
and a hearing has been set for February 24, 1994 on the assessment by the Utilities
Commission.
Obviously, the members of Piney Mountain are trying to avoid paying for extremely
expensive repairs to an LPP System which will shortly have to be abandoned. In
order to avoid making the futile repairs, and begin constructing an environmentally
safe alternative system as soon as possible, we must be able to act quickly on the
installation of the pressurized sewer line to Durham's municipal line.
Piney Mountain has already made presentations to the OWASA Board (on December
10, 1993 - copy of statement previously submitted to you) and to the Chapel Hill Town
Council. We are on the agenda of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on January 18, at
the same time we will be on the agenda of the Orange County Commissioners. We
understand that there is to be a retreat attended by representatives from OWASA,
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro on February 5, 1994, at which time Piney
Mountain will be discussed.
Piney Mountain
w
9
-4-
On behalf of all of the members of the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association, I
thank you for your prompt assistance with this urgent petition.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Whitaker, President
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Attachments: 1) Letter from City of Durham
2) Draft Resolution
3) DEM letter
4) Colonial Engineering letter
Piney Mountain
10
-5-
Orange County Commission
Resolution
in regard to the installation of municipal sewer line
to the Piney Mountain Subdivision
WHEREAS, the Piney Mountain Subdivision ("Piney Mountain") is located
on Mt. Sinai Road in Orange County, N.C. in the area designated as the "Rural
Buffer" by the Joint Planning Agreement dated November 2, 1987 among Orange
County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro ("1987 Joint Planning Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the 1987 Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Land Use
Plan among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro (adopted in October 1986 and
amended on April 2, 1990 - "Joint Planning Use Plan") each provides that the
Rural Buffer "will not require urban services (public utilities and other town services);"
and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Use Plan also acknowledges that the Orange
Water and Sewer Authority ("OWASA"), as the provider of water and sewer in the
Joint Planning Area, extends water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies
of the applicable local governments; and that the applicable policy of Orange County
for the Rural Buffer is to extend water and sewer only to provide service to an essential '
public service, such as a school, or to remedy a public health emergency, such as a
failing septic tank or failing package treatment plant; and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has a failing community low pressure pipe
sewerage disposal system ("LPP System"); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain, after a complete investigation with the assistance
of soil scientists and Orange County Engineers and Health Department staff, has
established that the LPP System has been installed in unsuitable soils and that there
is insufficient repair area either existing or available for purchase; that, even in suitable
soils the LPP system has been so poorly designed, constructed and maintained that it
is likely that it would never perform adequately, regardless of the funds spent; that
other alternatives such as an NPDES discharge system (treatment plant) are not
feasible; and that the only solution to providing sewer service to its 58 homesites is to
install and maintain, at Piney Mountain's expense, in accordance with specifications of
OWASA and the City of Durham, and in such a manner so as to deter additional
connections, a pressurized sewer line from Piney Mountain to the City of Durham
municipal line at the intersection of Kerley and Mt. Sinai Roads in Durham County
("Sewer Line"); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has secured the approval of Kenneth E. Wright,
Durham City Engineer (subject to the usual conditions) to connect the Sewer Line with
that of the City of Durham provided that Piney Mountain also secures the approval of
OWASA; and
Piney Mountain
_6- 11
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain is in the process of securing the approval of
OWASA and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro to construct the Sewer Line as
hereinbefore stated; and
WHEREAS, time is of the essence since the LPP System is in urgent need of
replacement;
IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Orange County Commission does
hereby find that by virtue of Piney Mountain's failing LPP System, and with regard to
the installation of the Sewer Line only, Piney Mountain does fall within existing
exceptions to the general prohibition on the extension of sewer to the Rural Buffer, and
the Commission does hereby approve the installation of the Sewer Line as requested
in the petition from Piney Mountain, subject to such conditions as may be reasonable
and necessary in accordance with the recommendations of the Orange County
Manager and his staff, and the Orange County Manager is directed to take all
necessary and appropriate actions to facilitate the installation of the Sewer Line as
soon as possible.
Piney Mountain
,
Nov County 54eaffi (�Depahtment 12
Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION %Stl of PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION
P 0 Box 8181 • 306C Revere Road ��� DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION V�� �i P 0 Box 8181 • 300 W Tryon Street
P 0 Box 8181 • 304 Revere Road Hillsborough.NC 27278
Hillsborough NC 27278 it L
HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL ` MEBANE DURHAM
919-7328181 919-9679251 t.t' 919-2272032 919-688 7333
MEMORANDUM
TO : Paul Thames
FROM: Tom Konsler Ix
RE : Soil/site evaluation of existing drainfield serving Piney
Mountain Subdivision
DATE : January 12 , 1994
In response to discussions in the meeting with representatives of Piney
Mountain Subdivision on December 21 , 1993 , our staff soil scientist ,
Jerry Stimpson and I conducted assessments of the soils in the existing
drainfield areas at Piney Mountain. The following is a summary of the
results in the two phases of the subdivision.
Phase I - Which currently has 13 connections plus 1 under construction:
Out of 7 soil borings - All 7 borings could be classified Provisionally
Suitable and ranged from 24 to 32 inch soil depth before
encountering unsuitable horizons consisting of saprolite or
in the case of two holes [ in the 12-16 subfields ] , massive
clay . It should be noted that while these borings
indicated a Provisionally Suitable classification, we would
express concern over a large capacity system such as this
installed in these marginal site conditions . We also
recognize from earlier evaluations that the soil depth
within Phase I can be quite variable.
Phase II - Which has 20 connections:
5 borings in Field A - None were classified as Suitable or
Provisionally Suitable . All borings were classified
Unsuitable due to one or more of the following factors :
-Topography/ landscape positions containing convergent valley
slopes , gullies , and/or terraces .
-Soils which are massive , exhibiting no structural peds , less
than 24 inches from the ground surface .
-Expansive clay mineralogy.
SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE. Carr Mill Mall • Suite 225 • 100 N Greensboro Street • Carrboro.NC 27510 • 919.968.2022
13
2
-Shallow soil depths generally less than 24 inches to
unsuitable horizons / saprolite or parent material .
15 borings in Field III - 3 borings indicated soils meeting a
classification of Provisionally Suitable for LPP systems .
These borings were located in areas which leads to the
estimation that approximately 2 , 510 linear feet of
drainfield is located in Provisionally Suitable site/soil
conditions .
- 12 borings were classified as Unsuitable for
the same reasons indicated above .
SUMMARY
Approximately 12 ,000/ 12, 240 linear feet or 982 of Phase I
system was installed in soil and sites meeting a classification of
Provisionally Suitable.
Approximately 2 , 510/27 ,613 linear feet or less than 10 % of
Phase II system was installed in soil and sites meeting a
classification of Provisionally Suitable.
With a total of 14 , 500 linear feet of system installed in
Provisionally Suitable soil , the estimated capacity of the system in
flow is approximately 7,250 Gallons Per Day. This is compared with:
- the permitted regulatory flow of 12,240 Gallons Per Day based on
DEM' s assumption of three bedroom homes,
- and with the design flow rate of 15 ,360 Gallons Per Day based on
the regulatory flow of 120 GPD per existing bedroom.
Please keep in mind that these figures are only estimates based on the
limited amount of evaluations done , but are indicative of the expected
long term functionality of the system based on site and soil criteria.
In this evaluation, we have not taken other factors into account such
as installation techniques , proximity to embankments or monitoring
wells , trench depths , system components and materials , design factors ,
or the present operating difficulties , all which affect system
performance . Please let me know if you have any questions regarding
this .
49
0 �+
L14
ONE
Im WAR
s
HSE �
cn
1
10 011, -
0 56
• 9
}.. CD - - - - - -_ -
_
N O �• is
on �._._. w .—•
U k \ Z6 1
ir
• O lam: 1 �� c '
�
It
it 1
ie I
% 1
/0"— 9Z� Ln
w r v r
0
w n n n N
16
S � 42
e�
---�---
--------------- ---------
\; 43
- - w �• ��� '/.n•. !H �1.J\1 i IPA., - '. •' ,t t• , t i -- - �
E VE L
a
'o -{ r 44
S.a2
Of
Ile
-ER '
RVE
_D - 19477 LF PIPE
D
3E = 720 LF/HSE
cl III :_:: : _.. , "". ��s:��-•��,:;� �' P��
1 1
0
�• Klq� ,,
17
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources r4i Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor fi
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED E=
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 7, 1994
Mr.Alan K. Whitaker,President
Piney Mountain Homeowners Associaton
4729 Tap Root Lane
Durham,North Carolina 27705
Subject: Piney Mountain Subdivision
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives
Orange County
Dear Mr.Whitaker
The Division of Environmental Management has been asked to review and comment to you
on the December 8, 1993 letter prepared by Barrett Kays&Associates concerning potential
discharge alternatives for the subject facility. At the onset, I must say that if a A—I
decision regarding the potential of a surface water discharge is necessary, an NPDES
application prepared in accordance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0100 would
have to submitted to our division for consideration. Since no application has been
received, the opinion-we give here is advisory only and assumes the accuracy of the
information in Barrett Kays & Associates' letter. With this caveat, we agree with the
conclusion in Barrett Kays&Associates'letter that the division would not desire to issue a
discharge permit for Piney Mountain Subdivision because it would be undesirable for
reasons which follow.
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 requires that a permit be obtained prior to any
discharge to the surface waters of North Carolina. Furthermore, the statutes state that all
permit decisions require that the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with
the least adverse impact on the environment be utilized. The reason for this is that
nondischarge alternatives such as recycling, subsurface disposal, spray irrigation and
connection to regional waste treatment facilities, where feasible, are all more
environmentally sound alternatives as compared to surface water discharges. Even in the
name of the program authorized by the Clean Water Act,the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System(NPDES),the intent of nondischarge preference is implied.
Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code 2H .0100 further elaborates on the
requirements for an NPDES permit. One important aspect of an NPDES permit application
is to provide a summary of waste treatment and disposal options and why the proposed
system and point of discharge were selected. The rule further requires that the summary
should have sufficient detail to assure that the most environmentally sound alternative was
selected from the reasonably cost effective options. The division has prepared guidance for
permit applicants to utilize in conducting technical and financial evaluation of potential
disposal alternatives which clearly identifies nondischarge preferences superior to potential
discharge alternatives.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919.733-2496
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509'6 recycled!10%post-consumer paper
January 7, 1994 18
Mr. Alan K. Whitaker
Piney Mountain Subdivision
Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code 2B .0200 elaborates on the issue of
potential discharges into low flow streams. In cases where the 7Q10 flow, the average
flow for seven (7) consecutive days in a ten (10) year period as reported by the United
State Geological Survey(USGS), is zero,approval for a new discharge is dependent upon
the 30Q2, the average flow for thirty (30) consecutive days in a two (2) year period, as
follows:
1. Where the 30Q2 flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations
for new discharges of oxygen consuming waste will be set at BODS =5 mg/l,
NH3-N=2 mg/1 and DO=6 mg/l,unless it is determined that these limitations
will not protect water quality standards.
2. If the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are both estimated to be zero,no new discharge of
oxygen consuming waste will be allowed
Due to the statistical variability of these estimates, any 30Q2 flow estimate 5 0.05 cfs is
considered to be zero by the division.
Therefore, based upon the information contained in the letter prepared by Barrett Kays &
Associates, and that the estimated 30Q2 flow is below 0.05 cfs, we are in agreement with
the conclusions drawn by the consultant.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Steve
Tedder,Chief of the Water Quality Section or me at(919)733-7015.
Since ly,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Office of the Attorney General-Mr.Jim Gulick
Mr.Steve Tedder
Ms.Nancy Essex
/� nn 19
aLtiaC/�&yineering, J�nc.
V. 0 a'.•,P.6 P.0 12. 97005 919) 847-1499
P,.-,;J..i KoUgA, /7 if 27624 `7—(919) 847-1498
December 29, 1993
Mr. Morris Stanford
Piney Mountain Home Owners Assoc.
P. O. Box 15668
Durham, NC 27704
Re: Existing Wastewater Dilemma
Piney Mountain Home Owners Assoc. (4316)
Dear Mr. Stanford:
Following up our conversation of December 22, 1993, we are herewith
providing to you, for presentation to Orange County Agencies, a
statement with regard to existing wastewater conditions and
alternative possibilities. These situations are as personally
observed during my visit to the Piney Mountain Subdivision on
September 10, 1993. It should be noted that a very thorough review
of the existing facilities and the proximity to other alternatives
(i.e. hookup to Durham) was observed on that occasion.
Alternatives that were evaluated and discussed were as follows:
1. Continue to operate the existing systems - as mentioned
above, the existing system is already undersized in that
more lineal feet of nitrification should have been
installed and additional area is not available. The
system, as installed, is doomed for failure as more
houses, and lack of operational maintenance, occurs on
the system.
2. Use exiting collection system and install treatment plant
discharging to Piney Mountain Creek. The Regional office
Staff of Eavironmeatal Management was checking on the ten
year low flow for this condition. This would add a new
point source discharge to the Basin.
3. Install spray irrigation - due to the proximity of
existing homes and the tightness of the soils, sufficient
area is not available to this community. Since it is a
privately owned subdivision, it does not have
condemnation rights and thus, cannot forcibly acquire
other lands that may be in a reasonable proximity to this
subdivision location. Furthermore, housing commitments
to lands surrounding the subdivision would not allow for
the existing nitrification area to be converted to above
ground irrigation as sufficient buffers and protection
Irom runoff would not be available. Some of the areas
20
where the LPP system is installed is steeply sloping
areas which would expedite runoff into the streams under
rainfall conditions With spray irrigation. LPP can be
terraced in; spray irrigation cannot.
4. Hookup to the existing Durham sewers - the existing
collection system would lend itself very well to
continuing to operate by discharging into a central pump
station (S) that could then pump into the Durham sewers.
In fact, measuring the distance in the field, it is
anticipated that 1.5 miles is the distance to the nearest
Durham gravity manhole located at the intersection of Mt.
Sinai and Kurley Roads. Two roadbores and one creek
crossing would be necessary in order to install this
line. From an environmental protection point of view and
the Statefs direction of centralizing all minor. (even if
potential) dischargers into a central, well-managed
facility, this is the best alternative available to Piney
Mountain Subdivision.
We would be happy to discuss the situation in any detail as may be
requested by any review agencies on behalf of the Piney Mountain
Home Owners Association. The Association is to be commended for
its positive, aggressive direction in seeking to protect their
environment and to handle wastewater generated from their home in
the best environmental method available. It is my opinion that
time is of the essence to seeking a quick solution so that
contamination of near b streams does not occur.
Very ly o ,
Ve non O. ' Harris, of PE
President
VOH,Jr/ed
stanf ord.pme
21
DURHAM
DIVISIONS
sa..t bole* ii0.4326
wets& se er E00OW4 $404326
use MOMWA" " City of Durham
Department of Engineering
1 8 6 9 9)"T-0496 101 city Hd Phis olrt ft NC 27701
CITYOFMEDICINE December 22. 1993
Mr. Alan Whitaker. President
Piney Mountain Homeowner's Association
4729 Taproot Lane
Durham, N. C. 27705
Dear Mr. Whitaker:
Over the last several months,I have had several conversations With Ms.Deborah Christie regarding
the possibility of sewer service being provided by the City of Durham to the Piney Mountain subdivision.
This discussion was in view of the fact that the current onske system serving the subdivision was not
operating property. 1 had advised Ms. Christie that the Piney Mountain subdivision was located in a utility
service area designated to OWASA by the City of Durham and that service by the City would be contingent
upon a release from OWASA.
As of this date. OWASA has not indicated a willingness to release the subdivision to service by the
City of Durham, nor has R Indicated under what conditions, if any, it may be willing to do so. If, however,
OWASA were to release the subdivision,subject to conditions found acceptable by the City,this is to advise
that I would be willing to recommend to the City Council that the City of Durham provide sewer service to
the Piney Mountain subdivision subject to the terms of an agreement. The terms to be Included in that
agreement have not yet been fully determined. However, 4 would include a provision whereby the sewer
collection system within the subdivision. a pump station, and farce main connecting the subdivision to the
existing City sewer system would remain In the ownership of the Piney Mountain Homeowner's Association,
and that sewer service would be limited to the existing lots within the Piney Mountain subdivision both
developed and vacant. No new phases of the subdivision could be served by the sewer system nor could
any other development outside the subdivision.
The provisions of this letter are limited to an agreement between the City and the Piney Mountain
Homeowner's Association. No commitment Is being made at this time for any similar arrangement with any
other entity that might subsequently own and/or operate the sewer collection system serving the Piney
Mountain subdivision. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.
sincerely,
Kenneth E. Wright, PE, RLS
City Engineer
KEW/icp
c: Lee Murphy
Don Greeley
Deborah Christie
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAPitRMATIYE ACTION EMPLOYER
22
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Mount Sinai Road, Orange County, N.C.
December 21, 1993
Mr. Calvin Horton
Chapel Hill Town Manager
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516
Re: Piney Mountain
Request for Expedited Review by Chapel Hill Town Council
Dear Mr. Horton:
Petition to the Chapel Hill Town Council
Thank you for meeting recently with Ms. Bes Baldwin, a member of the Piney Mountain
Homeowners Association, concerning Piney Mountain's application to OWASA and the Orange
County Commissioners for permission to install a pressurized sewer line from Piney Mountain
to the City of Durham sewer line at Kerley and Mt. Sinai Road in Durham County. Such a line
would be constructed in accordance with specifications of OWASA and the City of Durham, and
would be restricted to existing lots in the Piney Mountain Subdivision. No new phases or
additions to the subdivision or adjacent to the subdivision would be permitted to utilize the line.
Mr. Ken Wright, Director of Engineering with the City of Durham is in the process of
confirming by letter the willingness of the City of Durham to permit such a hookup to the
Durham City sewer line, and I will forward to you a copy of his letter as soon as I receive it.
In your meeting with Bes, you recommended that Piney Mountain submit a petition to you for
presentation to the Chapel Hill Town Council at its January 10, 1994 meeting. Piney Mountain
should then present in 3 minutes its request for a nonbinding resolution by the Council approving
Piney Mountain's request to OWASA and Orange County. You anticipated that the Council
would then refer the matter to staff. Following investigation and recommendations by staff, the
matter would then come back to the Council for action at the January 25 or February 14, 1994
meetings, depending on how soon your staff could be ready to make a recommendation.
Enclosed (Attachment 1) is a draft of a nonbinding resolution which we would propose for
consideration by the Chapel Hill Town Council. We have drafted this resolution on the
assumption that Chapel Hill will not approve or disapprove of Piney Mountain's request;
instead, Chapel Hill will register its concurrence with whatever judgment is reached by OWASA
and Orange County. Is this the correct approach?
23
How Can Piney Mountain justify an Exception to Current Policy?
You stated to Bes Baldwin that Piney Mountain would need to show how we justify an exception
to the current policy which prohibits water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. As the attached
nonbinding resolution shows, Piney Mountain is not requesting an exception to existing policy.
