Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-14-2025-Work Session 1 APPROVED 1/20/26 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RETREAT November 14, 2025 8:00 a.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a retreat on Friday, November 14, 2025 at 8:00 a.m. at Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Jean Hamilton, and Commissioners Marilyn Carter, Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, and Phyllis Portie- Ascott COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. All commissioners were present. Chair Bedford welcomed everyone to the meeting. She announced that the County Attorney, John Roberts, had a meeting this morning and would join as soon as possible. Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, thanked the Board for their investment in learning more in preparation for the Land Use Plan. He explained the purpose of grouping the topics of septic systems, community septic systems, groundwater, and community wells. He emphasized that water and sewer access through OWASA or municipal utilities presents a different conversation than development in rural county areas. Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Board Request for Additional Information 1. Community Septic and Wastewater Treatment Chair Bedford welcomed Tony Whitaker, Professional Engineer. Tony Whitaker introduced himself as a long-term Orange County resident and professional engineer with 40 years of experience in the land development industry, primarily in the Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Durham area. He said he is currently on the Orange County Board of Health but is not speaking on behalf of that board today. He made the following presentation: Slide #1 Community Wastewater Systems November 14, 2025 Tony Whitaker, PE 2 Slide #2 Onsite Wastewater Systems 1. General 4. Operational Monitoring • Ownership Options S. Community Systems • Regulatory Authority • Advantages • Individual vs. Community Disadvantages Ownership 6. Failures 2. Treatment • Components • Importance of Soil • Solutions • Effluent Standards • Historical example • Treatment Methods 7. Reflections • Advanced Pre-Treatment 8. Policy Considerations 3. System Costs 9. Questions Slide #3 Definitions Onsite Wastewater System A treatment system located on or near the property that generates the wastewater being treated, and which disperses the effluent to the soil for final treatment. Community Wastewater System A single onsite system that serves more than one residential or commercial property. Tony Whitaker explained that an on-site wastewater system treats wastewater close to its source with effluent dispersed to soil, which provides both a place for water to go and thorough treatment. He defined community wastewater systems as single systems serving more than one separately owned property. 3 Slide #4 Wastewater System Ownership Options Private Public • Individual Property Owner • Local Government • Property Owner Association • State Government • Mobile Home Park Owner • Public Utility (e.g., OWASA) • Business or Non-Profit Entity • Sanitary District • Regulated Water Company Tony Whitaker noted he has not seen any prohibitions on who can own a wastewater system. He listed various potential owners, including private companies, individuals, nonprofits, regulated water companies, and public entities like sanitary districts. Slide #5 Onsite WWS Regulatory Authority in NC Dept of Health and Human Dept of Environmental Services (DHHS) • • • Has authority over systems I that use subsurface dispersal • Systems that use • Reviews system designs surface dispersal • Systems that I discharge to surface Local Health Engin - -• Option • No formal relationship Department (LHD) Permit •' with local Health • Issues permits, • Private engineer Departments provides inspections designs the system and • Provides notice to local and enforcement ' issues permits HD upon permit I issuance Tony Whitaker explained jurisdictional authority, noting that systems are regulated by two state departments. The Department of Environmental Quality regulates surface dispersal systems, while the Department of Health and Human Services oversees subsurface systems, 4 which is the focus for Orange County. He highlighted a significant regulatory change with the engineered option permit (EOP), which came about 8-9 years ago. Under this system, private engineers can design systems, avoid the regulatory review process by essentially standing in the shoes of the regulatory agency, administer their own quality control of the drawings that they produced, and issue a permit for construction for that system. He noted that state regulatory staff now review only about 10 percent of big system designs, with about 90 percent going under this private option. He emphasized that this is a significant change. Slide #6 Individual System vs. Community System Conventional 1p� ClusteT Septic Septic System r System ■ ■ -MN M�Wlon ML Tony Whitaker explained that in an individual system, each house would have its own septic tank and private distribution lines