Rather, Piney Mountain falls squarely within existing policy, which provides that sewer may be
extended into the Rural Buffer in cases of public health emergency, such as a failing septic
system. Since Piney Mountain has a failing septic system, it qualifies under the existing policy.
In addition, Piney Mountain has exhausted all other possible solutions to its sewer problem.
You have already received from Bes Baldwin copies of the soil testing report dated November
16, 1993 performed by Barrett Kays &Associates, and engineering opinion dated November 24,
1993 from Paul Thames, Orange County Engineer. The Kays report indicates that 80% of the
soils in the primary nitrification fields at Piney Mountain are unsuitable. Tom Konsler, of the
Orange County Health Department has determined that only 1.5 of the 7 acres of designated
repair area at Piney Mountain contain suitable soils. We have been unable to locate sufficient
additional suitable land to purchase. The Thames letter indicates that even with suitable soils
(he was not aware of the Kays report when he wrote his opinion), the LPP System at Piney
Mountain is likely never to perform adequately, regardless of the funds spent. The attached
additional report dated December 8, 1993 from Barrett Kays & Associates (Attachment
?)indicates that the Pine Mountain stream is not suitable for an NPDES discharge system
(treatment plant). Individual septics systems are possible for only a few homesites (7 of the 58),
and individual septic systems are prohibited under the restrictive covenants for the subdivision.
Will Granting Piney Mountain's Request Set a Bad Precedent?
You also suggested to Bes that Piney Mountain should explain what will prevent future requests
similar to that of Piney Mountain. The best way to prevent future requests like the present one
is to make certain that government regulators look closely at proposals for subdivisions with a
private sewerage system. In the case of Piney Mountain, regulators at the Division of
Environmental Management(DEM)approved a system that did not meet existing state standards,
and the Orange County Commission relied on the DEM approval in approving the construction
of the subdivision. Attachment 3 is a sample of the complaint recently filed by owners of 30
lots in Piney Mountain against DEM.
Responsibility for enforcement of exisiting guidelines for sewer systems changed, effective June
1992, from the DEM to the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) of the State Department
of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources. DEH, in turn, has delegated to local Health
Departments primary enforcement authority, and it was the Orange County Health Department
which initially identified defects in the Piney Mountain LPP System in the spring and summer
of 1993. With proper administration of State regulations, future sewer systems in the Rural
Buffer can be designed, installed and maintained property.
Norton
24
3 -
It is certain that no purchaser of a lot at Piney Mountain can be blamed for the failure of our
LPP System. The choice of unsuitable soils, the design, construction and maintenance of the
LPP System were the responsibility of others. The key to prevention of similar requests in the
future, therefore, cannot lie in penalizing current owners.
Staff Investigation As Soon As Possible
I am also writing to inquire whether it might be possible to accelerate the process by having
your staff begin its investigation in advance of the January 10 meeting, so that Council members
might have your recommendation and take possible action at the January 10 or 25 meetings.
Such an investigation by your staff can be facilitated by their contact with the OWASA and
Orange County staffs who have already begun extensive investigation of our LPP System and
alternatives.
To explain further: the Piney Mountain LPP System is failing. On December 1, 1993, the
emergency operator of the LPP System, Harrco Utility Corporation, submitted a request to make
repairs totalling$207,610.57(Attachment 4). Harrco has never tested the Piney Mountain soils,
and at the time it recommended these repairs, Ham did not have the results of the Kays
Report. Thus, Harrco has made no determination as to whether the LPP System will operate
adequately even after these repairs are made. In fact, the Kays report indicates the LPP System
will not operate properly for long. Attachment S is a copy of the objection to Harrco's proposed
assessment for capital improvements to the curmt LPP System, which Piney Mountain
Homeowners Association filed with the Utilities Commission.
Obviously, the members of Piney Mountain are trying to avoid paying for extremely expensive
repairs to a system which will shortly have to be abandoned. In order to avoid making the futile
repairs, we must be able to act quickly on the installation of the pressurized sewer line to
Durham's municipal line.
We have already made a presentation (on December 10, 1993) to the OWASA Board.
Attachment 6 is a copy of the statement we offend. OWASA Staff was instructed at that
meeting to investigate finrther into the matter, and to determine the best method of
communication with the governmental bodies which appoint members to OWASA (Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Orange County). The next meetings of the OWASA Board are January 13 and
27, 1994.
The Orange County Commissioners meet on January 3 and 18, the Carrboro Aldermen meet on
January 4 and 11, and the Chapel Hill Town Council meets on January 10 and 25. If Piney
Mountain could secure the approval/concurrrence of these governmental bodies on one of these
dates, then OWASA could perhaps take definitive action on January 13 or 27.
horton
25
- 4 -
On behalf of all of the members of the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association, I thank you
for your patient understanding of our request. If not for the urgence of the situation, we would
not ask you for accelerated assistance. I will be telephoning you in the next few days to speak
further with you about our request. Bes has already provided you with a contact sheet with the
names and addresses of various members of our Association. Please feel free to contact any of
those listed.
Thank you for your assistance in placing the matter of Piney Mountains request to OWASA and
Orange County on the agenda for the January 10 meeting, and for beginning staff investigation
as soon as you can.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Whitaker, President
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Attachments: 1) Draft of a nonbinding resolution
2) Report dated December 8, 1993 from Barrett Kays & Associates
3) Complaint against DEM
4) Request to Utilities Commission from Harrco dated December 1,
1993
S) Objection of Piney Mountain to Harsco's Request to Utilities
Commission
6) Statement to OWASA dated December 10, 1993
c w/att: Ralph Carpinos, Esquire
Chapel Hill Town Attorney
Ms. Sonna Loewenthal
Ms. Flo Miller
The Honorable Kenneth Broun
Mayor of Chapel Hill
Ms. Julianne Andresen, Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
Robert Epting, Esquire
Attorney to OWASA
Norton
26
- S -
Mr. Everett Billingsley
Executive Director of OWASA
Ms. Kathryn Kalb
General Manager of Operations of OWASA
Orange County Manager
Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Esq.
Attorney to Orange County
Mr. Marvin E. Collins
Orange County Director of Planning
Mr. Robert W. Morgan, Carrboro Town Manager
Mr. Roy Williford, Carrboro Director of Planning
horton
27
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Mount Sinai Road, Orange County, N.C.
December 22, 1993
Mr. Robert W. Morgan
Cantioro Town Manager
301 W. Main Street
Canboro, N.C. 27510
Re: Piney Mountain
Request for Expedited Review by Carrboro Board of Aldermen
Dear Mr. Morgan:
Petition to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen
Thank you for meeting recently .with Ms. Bes Baldwin, a member of the Piney Mountain
Homeowners Association, concerning Piney Mountain's application to OWASA and the Orange
County Commissioners for permission to install a pressurized sewer line from Piney Mountain
to the City of Durham sewer line at Kerley and Mt. Sinai Road in Durham County. Such a line
would be constructed in accordance with specifications of OWASA and the City of Durham, and
would be restricted to existing lots in the Piney Mountain Subdivision. No new phases or
additions to the subdivision or adjacent to the subdivision would be permitted to utilize the line.
Mr. Ken Wright, Director of Engineering with the City of Durham is in the process of
confirming by letter the willingness of the City of Durham to permit such a hookup to the
Durham City sewer line, and I will forward to you a copy of his letter as soon as I receive it.
Enclosed (attachment 1) is a draft of a nonbinding resolution which we would propose for
consideration by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its January 11 meeting. We have drafted
this resolution on the assumption that Canfboro will not approve or disapprove of Piney
Mountain's request; instead, Carrboro will register its concurrence with whatever judgment is
reached by OWASA and Orange County. Is this the correct approach?
How Can Piney Mountain justify an Exception to Current Policy?
As the attached nonbinding resolution shows, Piney Mountain is not requesting an exception to
existing policy. Rather, Piney Mountain falls squarely within existing policy, which provides
that sewer may be extended into the Rural Buffer in cases of public health emergency, such as
a failing septic system. Since Piney Mountain has a failing septic system, it qualifies under the
existing policy.
In addition, Piney Mountain has exhausted all other possible solutions to its sewer problem.
You have already received from Bes Baldwin copies of the soil testing report dated November
16, 1993 performed by Barrett Kays &Associates, and engineering opinion dated November 24,
28
1993 from Paul Thames, Orange County Engineer. The Kays report indicates that 80% of the
soils in the primary nitrification fields at Piney Mountain are unsuitable. Tom Konsler, of the
Orange County Health Department has determined that only 1.5 of the 7 acres of designated
repair area at Piney Mountain contain suitable soils. We have been unable to locate sufficient
additional suitable land to purchase. The Thames letter indicates that even with suitable soils
(he was not aware of the Kays report when he wrote his opinion), the LPP System at Piney
Mountain is likely never to perform adequately, regardless of the funds spent. The attached
additional report dated December 8, 1993 from Barrett Days & Associates (Attachment
2)indicates that the Pine Mountain stream is not suitable for an NPDES discharge system
(treatment plant). Individual septies systems are possible for only a few homesites (7 of the 58),
and individual septic systems are prohibited under the restrictive covenants for the subdivision.
Will Granting Piney Mountain's Request Set a Bad Precedent?
The best way to prevent future requests like the present one is to make certain that government
regulators look closely at proposals for subdivisions with a private sewerage system. In the case
of Piney Mountain, regulators at the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) approved
a system that did not meet existing state standards, and the Orange County Commission relied
on the DEM approval in approving the construction of the subdivision. Attachment 3 is a
sample of the complaint recently filed by owners of 30 lots in Piney Mountain against DEM.
Responsibility for enforcement of exisiting guidelines for sewer systems changed, effective June
1992, from the DEM to the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) of the State Department
of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources. DEH, in turn, has delegated to local Health
Departments primary enforcement authority, and it was the Orange County Health Department
which initially identified defects in the Piney Mountain LPP System in the spring and summer
of 1993. With proper administration of State regulations, future sewer systems in the Rural
Buffer can be designed, installed and maintained properly.
It is certain that no purchaser of a lot at Piney Mountain can be blamed for the failure of our
LPP System. The choice of unsuitable soils, the design, construction and maintenance of the
LPP System were the responsibility of others. The key to prevention of similar requests in the
future, therefore, cannot lie in penalizing current owners.
Staff Investigation As Soon As Possible
I am also writing to inquire whether it might be possible to accelerate the process by having
your staff begin its investigation so that Aldermen might have your recommendation and take
possible action at the January 11 meeting of the Aldermen. Such an investigation by your staff
can be facilitated by their contact with the OWASA and Orange County staffs who have already
begun extensive investigation of our LPP System and alternatives.
Morgan
29
- 3 -
To explain further. the Piney Mountain LPP System is failing. On December 1, 1993, the
emergency operator of the LPP System, Harrco Utility Corporation, submitted a request to make
repairs totalling$207,614.57(Attachment 4). Ha=has never tested the Piney Mountain soils,
and at the time it recommended these repairs, Harrco did not have the results of the Kays
Report. Thus, Harrco has made no determination as to whether the LPP System will operate
adequately even after these repairs are made. In fact, the Kays report indicates the LPP System
will not operate properly for long. Attachment 5 is a copy of the objection to Harrco's proposed
assessment for capital improvements to the current LPP System, which Piney Mountain
Homeowners Association filed with the Utilities Commission.
Obviously, the members of Piney Mountain are trying to avoid paying for extremely expensive
repairs to a system which will shortly have to be abandoned. In order to avoid making the futile
repairs, we must be able to act quickly on the installation of the pressurized sewer line to
Durham's municipal line.
We have already made a presentation (on December 10, 1993) to the OWASA Board.
Attachment b is a copy of the statement we offered. OWASA Staff was instructed at that
meeting to investigate further into the matter, and to determine the best method of
communication with the governmental bodies which appoint members to OWASA (Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Orange County). The next meetings of the OWASA Board are January 13 and
27, 1994.
The Orange County Commissioners meet on January 3 and 1$, the Canfboro Aldermen meet on
January 11, and the Chapel Hill Town Council meets on January 10 and 25. If Piney Mountain
could secure the approvallconcurrrence of these governmental bodies on one of these dates, then
OWASA could perhaps take definitive action on January 13 or 27.
On behalf of all of the members of the Piney Mountain Homeowners Association, I thank you
for your patient understanding of our request. If not for the urgence of the situation, we would
not ask you for accelerated assistance. I will be telephoning you in the next few days to speak
further with you about our request. Bes has already provided you with a contact sheet with the
names and addresses of various members of our Association. Please feel free to contact any of
those listed.
Thank you for your assistance in placing the matter of the nonbinding resolution concerning
Piney Mountain's request to OWASA and Orange County on the agenda for the January 11
meeting of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and for beginning staff investigation as soon as you
can.
morgan
30
- 4 -
Sincerely yours,
CK�A 6A
Alan Whitaker, President
Piney Mountain Homeowners Association
Attachments: 1) Draft of a nonbinding resolution
2) Report dated December 8, 1993 from Barrett Kays & Associates
3) Complaint against DEM
4) Request to Utilities Commission from Harrco dated December 1,
1993
5) Objection of Piney Mountain to Harrco's Request to Utilities
Commission
6) Statement to OWASA dated December 10, 1993
c w/att: Mr. Roy Williford
Carrboro Director of Planning
Mr. Calvin Horton
Chapel Hill Town Manager
Ralph Carpinos, Esquire
Chapel Hill Town Attorney
Ms. Sonna Loewenthal
Ms. Flo Miller
The Honorable Kenneth Broun
Mayor of Chapel Hill
Ms. Julianne Andresen, Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
Robert Epting, Esquire
Attorney to OWASA
Mr. Everett Billingsley
Executive Director of OWASA
Ms. Kathryn Kalb
General Manager of Operations of OWASA
morgan
31
- $ -
Mr. John M. Link, Jr. Orange County Manager
Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Esq.
Attorney to Orange County
Mr. Marvin E. Collins
Orange County Director of Planning
morgan
32
Chapel Hill Town Council
Nonbinding Resolution
in regard to the installation of municipal sewer line
to the Piney Mountain Subdivision
I
WHEREAS the Piney Mountain Subdivision("Piney Mountain") is located on Mt. Sinai
Road in Orange County, N.C. in the area designated as the "Rural Buffer" by the Joint Planning
Agreement dated November 2, 1987 among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro ("1987
Joint Planning Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the 1987 Joint Planning Agreement and the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro (adopted in October 1986 and amended in
April 2, 1990 • "Joint Planning Use Plan") each provides that the Rural Buffer "will not require
urban services (public utilities and other town services);* and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Use Plan also acknowledges that the Orange Water and
Sewer Authority ("OWASA"), as the provider of water and sewer in the Joint Planning Area,
extends water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies of the applicable local
governments; and that the applicable policy of Orange County for the Rural Buffer is to extend
water and sewer only to provide service to an essential public service, such as a school, or to
remedy a public health emergency, such as a failing septic tank or failing package treatment
plant; and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has a failing community low pressure pipe sewerage
disposal system ("LPP System"); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain, after a complete investigation with the assistance of soil
scientists and Change County Engineers and Health Department staff, has established that the
LPP System has been installed in unsuitable soils and that there is insufficient repair area either
existing or available for purchase; that, even in suitable soils, the LPP System has been so
poorly designed, constructed and maintained that it is likely that it would never perform
adequately, regardless of the funds spent; that other alternatives such as an NPDES discharge
system (treatment plant) are not feasible; and that the only solution to providing sewer service
to its 58 homesites is to install and maintain, at Piney Mountain's expense, a pressurized sewer
line from Piney Mountain to the City of Durham municipal line at the intersection of Kerley and
Mt. Sinai Roads (*Sewer Line*); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has secured the approval of the City of Durham to connect
the Sewer Line with that of the City of Durham provided that Piney Mountain also secures the
approval of OWASA; and
P:chaphill
33
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain is in the process of securing the approval of OWASA and
the Orange County Commissioners to construct the Sewer Line in accordance with OWASA
specifications and such a manner that will deter additional connections; and
WHEREAS, the gaff and Board members of OWASA have indicated to Piney Mountain
that the towns of Chapel .Hill and Carrboro have a strong interest in the Rural Buffer, and
especially extensions of municipal water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer; and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain is also in the process of securing from the Town of
Carrboro, a nonbinding resolution similar to this resolution;
WHEREAS, time is of the essence since the LPP System is in urgent need of
replacement;
IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Chapel Dill Town Council does hereby find
that by virtue of Piney Mountain's failing UP System, and with regard to the installation of the
Sewer Line only, Piney Mountain does appear to fall within the already established exceptions
to the general prohibition on the extension of sewer to the Rural Buffer, and Chapel Hill hereby
does register its concurrence in the decision of OWASA and the Orange County Commissioners,
whatever it may be and based on their more complete investigation of the facts and alternatives,
with regard to the approval of the installation and maintenance of the Sewer Line to Piney
Mountain.
Pxhaphill
34
Carrboro Board of Aldermen
Nonbinding Resolution
in regard to the installation of municipal sewer line
to the Piney Mountain Subdivision
WHEREAS the Piney Mountain Subdivision ('Piney Mountain') is located on Mt. Sinai
Road in Orange County, N.C. in the area designated as the "Rural Buffer" by the Joint Planning
Agreement dated November 2, 1987 among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro ("1987
Joint Planning Amt'); and
WHEREAS, the 1987 Joint Planning Agreement and the Joint Planning Land Use Plan
among Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro (adopted in October 1986 and amended in
April 2, 1990 - "Joint Planning Use Plan") each provides that the Rural Buffer "will not require
urban services (public utilities and other town services);" and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Use Plan also acknowledges that the Orange Water and
Sewer Authority ("OWASA"), as the provider of water and sewer in the Joint Planning Area,
extends water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies of the applicable local
governments; and that the applicable policy of Orange County for the Rural Buffer is to extend
water and sewer only to provide service to an essential public service, such as a school, or to-
remedy a public health emergency, such as a failing septic tank or failing package treatment
plant; and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has a failing community low pressure pipe sewerage
disposal system ('LPP System'); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain, after a complete investigation with the assistance of soil
scientists and Orange County Engineers and Health Department staff, has established that the
LPP System has been installed in unsuitable soils and that there is insufficient repair area either
existing or available for purchase; that, even in suitable soils, the LPP System has been so
poorly designed, constructed and maintained that it is likely that it would never perform
adequately, regardless of funds spent; that other alternatives such as an NPDES discharge system
(treatment plant) are not feasible; and that the only solution to providing sewer service to its 58
homesites is to install and maintain, at Piney Mountain's expense, a pressurized sewer line from
Piney Mountain to the City of Durham municipal line at the intersection of Kerley and Mt. Sinai
Roads ("Sewer Line'); and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain has secured the approval of the City of Durham to connect
the Sewer Line with that of the City of Durham provided that Piney Mountain also secures the
approval of OWASA; and
Pxarrboro
35
- 2 -
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain is in the process of securing the approval of OWASA and
the Orange County Commissioners to construct the Sewer Line in accordance with OWASA
specifications and such a manner that will deter additional connections; and
WHEREAS, the staff and Board members of OWASA have indicated to Piney Mountain
that the towns of Chapel MR and Carrboro have a strong interest in the Rural Buffer, and
especially extensions of municipal water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer; and
WHEREAS, Piney Mountain is also in the process of securing from the Town of Chapel
Hill, a nonbinding resolution similar to this resolution;
WHEREAS, time is of the essence since the LPP System is in urgent need of
replacement;
IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen does hereby find
that by virtue of Piney Mountain's failing UP System, and with regard to the installation of the
Sewer Line only, Piney Mountain does appear to fall within the already established exceptions
to the general prohibition on the extension of sewer to the Rural Buffer, and the Carrboro Board
of Aldermen hereby does register its concurrence in the decision of OWASA and the Orange
County Commissioners, whatever it may be and based on their more complete investigation of
the facts and alternatives, with regard to the approval of the installation and maintenance of the
Sewer Line to Piney Mountain.
i
Pxarrboro
36
RECFIVB
NDY
Barrett Kays & Associates
Civil Engineering/Environmental En gi neeri n g/Envi ron mental LN&AtOWOW,
ENT
November 16, 1993
Ms. Deborah C. Christie
c/o Law Department
Liggett Group, Inc.