extending into the yard for dispersal. In contrast, a community system serving four homes would have individual septic tanks for each home that connect to a more centralized, compact dispersal field. This system is supported by common pumping and control mechanisms that manage the effluent distribution, allowing the cluster dispersal field to effectively serve all four homes as a single entity. This setup not only requires a smaller total land area but also enhances land use efficiency, particularly when advanced treatment levels are implemented, allowing for more compact neighborhood designs. Chair Bedford asked about the relationship between topography and well water placement relative to septic drain systems. Tony Whitaker explained that while it's generally preferred for wells to be uphill from septic systems, one can't always infer that groundwater is flowing like surface water is flowing. He emphasized that horizontal separation is the key factor for protecting wells from wastewater systems. Chair Bedford asked about whether developers grade plots to use gravity flow. Tony Whitaker said that it is preferred but not always feasible, and many community systems use STEP (septic tank effluent pump) systems to get effluent from individual homes to common dispersal areas. Commissioner Greene said the Fiddlehead project proposal had that sort of system where there was a pump between individual homes and the field. 5 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what science/evidence is behind what horizontal separation does, and if there is a certain distance required. Tony Whitaker explained that these regulatory requirements are a simplified proxy for a complicated process. He described how wastewater trickles downward from dispersal lines, gets treated, and then mingles with groundwater flow patterns. For wells, the casing is driven down below the bedrock level so shallow groundwater cannot enter, and horizontal distance helps ensure the plume of water from the drain field doesn't reach the well directly. Vice-Chair Hamilton said it would be interesting to know when that science was developed and if it actually tracks, especially if there is a big system with lots of homes or different wells. Tony Whitaker said many large systems have monitoring wells that are drilled to test along the perimeter in the expected direction of groundwater flow on the downslope side of the wastewater system. He explained that this is where samples are taken to determine if groundwater is within normal standards. As the system is operated, it can be compared to early control samples. He said a lot of communities don't use monitoring wells, but if there is a concern about groundwater impacts, they can be required. Cy Stober said the next presenter can speak to community well monitoring, which is also a requirement of community wells. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what happens to solids during treatment. Tony Whitaker said the septic tank provides primary treatment, which includes straining out the solids. He said things that float will do so and remain captured, things that sink, sink to the bottom, and all the septic tank outlets have a filter that strains things bigger than 1/16—floating stuff does not leave, settled things don't leave, and what remains begins a biological breakdown in the tank and is converted to liquid and other gases. He said tanks still need pumping every 4- 5 years. John Roberts arrived at 8:35 am. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if this is a natural process. Tony Whitaker said yes, biological activity is important to the breakdown of material. Commissioner Fowler asked about the expense of a community system vs. more individual systems. Tony Whitaker said he has a slide coming up on that. Cy Stober said that if there are safety measures the Board would like to include, they can put these regulations in place in the LIDO, like monitoring systems. Commissioner McKee said if that is discussed, the Board also needs to discuss the costs involved. 6 Slide #7 How Do Community Systems Differ From Individual Systems? 1. Larger and more complex 5. Subject to higher design 2. Common elements owned by standards (due to size and HOA and located on HOA land complexity; not due to 3. Common expenses are common ownership) typically shared by all users 6. Operated professionally with 4. Some homes contribute more more robust monitoring, wastewater than others inspections and reporting Tony Whitaker highlighted #5, and said that even though these community systems are subject to higher design standards in the state regulations, it's not because it's under common ownership, but is because the system is just larger. Slide #8 What about the Soil? 1. Soil used for dispersal must be: a. Able to absorb and treat effluent b. Appropriately located y c. Sufficient in area 2. Soil meeting this criteria is in very limited supply in Orange County ) 3. Enhanced treatment or dispersal 5.., types are required for more limiting soil conditions f ' . .. , 4. Some soils are not usable at all Tony Whitaker said soil is the most important part of the on-site wastewater system. He said suitable soil for these types of systems is in short supply in Orange County. He said parcels may have a little bit of suitable soil for these systems, but in general, this reality limits development in rural counties in this piedmont area of the state. He said this is a precious resource that is limited. Commissioner Fowler asked if the dispersal field could be put between trees. Tony Whitaker said it's possible, but the dispersal field will last longer without trees. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the soil analysis and suitability would be clear when a project comes before the Board. Tony Whitaker said the county plays a part in determining if the soil is suitable, but there are some nuances, and he will address those later in his presentation. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked what else soils that are suitable for wastewater systems are also good for. Tony Whitaker said it could be suitable for farming, building roads, etc. Commissioner McKee said there probably isn't a direct link to farming, because he has some soil that is not good for wastewater systems, but it is one of the best farming fields he has. Tony Whitaker said that may have something to do with the depth or a limiting condition like rock that would make it not usable for wastewater systems but has upper layers that are good for farming. Commissioner McKee said another factor is the airspace between the soil particles. Slide #9 Usual Wastewater Constituents of Concern • Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD-5, CBOD) • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Various types and measures of Nitrogen compounds (Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, TKN, TN) • Fecal Coliform (primarily as an indicator of other sickness-causing pathogens in the water) 8 Slide #10 Standards for Effluent Quality Septic Tank Effluent <------------ Advanced Pre-Treatment ---------->1 NSF ANSI BOD-5: 350 mg/l CBOD: 15 CBOD: 10 TSS: 100 mg/1 TSS: 15 TSS: 10 TKN: 100 mg/I NH3: 10 NH3: 10 7 to 15 x better than DSE Tony Whitaker said success in wastewater treatment is measured by how well concentrations of certain undesirable characteristics or constituents can be removed, which are represented on this slide. He said the left represents the least treated effluent standard, and they are increasingly well treated moving to the right. The concentrations listed are the maximum allowable concentrations that are generally allowed to flow out of a septic tank and then be directly dispersed to good, suitable soil for further treatment. However, he said most water coming out of a septic system is better. Chair Bedford asked what BOD means. Tony Whitaker said, Biological Oxygen Demand, is a measure of the load of certain kinds of bacteria and biological components that consume oxygen as they break down, so that when the load is sent downstream to oxygenated water, the change to the oxygenation levels in that water can be observed. Commissioner Bedford asked him to elaborate on TSS and TKN. Tony Whitaker said TSS refers to Total Suspended Solids, and TKN is a combination of different types of nitrogen. He noted that these standards are for the water that's applied to the soil. He said if the soil is very limited, it could do some treatment, but not great treatment; advanced pretreatment may be needed, which takes that water to a higher level of treatment before it is dispersed. He said the water is 7 to 15 times better with advanced pretreatment than the DSE standard, but it comes at a high cost. 9 Slide #11 Comparison of Treatment Methods Basic Septic Tank Soil Primar Dispersal into Final Onsite Treatment p Soil Treatment System DSE DSE Advanced Septic Tank Soil Onsite Primary Advanced Pre- Dispersal into Final Treatment Treatment Soil Treatment System DSE TS-I or TS-I I TS-I or TS-II Package Septic Tank Treatment Primary [A�dvancecl Pre- Discharge to Treatment eatment Ditch/Stream System DSE TS-I or TS-II Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if a regional package treatment system works the same way as the package treatment system shown on the slide. Tony Whitaker said that the term may refer to a large system that serves more than one neighborhood or even a region of a county. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if there is a difference between the advanced pretreatment system for the advanced on-site system and for the package treatment system. Tony Whitaker said it would depend on the size. He said there would not necessarily have to be a difference because the manufacturers that make the advanced pretreatment units make them in different scales for individual homes vs. neighborhoods. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if one of the differences is that the package treatment system does not include the extra opportunity to have the soils clean the water. Tony Whitaker said that is correct, but virtually all discharge systems are required to go to these TS1 or TS2 levels, and often use radiation or ultraviolet treatment for disinfection. Commissioner Carter asked if advanced pre-treatment systems address PFAS and heavy metals. Tony Whitaker explained that these systems aren't designed for heavy metals, though some might be bound in treatment. Commissioner McKee asked if the water is theoretically drinkable after advanced pre- treatment. Tony Whitaker said it is not quite up to drinking water standards, which would be off the chart of the last slide, but it is getting close. The Board recessed for a break at 9:05 AM. 10 Slide #12 Why Use Advanced Pre-Treatment? Overcome a Limiting Site Condition or Increase System Capacity Chair Bedford asked if OWASA's sewer treatment plant is like a massive package treatment system with the addition of chlorination treatment. Tony Whitaker said municipal systems like OWASA, use other processes to simulate the biological activity, like activated sludge. He emphasized that these processes are still about using natural biological processes to affect biochemical changes. Chair Bedford asked if OWASA also discharges wastewater into the stream once treated. Tony Whitaker said yes. Commissioner Carter asked what the difference was between monitoring in a system like OWASA's vs. a package treatment system. Tony Whitaker said OWASA is required to report to the state and are highly regulated in terms of the quality of discharge. He said they also likely do test every day for some particles. He explained why someone would use advanced pretreatment despite the expense. He said advanced pretreatment is a way to overcome limiting site or soil conditions and increase system capacity. He explained that given the same amount of soil and the same type of soil, it's possible to have a bigger system with advanced pretreatment, which means more homes on the same soil for a developer. 11 Slide #13 Estimated Installation and Maintenance Costs Installation,Not Monitoring and Maintenance and System Description Including Design Testing,Annually Repairs,Annually Conventional system $9,000-$12,000 - $100-$200 °1 'o x With pump $16,000-$20,000 $300-$400 va E 70 0 a ° Innovative system $25,000-$50,000 $0-$1,000 $300-$400 � a c With Advanced Pre- Treatment $45,000 $75,000 $750-$1,500 $300 $400 Y ° Without Advanced $20,000-$40,000 $200-$300 $300-$400 c y Pre-Treatment � a o °+�' With Advanced Pre- Treatment $40,000-$60,000 $300-$500 $400-$600 Tony Whitaker said these costs are derived from his conversations with professionals in the industry. He presented installation costs ranging from $9,000-$75,000 for individual 4- bedroom homes and $20,000460,000 per lot for community systems. He emphasized the wide ranges reflect custom designs, site conditions, material choices, and contractor pricing variations. He noted potential economies of scale with community systems, though site-specific factors can counterbalance savings. Tony Whitaker noted that individual homes with advanced treatment face disproportionate testing costs compared to community systems, where costs are distributed among multiple owners. Slide #14 NC DHHS Onsite Wastewater System Types OrangeInspection Inspection System Example Frequency-By Frequency-By Classification Characteristics Management Entity Mgmt.Entity County Type Composting Toilet Owner None None x Single family with d CU a Type II conventional dispersal Owner None None Q) oSome types of non- rr u Type III conventional dispersal Owner 5 years if a pump 5 years if a pump � 00 _ r bb LPP dispersal,shared Certified Operator or Annually or Semi- 0 M Type IV 5 or 3 years C elements,etc. Public Mgmt.Entity annually IMP DSE>3000 I gpd,AP< Certified Operator or I e Type V 3000 gpd,etc. Public Mgmt.Entity Annually-Weekly Annually — Certified Operator or I LTypeVl —AP>3000gpd — Monthly-Daily —Semi-annually Public Mgmt.Entity Any Community System will be classified as Type IV,V or VI. 12 Tony Whitaker said any community system will be one of three types: Type IV, V, or VI, which all require professional management and regular inspections by both management entities and local health departments. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if lot size affects per-lot costs for community systems Tony Whitaker said it depends on the size of the lot and the distance away from the common features. He said larger or longer infrastructure may be required to get the water transferred to the common features, which could drive prices up. That is one of the factors that would be considered when thinking about whether it is more economical to have a community system or an individual lot system. Slide #15 Community System Advantages CL Advantages o c° X X 1. More effective use of limited soil resources X X 2. Better neighborhood design with clustered lots X X 3. Supports a higher lot yield, within limits X 4. HOA control and responsibility X 5. Requires professional operational management X 6. Can provide much better effluent quality (if AP is used) X 7. Common maintenance not subject to family budget choices X 8. Opportunity for BOCC to influence system characteristics Tony Whitaker presented his subjective views on community system advantages, including efficient land and resource use, better neighborhood design potential, clustered lots, professional management requirements, and opportunities for the county to influence system design and impose conditions. Commissioner Fowler asked if the Board members should be concerned if the dispersal field looks like it takes up a large part of the lot in a project that comes before them. Tony Whitaker said if there isn't an individual well on the lot, there is more flexibility to have a dispersal system if there is good soil. He said if there isn't good soil, it may not work well. Cy Stober said the lots that came up at the most recent public hearing, which Commissioner Fowler was referencing, had limitations on any additions or accessory structures being constructed on those lots because they're either the drain field or the repair area. He said those homeowners would be limited to improving their private property because the land is consumed by the drain field or the repair area. Tony Whitaker said procedurally, community systems provide an opportunity for the Board to influence system design and impose conditions that would not be possible for individual systems. 13 Slide #16 Community System Disadvantages a Z W Disadvantages O 0 X 1. Higher costs may work against attainable housing goals X 2. System problems and costs affect all property owners X X 3. Some maintenance costs are still incurred by household X X 4. HOA control and responsibility X 5. Can be a higher installation cost,on a per-lot basis X 6. Developer bears costs of design and most of installation For disadvantages, Tony Whitaker listed potentially higher costs affecting affordable housing goals, the "if it fails, everybody is impacted" concern, questions about HOA capability to manage systems, and the significant upfront cost burden on developers who must construct entire systems initially rather than leaving septic installation to individual builders. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked about construction timing. Tony Whitaker explained that under the EOP process, once the wastewater system is permitted for construction, building permits can be sought, with the presumption that system and home construction occur simultaneously. Slide #17 Failure of System Components Replacement Durability for Materials System Long-Term Readily Relative Cost Component Service Available? to Replace Tanks HIGH YES $$$ Filters MEDIUM YES $ Pumps MEDIUM YES $ Controls& MEDIUM YES $$ Alarms Advanced Pre- HIGH YES $$$ Treatment Units Dispersal Field MED-HIGH YES $$$ (Repair Field) Tony Whitaker said generally, the things that cost the most have the highest durability. He said high durability means that the part should not have to be replaced again during the life of the system. 14 Slide #18 What Happens When Something Fails? 1. Is the failure known by the property owner? 2. Is the problem discovered early or late? 3. Is it a matter of normal maintenance/repair? 4. Or something more serious? 5. Is correction optional?...or mandatory? 6. Is the owner motivated to fix it? 7. Are funds available to fix it? Answers to these questions may be more satisfying for a Community system than for an Individual system Commissioner McKee asked to return to the previous slide. He asked what happens if, after a drain field fails, a repair area also fails. Tony Whitaker said sometimes a dispersal field can benefit from resting, so it is possible that the original drain field could be used again, but not if the system fails in a way that isn't repairable. Commissioner McKee asked if that option is more or less likely on a smaller lot. Tony Whitaker said if there is advanced pre-treatment, there wouldn't be an issue. Otherwise, the smaller the dispersal area, the higher the chance that there won't be a recoverable repair. He said community systems are also valuable because individual owners may not know that their system is failing until there is a dire situation, whereas community systems require more intense inspections. Slide #19 Historical Perspective: Piney Mountain Neighborhood Permit Approval 1992 Transfer of Regulatory Maio r Defects Licensed in 1987 by: Authority to: Delegation to: IDA in 1993 by: Operator NC DEHNR-DEM NC DEHNR-DHS OC Health Dept OC Health Dept Dissolved 1993 58 single family lots in Rural F_ Soil ' Not fully built out when ..