300 North Duke Street
Durham, NC 27702
BSA Project *9310002
Dear Ms. Christie:
This letter constitutes our report of our soil evaluations of the Piney
Mountain low pressure system site. On November 8 and 9, 1993 1 conducted
a field evaluation of the soils on the low pressure system site.
Ten soil borings were located across the site, as shown on the attached maps.
The borings were located across the toposequence to provide a good idea
about the basic soil changes across the site.
Attached are copies of the soil profile description of each boring. The site and
soil characteristics for each boring were compared with the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2H.0300 - Septic
Tank Systems, July 1, 1988 and the N.C. Division of Environmental Health
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 18A.1900, April 1, 1993.
The site and soil evaluations indicated that eight of the ten borings are
unsuitable for shallow trenches and therefore a low pressure system under
the DEM standards. The same eight borings are also unsuitable for low
pressure system under the DEH regulations.
I have collected six subsoil samples for clay mineralogy analysis. I have not
sent the samples into the laboratory. Please be advised that the soils are also
unsuitable due to other factors, therefore the analysis would provide
clarification but should not change my overall classification. Please advise
me within the next week if you would like me to submit the samples,
otherwise I will discard them.
304 East Jones Street / Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: 919-828-1903 Fax: 919-828-nIA;
37
Letter to Deb Christie
Page 2
November 16, 1993
You requested that we determine the maximum number of homes which
could be connected to the primary fields through the existing low pressure
septic system without premature failure of the soils. Due to the significant
amount of unsuitable soils present, the total number of homes which can be
connected is, in fact, probably less than the number presently connected.
Although it is difficult to determine the exact amount of provisionally suitable
soils based upon the ten borings, it appears that approximately 12,000 lineal
feet of low pressure trench are located in provisionally suitable soils. This
would generally allow for up to 50 bedrooms or 12.5 homes, assuming 4
bedrooms per residence.
While the State may continue to allow the existing homes to be served, the
soil suitability means that addition of new homes, expansion in the number of
bedrooms of existing homes, and the rebuilding of any homes that might be
destroyed for example by fire is not likely to be approved. Due to the severe
soil limitations on the property, I recommend that you seriously consider
other wastewater alternatives to serve the subdivision.
I am sorry to report these problems to you, but I know you want to have an
accurate assessment of the situation. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
B SSOCIATES, P.A.
S
Ph.D.
;ys'
�a�rrr s, Ph.D.
cientist
BLK085:cr
Enclosures
38
LOW PRESSURE GROUND ABSORPTION SYSTEM SITE and SOIL CRITERIA
Standard
Criteria Classification Um DE.8
Slope Suitable <15% <10%
Provisional 15-30%
Unsuitable >30% >10%
Texture Suitable Sandy, Loamy Sandy, Coarse, Loamy
Provisional Clayey 1:1 Fine Loamy, Clayey 1:1
Unsuitable Clayey 2:1 Clayey 2:1
Structure Suitable Crumb, Granular Crumb. Granular
Provisional Blocky Blocky
Unsuitable Platy, Massive Platy, Prismatic, Massive
Clay Mineralogy Suitable -------- Sandy, Coarse, Loamy
Unsuitable ------ Clayey 2:1
Drainage Suitable 24 inches 24 inches
Unsuitable <24 inches <24 inches
Depth Suitable 24 inches 24 inches
Unsuitable <24 inches <24 inches
Restrictive Horizon Suitable 24 inches 24 inches
Unsuitable <24 inches <24 inches
Percolation Suitable <30 min/in. -------------
Provisional 30-60 min in. -----------
Unsuitable >60 minrn. -----------
PINEYM:9311002:TaEle 1:1
39
PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION SOIL EVALUATION SUMMARY
DEM STANDARDS FOR SHALLOW TRENCHES
Soil Borings
Criteri 1 2 4 5 7 $ 2 1Q
Slope PS PS S S S S S S S S
Texture PS PS PS PS PS PS PS US US US
Structure US US PS PS US US US US US US
Drainage US US PS S US US US US US US
Depth US US PS PS US US US US US US
Restrictive Horizon US US PS PS US US US US US US
Overall Classification US US PS PS US US US US US US
S = Suitable
PS = Provisionally Suitable
US = Unsuitable
PINEYM:9011002:T&bW ZI
40
t PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION SOIL EVALUATION SUMMARY
DEH LPS STANDARDS
Soil Borings
Crited 1 2 4 5 7
Slope PS PS PS PS S S PS S S S
Texture PS PS PS PS PS PS US US US US
Structure US US PS PS US US US US US US
Clay Mineralogy S US S S S S US US US US
Drainage US US PS S US US US US US US
Depth US US PS PS US US US US US US
Restrictive Horizon US US PS PS US US US US US US
Overall Classification US US PS PS US US US US US US
S = Suitable
PS = Provisionally Suitable
US = Unsuitable
PINEYM.9311002:Table 3:1
�• oo / 41 /
4
_ so
1S
•
1 or
• 0 56
./
e�
♦�j� � ��
� - �
� •
�• � •
�,., ��
�'� ���
`�� �
1 � ♦ ��
�� � . �•.
--
1\� �_
��� �� f
����`` _
�` •
��� - �
..► �_-�
. `.` �.��
• ��
r''
��� ,
���"=__
-c_=
i�_,� .
43
TA
E ' E
ELOr
mill
oo T7
E .00, i i -
- 19477 LF PIPE ; ! ! ; �• -
720 LF/HSE
.....�
.
,fill,
t j s
it
qo
IACKEL
vlo.
C
O t I t ' ..... . •-.r i• -- V
1,00
0 ORANGE.- 47
N
'13 A DRIVEWAY :�
44
Barrett Kays & Associates
Civil Engineering/Environmental Engineering/Environmental Assessment
December 8, 1993
Ms. Deborah Christie
c/o Piney Mountain Home Owners Association
5310 Taproot Lane
Durham, NC 27705
RE: Preliminary Low Flow Stream Analysis
Pine Mountain Creek
Orange County, NC
BKA Project #9311003
Dear Ms. Christie:
On your request Barrett Kays &Associates, P.A. has conducted a preliminary
low flow stream analysis for Pine Mountain Creek in Orange County, NC.
Pine Mountain Creek, adjacent to the Piney Mountain Subdivision, has a
drainage area of 3.5 square miles. We utilized the United States Geological
Survey methodologies for estimation of low flows. These are the
methodologies used by North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) for waste load allocations for wastewater discharge
permits to surface waters. DEM requests flow calculations from USGS. Ms.
Nancy W. Lasater, P.E. of our office worked with Mr. Robert Mason, P.E. of
USGS in determining the low flow values.
Using the regional equation methodology the 7Q10 is 0.00 cfs and the 30Q2 is
0.02 cfs. The 7Q10 is an estimated stream flow that would typically occur
once every 10 years for at least 7-consecutive days. The 30Q2 is an estimated
stream flow that would typically occur once every 2 years for at least 30
consecutive days. The USGS has previously completed a final flow analysis
downstream at SR 1718 and their records showed a 7Q10 of 0.00 cfs. It was
reported to DEM as no or zero flow under the criteria with DEM.
DEM's regulations prohibit a discharge of treated wastewater into a surface
stream where the 7Q10 flow is zero. However, the regulations allow a
discharge if the 30Q2 flow is greater than zero and where the waste load
allocation modelling can demonstrate that the discharge will not impair the
water quality below the standards for the stream.
304 East Jones Street / Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: 919-828-1903 Fax: 919-828-0365
• 45
Letter to Deb Christie
Page 2
December 8, 1993
The average daily wastewater discharge for Piney Mountain Subdivision
would be 2.5 times the 0.02 cfs 30Q2 flow. This means that the wastewater
discharge would frequently be the majority of the stream flow for extended
periods of time. The peak daily wastewater discharge would be over 6 times
the 0.02 cfs 30Q2 flow.
In addition, the 30Q2 flow is very close to zero. The difference between 0.02
and 0.00 cfs may be greater than the standard error in the flow estimation
methodology.
Given these facts, it is my opinion than DEM would not desire to issue a
discharge permit for Pine Mountain Creek. It is my opinion that DEM would
want the Piney Mountain Subdivision sewer system connected into a
municipal wastewater collection system.
I trust that this information may be helpful to you in evaluating your options.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need further elaboration.
Sincerely,
BARRETT KAYS &ASSOCIATES, P.A.
eoll Ili•
Nancy W. Lasater, P.E.
Project E
Barnet . Kays, Ph.D.
President
BLK103tNWL001:cr
iv kiK i n k AJCULLN A LN D USZTR.IAL COMMISSION 4
I.C. FILE NO. T- '
N.C. PRISONER NO.-
RALEIGH (I[applicable
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UNDER TORT CLAIMS ACT, G.S. 143-291 et. seq.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Lawrence J. Noe , being duly sworn, deposes and says:
(rnn Nr a ch;..a
1. That his/her name is Lawrence J. Noe,
2. That he/she lives at 5209 Piney Hollow. Durham, NC 27705.
and that his/her mailing address is Lame as above.
3. That he/she hereby files a claim against State of North Carolina Deo�e,nt of Environment Health & Natural
Resources, Division of Environ_MSa1 Management (3ww Ag.ry er CMW 9-4 d 5b"W
and that its mailing address is 512 N. Salisbury St.. Raleigh. NC
for damages resulting from the negligence of See Exhibit A
(PM Hr e(8wrigw w Apo bwdw*
4. That he/she has been damaged in the amount of S See Exhibit A by reason of the negligent conduct of the employee
agent named above.
5. That the injury or accident giving rise to this claim occurred at .Pi= Mountain subdivision_ Otange Coun
on 19,_„_, at M.
t That the injury or property damage occurred in the following manner:
(Giw&W&MMM 1 Wre N ri.lirr et Rrirw� +e.)
The Claimant is an owner of lot 30 and has a home oetha_t lot served bX the community^sewer system in the Piney
Mountain subdivision The Claimant has been damag2d by the actions of DEM in the manner described in Exhibit A.
(Claimant owns the lot iointil with his wife. Susan Y. Noe.)
7. That the damages claimed above consist of the Claimant's cots in reoirin!an%r rlplacing the sewerage system an
expenses of investigating how to mitigate this damage.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said Lawrence 1. Noe has hereunto set
his hand and seal,
(N. of chw"
this day of '"nOWAY1,601 . 19_U
i worn to before me :�--�-- 1. J
Subscribed and �...
this day of 1
JzmW
36 er Newry tiw+
My Commission Expires
FILE FOUR COMPLETE COPIES Wli INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
(Lr admaw of+wee-.n.r.rMd--2 ago"
Set MWW re et rom rw to"board rw
47
ATTACHMENT TO AFFIDAVIT
1. The claimant is one of several property owners of lots in the
Piney Mountain subdivision located in Orange County. The
subdivision has a low pressure pipe (LPP) sewerage system owned and
formerly operated by North State Utilities, Inc. ("North State") .
The subdivision's restrictive covenants prohibit individual septic
tanks and there is no publicly-owned sewerage service available.
2. As of 1987 and until July 14, 1992, the Division of
Environmental Management � (DEM) of the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (or its predecessor) had
statutory responsibility for regulating and permitting the
construction of privately-owned community sewerage systems such as
the one built in the Piney Mountain subdivision and for overseeing
the operation of such systems. Because of this responsibility, DEM
had a duty to insure that such systems were designed, constructed
and operated in compliance with applicable state laws and
regulations and sound engineering practices.
3. on December 23, 1987, DEN issued a permit to North State
pursuant to the regulations in 15 NCAC Chapter 2H of the North
Carolina administrative code authorizing the construction of an LPP
sewerage system in the Piney Mountain subdivision to provide sewer
service to 59 lots in the Piney Mountain subdivision. On November
300 1990, DEN issued another permit for the Piney Mountain system
that voided the 1987 permit and again authorized the construction
of an LPP system for 59 lots in the subdivision. On August 30,
1991, DEM issued a third permit, voiding the 1990 permit and
authorizing the construction of an LPP system for 58 lots in the
subdivision (the 59th lot is served by its own septic tank, which
was in place before the subdivision was developed and the
restrictive covenants were imposed) .
4. After the time DEN issued the permits described above and
pursuant to those permits, North State constructed the LPP
community sewerage system at the Piney Mountain subdivision and
received permission from DEN to commence operation of the system.
To date, 55 of the lots in the subdivision have been sold. There
are 34 houses hooked up to the sewerage system. There are 24
unimproved lots, four of which belong to the developer.
5. In 1992, jurisdiction for the permitting of privately-owned
community sewerage systems, such as the one in place at the Piney
Mountain subdivision, changed by statute from DEN to the Division
of Environmental Health ("DEH") within the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. DEH authorized the
Orange County Department of Health to administer on its behalf the
permitting of systems in Orange County.
6. on January 31, 1993, the DEN Permit for the Piney Mountain
sewerage system expired. In the process of considering North
M1\01U17-M0=U#\It-*"
1
48
State's application for renewal of the permit, the Orange County
Department of Health determined that the system does not meet the
state requirements for a permit, despite the fact it was permitted
by DEN previously. Among other things, the Orange County officials
determined that the system does not have sufficient capacity to
serve all of the homes in the subdivision and does not have
sufficient "repair area", or land to be used as nitrification
fields if the existing fields fail. This means that the system can
only serve the 34 homes that are already built at the subdivision,
and none of the remaining 24 lots in the subdivision. Orange
County also determined that the existing system did not meet all
applicable regulations and required that certain improvements be
made. on the basis of these findings, Orange County issued only a
limited permit for the system, authorizing it to serve only the 34
existing homes in the subdivision, and also required that certain
improvements be made to the existing system or even this limited
permit would be revoked.
7. Because the Piney Mountain sewerage system has only a limited
permit, the property owners who have not yet built homes on their
lots cannot obtain a building permit to build a home on their lots.
They will not be allowed to build until the Piney Mountain sewerage
system is expanded to accommodate more users or another provision
is made for sewage disposal. North State has said it has
insufficient land in the subdivision to expand the system. In
fact, North State has abandoned the system and gone out of
business. The North Carolina Utilities Commission has named an
emergency operator to operate the system until a new owner for the
system can be found. The emergency operator has also stated that
the system cannot be expanded to accommodate any homes yet to be
built in the subdivision without adding land to the system. The
Piney Mountain property owners are informed and believe that only
some of the unimproved lots have soil of a good enough quality to
permit the installation of a septic tank and owners of such lots
cannot do this under the current restrictive covenants. The other
owners of unimproved lots have lots with soils that will not
accommodate septic tanks and there is no other alternative
available to them for sewerage service.
S. Because of inadequacies in the existing system, the current
homeowners who are using the system will have to pay for repairs to
the system required by Orange County. Furthermore, the current
homeowners are informed and believe that some of the soil in the
existing nitrification fields is not suitable for this use under
the applicable state standards, and that as a result the fields may
fail to adequately absorb the wastewater discharged by the system
sooner than they would have if they had met the state requirements
for this use.
9. The claimant and other property owners who are filing claims
against DEN are informed and believe that the Piney Mountain
sewerage system did not meet all applicable state laws and
w1\0113174 \00822iS\12-1643 2
49
regulations at the time it was originally permitted and thus did
not in fact qualify for the permits DEN issued. They also are
informed and believe that some of the deficiencies in the existing
system result from the fact that the system was not built in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to DEM, and
that the system has not been monitored as required by the
applicable state regulations and the DEN permit. They also are
informed and believe that if the system had not all state
requirements when DEN permitted the system, and if ttie system had
been built in accordance with the plans and specifications
submitted and monitored as required by state law, it would be
adequate today to serve 58 lots in the subdivision.
10. At the time DEN issued the permits described above and at all
relevant times subsequent, DEN knew the Piney Mountain sewerage
system was to serve a subdivision with 58 lots needing the service
and that purchasers of the lots would rely on DEN to require that
the system was built with adequate capacity and quality to serve
the lots. DEN also knew that the purchasers would rely on DEM to
insure that the system was built in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved by it and was adequately monitored after
operation began.
11. At the time claimant and the other property owners in the
subdivision bought their lots, they were informed by the developer
of the subdivision or his agent that North State had constructed or
was constructing a community sewerage system to serve the Piney
Mountain subdivision. They also knew that the State of North
Carolina required that North State obtain a permit to construct and
operate such a system. Claimant relied on the fact that the system
had been approved by DEM or would have to be approved by DEK in
determining that the lot claimant planned to purchase would have
adequate sewer service and thus would be suitable for use as the
site of a residence.
r
12. Claimant is informed and believes that DE through the
actions of its employees listed in paragraph 1 , ra. , was
negligent in permitting the North State system for construction and
operation in the following respects:
a. DEN permitted the system to serve 58 lots in the
subdivision even though the plans for the system were
based on a projected capacity lower than that required by
DEN's own applicable regulations and insufficiently low
given the size of homes planned for the subdivision and
the quality of the soil in the subdivision. DEN
continued to permit the system for 58 lots even when
homes were built in the subdivision of a size much larger
than the average size projected by North State, even
though it was probable that the system would not have
enough capacity to serve all the homes planned in the
subdivision.
wtsZoiui�-0oz\oosztuti�i-�a 3
50
b. DEN continued to permit Phase I of the system to serve 24
lots in the subdivision even after an engineer for North
State reported information to DEM showing that the pipe
actually laid in the Phase I nitrification fields was not
as much as originally planned, and thus Phase I of the
system could not serve this many lots. DEN also
permitted Phase II of the system first to serve 35 lots
and subsequently 34 lots, even though North State never
submitted detailed plans showing how it intended to
construct a system with this capacity; North State did
not file a proper certification by an engineer showing
that North State had installed the total linear feet of
pipe required by its permit and depicted in its original
plans and specifications. A visual inspection of the
system would have disclosed that North State had not
installed the total number of linear feet required by the
permit.
C. DEM permitted the system even though North State had not
provided the amount of repair area required by the DEN
regulations for a system serving 58 lots, and even though
much of the area designated for repair area was not
suitable either because of the quality of the soil or the
location of the proposed repair area.
d. DEN permitted the system on the basis of insufficient
information about the quality of the soil for the
nitrification fields and repair area from the soil
scientist retained by North State. DEN was further
negligent in the names in which it conducted its own
investigation to determine whether the soil was suitable,
and in concluding that the soil was suitable when in fact
much of the soil was not suitable for this use.
e. DEM allowed North State to operate the system when it did
not have a certification from an engineer who had
observed the construction indicating that the system had
been constructed as set forth in the original or amended
plans and the system had not been constructed as set
forth in the plans. As discussed above, the system did
not have the planned amount of linear feet of pipe. Also,
the system lacked other components required by the permit
and included in the plans.
f. DEN authorized the system to go into operation even
though the system did not have adequate monitoring
devices to determine whether the system was operating
properly, and did not have all monitoring wells required
by the state, and some monitoring wells were not located
in compliance with DEN regulations.
wu\011317-OM\MMU\11-1e93 4
• 51
q. DEN allowed North State to continue operation of the
system even after it failed to receive the required
monitoring reports from North State and when a visual
inspection would have determined that North State was not
monitoring the system properly and as required by the
permit.
13. Based on information and belief, the individuals who are
responsible for the negligent acts alleged are some or all of the
following persons who had a role in the approval and oversight of
the Piney Mountain sewage system; Arthur Nouberry, Babette
McKemie, Donald Safrit, Timothy L. Donally, William A.
Kreutzberger, Rick Biers, R. Paul Wilms, Robert D. Harding, Lindsay
L. Mize, George T. Everett, Carolyn McCaskell, Jeff Lautier, Edmond
John Maguire, C. Brian Wootton, J. William Reid, Bob Cheek, Jay
Zimmerman, Michael D. Cleary, and James R. Parker.
14. As a direct and proximate result of DEM's negligence, the
value of the lots owned by property owners who have not yet built
homes has decreased from the value they would have had without
DEM's negligence. The claimant will present evidence at the
hearing on this claim as to the amount of depreciation in the value
of claimant's property caused by the negligence of DEN.
15. As a direct and proximate result of DEN's negligence, the
property owners who have homes using the sewerage system must pay
for the repairs to the system required by orange County as a
condition of the existing limited permit. The emergency operator
has estimated this cost will be a total of approximately $50,000.
These property owners shall also have to bear the expense of
replacing the system and seek from DEM the cost to them of securing
a substitute system, which costs shall exceed five thousand dollars
for each lot.
16. Also as a result of DEN's negligence, claimant has shared in
the expense incurred by the Piney Mountain Homeowner's Association
to investigate possible ways to expand the capacity of the sewage
system and other steps necessary to provide an adequate system for
the entire subdivision. These expenses exceed $ for each
property owner, and continue to grow at this time.
R&11\011317-002\00=1$\11-16.43 5
52
HARRCO
UTILITY CORPORATION
December 1 , 1993 "�!-�y
Robert H. Bennink, Jr., General Counsel 199;
North Carolina Utilities Conaission
P.O. Box 29510 CLEPK
Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 L7F
S Cp 4'MIS3��y
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub . -16
Capital Improvements Requiring Assessment
Piney Mmzxtx3n Subdivision
Dear Mr. Bennlnk.
In order to comply with ordering paragraph number nine of the "Reccw*nde3
Order Appointing Emergency Operator and Approving Interim Rate", issued September
1, 1993 by the commission in the above referenced docket, Harrco Utility
Corporation (HUC) has contracted with Mr. James R. Butler, a professional engineer
with the firm of Bass, Nixon and Kennedy, Inc. Mr. Butlers' duties are to aid
HUC in determining the improvements necessary to bring the existing North State
Systems into an acceptable working order.
Mr. Butler has worked closely with HUC personnel and local health officials
in making site visits and inspections in order to assess the condition of the
North State Systems. Attached to this letter, is a copy of his findings and
recommendations relating to the North State System serving the Piney Mountain
Subdivision.
At the request of HUC, Mr. Tom Konsler of the Orange County Health
Department conducted an inspection of the system serving the Piney Mountain
Subdivision. Attached to this letter, is a copy of his findings dated
October 29, 1993.
After review of threw two reports and compilation of operating data by our
staff since September 1, 19930, Harrco Utility Corporation formally re=wands
the following repairs and impravenants be performed as a minimum in order to bring
this system into an acceptable working order that can be maintained and operated
with reasonable effort and safety to the operating personnel.
8601 Barefoot Industrial Road Raleigh, NC 27613 • (919) 782.3440
53
Page 2
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Ltrprovemants Requiring Assessment
Piney Mountain Subdivisixaat
1 ) Provide all weather access to Phase I dosing tanks and maintenance access
to field areas. Remove brush and debris left on site by North State
Utilities.
Materials:
ABC Stone (4" thick) 3.9 TN @ 10.50 404.50
Dump Fees(Clearing debris) 150.00
Equipment & Labor:
Tractor w Blade 3 hrs @ 30.00 40.00
Skilled Tabor 5 hrs @ 15.00 75.00
Bobcat ? 5 hrs @ 35.00 175.00
Dump Tnick 5 hrs @ 30.00 150.00
I
rM 1 TOTAL: $1049.50
2) Repipe existing pumps in Phase I dosing tanks to allow for prrMr
maintenance access, provide appa:opriate isolation valves for each pub,
provide proper disconr:arct for pumps and floats adjacent to dosing tank,
replace existing float switches, install non-cxu%=ive float bracket,
replace existing controls with new M sated duplex control panel having
suitable control logic to provide for reliable automatic and manual
operation of control valves and valve-specific an-uciaticn of improper
operation of any given valve. New control panel will include event
and time aazsnulators for each control zone. Replace inoperable
telephone dialer.
Materials 20070.00
Equipment & Lebar 584.00
Electric 2420.00
MM 02 TOM",, $23074.00
3) Raise buried access covers to additional "Phase V dosing tank to
around surface.
Raise Buried Covers: (2' dia. riser wlccr=ete lids)
via l�s 910.00
Equipment & Labor 1104.00
Imo! 03 TOTAL: INI4.00
54
M
Page 3
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Improvements Requiring Assessment
Piney Mountain Subdivision
4) Replace all existing irrigation type solenoid valves at Phase I drain
field with suitable "contaminant resistant" (effluent rated) valves,
including the provision of in4epesx3snI ball valve for isolation and gate
valve for flow control and flow sensing device. Valve assembly shall
be installed in suitable enclosures such that normal foot traffic and
mowing equipment may pass over them without injury to either enclosure
or equipment, while providing sufficient room to repair and adjust the
valves.
17 valve assemblies @ 530.00 ea.
Materials 4420.00
Equipment & Labor 4590.00
ti
r= 04 TOTAL: $ 9010.00
5) Locate and adjust to elevation acceptable to local authority all
"turn-up" pipes at act of laterals in Hum I drainfield and provide
physical protection for those "turn-ups".
178 "turn-ups" @ $9.50 ea.
Materials 890.00
Equipment & Labor 801 .00
05 WJML: $1691.00
6) Provide and install such additional soil material as may be
necessary to smooth surface contour of Phase I field areas so that
surface water pondin9 and trench settling are eliminated. Seeding
and mulching of all disturbed areas.
Removal of Pine Stray Omw 1.73 AC @ 2000.00 3460.00
Furnish & Install Topsoil Fill 300 CY @ 22.50 6750.00
Seeding & Mulching 2.16 AC @ 1650.00 3564.00
T'®!
06 1 ZK.- $13774.00
55
Page 4
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Improvements Requiring Assessment
Piney Mountain Subrlivision
8) Provide boundary survey of existing nitrification fields and
repair area.
Boundary Survey 8095 IF @ .50 4047.50
rM #7 TOTRL: $4047.50
8) Check and pump acctmulated residuals from individual septic and
pump tanks (STEPS}. Repipe effluent pump to provide maintenance
and repair from ground surface. Provide approved for pump,
controls and alarm adjacent to pump chamber. Install proper access
risers and covers to septic and pump tanks as required by local health
department. Provide separate electrical circuit for pump alarm.
Materials 6841 .89
Equipment & Labor 7738.50
STEP Pumping (33 @ 145.00/ea) 4785.00
T= 08 VOOL: $19365.39
9) Provide all weather access to Phase Z1 dosing tank and maintersaruu a access
to field areas. Remove bah and debris left on site by North State
Utilities.
Materials:
ABC Stone (4" thick) 70 TN @ 10.50 735.00
Dump Fears (cleating debris) 450.00
15" Ate' 40 IF @ 8.60 344.00
Egu�_IAbour:
Fra�tt�—I --- - 16 hrs @ 70.00 1120.00
Skilled Lsbu:ar 16 hrs @ 15.00 240.00
Bobcat LoadW 6 hrs @ 35.00 210.00
Dump, Truk 16 hrs 8 30.00 480.00
Backhos 4 hrs @ 45.00 180.00
I= 09 Togua $3759.00
56
w
Page 5
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Improvements Requiring Assessment
Piney rlomtain S ibdivisicn
10) Replace existing pumps in Phase II dosing tank and pipe new pumps to allow
for proper maintenance access, provide appropriate isolation valves for
each pump, provide proper disconnect for pumps and floats adjacent to
dosing tank, replace float switches, install non-corrosive float bracket,
replace existing controls with new UL rated duplex control panel having
suitable control logic to provide for reliable automatic and manual
operation of control valves and valve-specific annunciation of improper
operation of any given valve. New control panel will include event and
time accumulators for each control zone. Replace inoperable telephone
dialer.
Materials 43372.00
Equipment & Labor 2336.00
Electrical 3630.00
IMN #10 TOTRL: $49338.00
11) Replace all existing irrigation type solenoid valves at Phase II drainfield
with suitable w'COntBmLinanit resistant" (effluent rated) valves, including
the provision of irrdepe t ball valve for isolation and gate valve for
flow control and flow sensing device. Valve assemble shall be installed
in suitable enclosures such that normal foot traffic and mowing equipment
may pass over them without injury to either enclosure or equipment, while
providing sufficient roam to repair and adjust the valves.
51 valve assemblies 0 530.00 ea.
Materials 13260.00
Equipment & Labor 13770.00
T= #II S0=0. $ 27030.00
57
Page 6
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Improvements Requiring Assessment
Piney Mountain Subdivision
12) Locate and adjust to elevation acceptable to local authority all
"turn-up" pipes at ends of laterals in Phase II drainfield and provide
Physical protection for these "turn-ups".
517 "turn-ups" @ 9.50 ea.
Materials 2585.00
Equipment & Labor 2326.50
rM 012 TOTAL: $ 4911.50
13) Provide and install such additional soil material as may be
necessary to smooth surface countour of Phase II field areas so that
surface water pondinq and trench settling are eliminated. Seeding and
mulching of all disturbed areas.
Furnish & Install Topsoil Fill 600 CY @ 22.50 13500.00
Seeding & Mulching 3.92 AC @ 1650.00 6468.00
Imo! 013 202RL: $ 19968.00
The above figures totalling $179031.89 represent the estimated outside oast
to be incurred by HUC in making the listed repairs and improvemnnts. In addition,
HUC anticipates an cost of ap WoX mately $9705.00 to include submittal
of plans and specifications necessary to aaquire the ree;WxW repair permit from
the Wake County Department of Health.
A fee of ten percent of the total cost for than repairs will be needed by
HUC in order to cover overhead menses incurred by HUC in supervising and
coordinating these repairs and impcov nts.
A reconciliation of the total cost is as follows:
Cost for Items 01 thru $13: $179031.89
Engineering Few: 9705.00
HUC Supervision & Caooa dilation: 18873.68
TOM: $207610.S7
t
58
Page 7
RE: Docket No. W-848, Sub 15 & 16
Capital Im;ux ements Requiring Assessment
Piney Mountain - tAivisicn
As emergency operator for the Piney Mountain Sewer Sytem, Harr= Utility
Corporation request the imposition of an assessment under G.S. 62-118(C)in the
amount of $207,610.57.
For your convenience and use in determining the brieaak&d of this assessment,
we have attached a current customer list to this letter reflecting the following
numbers.
Total System Capacity 57 Hanes
'Dotal Connections Served to Date 33 Homes
*Appplicaticn and patent has been received ft= Mr. Clay Thameat
to , , , , ,I lot 08. No fees have been acalleoAed far repairs or
is>11, oeeg-to to eodating in Sysrts.
The above repairs and impsoven ants include only those items recommended or
required by Mr. Butler or Mr. Tom Nonsler in their respective reports. Items
listed in either report and not detailed above have been determined to be normal.
mwa iteme and are being performed by HUC under the existing rate structure
in place.
The repairs and improvewts oovered by this report will bring the existing
Piney Mountain System into an acceptable working order. The Orange County Health
Department has currently suspended all -I actions over 34 until suitable "repair
areal# can be located to serve this system. The existing system, once .repaired,
should be capable of serving the total 57 lots, although "repair area" is not
present. The suspension by the a x]e County Health Department of future
connections has caused difficulties to lot owners w1w purchased lots unknowing
of these problems. HW has been requested by several of these lot owners to
explore alternatives available foot future ooca%ectians. Please advise HOC of its
duties or obligations as emergency operat= to serve future a maotians.
Please advise of additional information or assistance re[*zired of our office.
Respeo--t tted,
President
HAMW cn=+IT'r aaRPaRA�xoN
LWH/msh
Cagy: (w/enclosures) Mr. Robin Cauthen
i
59
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RALEIGH
Docket No. w-848, Sub 15
Docket No. W-848, Sub 16
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Piney Mountain Homeowners )
Association, Inc. , )
Complainant ) OBJECTION OF PINEY MOUNTAIN
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO
V. ) PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
North State Utilities, Inc. , )
Respondent )
The Piney Mountain Homeowners Association ("Homeowners
Association") objects to the request by Harrco Utility Corporation
("Harrco") filed on December 1, 1993, for an assessment to users of
the system in the Piney Mountain sewerage system to pay for certain-
capital improvements and repairs and asks the Commission to
postpone consideration of this request. In support of this motion,
the Homeowners Association shows the Commission as follows:
1. Harrco has requested an assessment totaling $207, 610. 57,
which would result in an assessment of over $6,000 to each current
user of the system (assuming only current users would be subject to
the assessment. ) This amount is substantial and would impose a
considerable financial burden on each user.
2 . The Homeowners Association has information indicating that
even if this substantial sum is spent to improve and repair the
sewerage system, it still will not be adequate to serve the
subdivision for the life of the homes in the subdivision. The
Homeowners Association has a letter from Paul K. Thames, the
Engineer for Orange County, stating his opinion that because of the
poor design and construction of the system, "there is no way to
assure that this waste treatment system will ever perform
adequately, regardless of the funds expended on improving
operational practices or mechanical flaws inherent in the system. "
A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A. The Homeowners
Association also has a report from Barrett Kays & Associates, a
private engineering firm hired by the Homeowners Association to
test the soils in the existing nitrification fields, stating that
much of the soil presently used by the system for nitrification
fields does not meet the state standards for such use and that the
Rai l\011317-002\(x1Dr6 Z\ 12.2:•73
15 1 -s;i .5 Li
60
residents should consider other wastewater alternatives to serve
the subdivision. A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit B.
3 . Because of the information cited above, the Homeowners
Association desires to have the subdivision served by the Durham
municipal sewer system, so that the homeowners will not have to
rely on the North State Utilities, Inc. system. The City of Durham
has indicated it is willing to serve the subdivision. However,
because of previous agreements made for planning purposes, Durham
will not extend its service into Orange County to serve Piney
Mountain without permission from the Orange water and Sewer
Authority ("Owasa"} and OWASA requires approval from Orange County,
the town of Chapel Hill and the town of Carrboro.
4 . The Homeowners Association is in the process of
petitioning all related governmental entities for approval of the
Durham extension to Piney Mountain. If these petitions are
granted, the North State system (or much of it) will not be needed
and thus it would be a waste of money to make substantial repairs
to the system at this time. The Homeowners Association is moving
as fast as possible to- have its petitions heard; however, it is
informed that it will take at least a month and possibly two to
gain the approvals needed to allow the subdivision to hook up to
Durham.
5. Because of the facts cited above, the Homeowners
Association objects to any assessments for capital improvements or
repairs at this time. The Homeowners Association asks the
Commission not to consider any such assessments (except to the
extent required to meet an emergency situation) while the
Homeowners Association pursues its effort to obtain approval for
municipal service to the subdivision and, if approval is obtained,
not make any assessments other than for emergency repairs before
the subdivision can hook up to the Durham system.
This the day of December, 1993.
POYNER & SPRUILL
By:
Nancy Bentson Essex
Attorneys for the Piney Mountain
Homeowners Association
3600 Glenwood Ave.
Post Office Box 10096
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605-0096
Telephone: (919) 783-6400
i2U1\011317-00''\0083602\ 12-22.93
12 ,_ :1.3 15 1 ZY19 19;5.31i17S POWER&SPRC ILL
t
61
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned has this day served
the attached Objection of Piney Mountain Homeowners Association to
Proposed Assessment for Capital Improvements on all parties to this
cause by United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Robert B. Cauthen, Jr.
Staff Attorney, Public Staff
North Carolina Utilities Commission
Post Office Box 29520
Raleigh, NC 27625-0520
James F. Jordan
2840 Plaza Place
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27612
for North State Utilities
Karen E. Long
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
for Attorney General's Office
Martha K. Walston
McMillan Kimzey & Smith
Post Office Box 150
Raleigh, NC 27602
for Carpenter Pond Development Corporation
Harrco Utility commission
8601 Barefoot Industrial Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27613
Tri--County Waste Water Management
712 S. Hayne St.
Monroe, NC 28112
This the day of December, 1993
Nancy Bentson Essex
Ra11\011317-002\0054b02\ 12-22-93
r
52
ti
PINEY MOUNTAIN HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
To the Baud of the Orange Water and Saver Authority
The vast majority of the members of the Piney Mountain Homeowners'
Association chose to live in Piney Mountain because of its unique features within
the rapidly developing Triangle area. As part of the rural buffer in Orange
County, Piney Mountain offers a woodland serenity that is unsurpassed in its
natural beauty and character. All of us are proud of and want to maintain Piney
Mountain's natural heritage.
We share the concerns of OWASA and the pertinent governing bodies to
preserve the planned character of the rural buffer. Through no fault of our own,
due to failure of our community sewage disposal system, we find ourselves
having taken an arduous and circuitous path that has led us to doorstep of
OWASA.
As our problem is discussed by you this evening, and in the coming weeks, we
confirm for the OWASA Board our commitment to protect the rural buffer
environment not only for ourselves and for our children, but also for the benefit
of those who live in neighboring areas and who visit the area to partake of its
beauty. Our request to OWASA to connect with the Durham County sewer line
comes as a last resort. Our petition is intended not to change the nature of the
rural buffer but rather to assure its preservation. The failure of our community
sewage disposal system poses economic and environmental health concerns. It
behooves OWASA to consider seriously our unfortunate plight. A favorable
response to our request at this time will help secure the future of the rural buffer
for those who live in and around it, for generations to come.
For the December 9, 1993
OWASA Board meeting.
PP�7