•• Evalua- Dispersal tion Design F-1 Identified by OCHD during Dispersal field d repair field o suitable Regula- Constr- tory uction F— Resolved via OWASA&Durham cooperation sion 14 F—' Has left a lasting negative impres Operation technologyF—. Bad actors;not bad � Multiple Problem Areas 15 Tony Whitaker presented a detailed analysis of the Piney Mountain neighborhood failure, describing it as 58 lots in the rural buffer permitted in 1987. After about five years, the inspection authority transferred to the Orange County Health Department, which had never been involved in the system's design. Upon inspection, the county discovered the system was in a terrible state, finding that dispersal piping hadn't been fully installed, the repair area was unsuitable, the primary area was 80 percent unsuitable soil, and there was effluent on the ground surface. The county stopped issuing building permits, leading to turmoil and lawsuits. Ultimately, OWASA and the City of Durham provided a public sewer connection, allowing the on-site system to be abandoned. He identified five problem areas in the Piney Mountain case but emphasized two "fatal flaws": soil evaluation and dispersal design that made that system unable to function. He quoted the county engineer at the time who said the system "could never perform adequately regardless of funds spent." Despite this, he concluded that this system and all its negative experiences are not an indictment of community wastewater systems but rather an indictment of bad actors who were allowed by the regulatory agency to act badly. As a counterexample, he described Hardscrabble Plantation in Durham County, built in the early 1990s using the same technology, but which has been in continuous successful operation since the early 1990s. He also mentioned touring a commercial system in Chatham County operating successfully for 15 years with twice-weekly professional oversight. Commissioner Carter asked what regulations need to be in place to prevent this. Tony Whitaker responded that Orange County's major subdivision procedures in the UDO already require developers to stake out soil areas for dispersal, have county staff evaluate them, and provide an assessment before preliminary plat applications. This would theoretically solve the Piney Mountain fatal flaw problem. However, he warned that the state has been slowly eroding local health departments' abilities to have anything to say about these system designs, causing consternation among health department staff statewide. Commissioner McKee asked about inspection requirements for the Durham County example. Tony Whitaker said it was a Type 6 system requiring twice-weekly inspections due to its size and complexity. The company doing inspections also does soil science work, engineering design, and system operation, working for both the HOA and individual commercial property owners. Slide #20 Reflections L The regulatory environment for onsite wastewater systems doesn't differentiate between Individual and Community ownership status. 2. Community wastewater systems are inherently unique and customized. 3. Any Community system requires professional operational management. 4. The EOP process shifts significant regulatory functions to the private sector. 5. Current Orange County UDO procedures for Major Subdivision should prevent a repeat of the"fatal flaw" in the Piney Mountain community system. 6. Community systems present opportunities for the BOCC to shape wastewater system characteristics in ways not typically available for Individual systems. 16 Slide #21 Simplified Policy Options for Community Wastewater Systems . Tolerate Slide #22 Policy Considerations for Community Systems Assess the level of confidence in: • Available technology Legal and Are community • Current and future NC administrative systems desirable for regulatory framework reviews needed Orange County? • Practitioners in the industry Assess Orange County's ability to assure good If desirable,should they be: practices related to design and operation: Incentivized? • UDO Text,SUP conditions Permitted in limited areas,or • Conditional zoning conditions more broadly? • Development Agreement per GS 160D Permitted only with specific • HOA dots—maintenance fund,surety conditions or standards? • Administrative procedures Slide #23 Questions? 17 Vice-Chair Hamilton asked about the impact of climate change on these systems. She asked, as there are more flood events, how do these community and individual systems work when there is more water in the ground? Tony Whitaker said the state allows counties to have local rules for the time being. He said Orange County has historically been looked to as a leader in the state on on-site wastewater regulation. The current rules give the county the ability to have extra requirements that can prevent water intrusion. However, dispersal fields don't work as well when they are saturated from rainfall, of course, and some community systems are required to have additional storage capacity in the tanks and not disperse water when it's extraordinarily wet, but disperse it later. He said another mitigation effort would be to keep these wastewater systems out of floodplains and near- term floodplains. He acknowledged that there isn't a great static answer to what a floodplain is because it is always changing. He said municipal treatment plants are facing the same questions, so it is not unique to community septic systems. Vice-Chair Hamilton acknowledged that this is an issue with different types of systems but pointed out that there is a difference between systems in who mitigates and pays for issues. Commissioner Fowler thanked Tony Whitaker for his presentation. The Board recessed for a break at 10:11 AM. The Board reconvened at 10:23 a.m. 2. Groundwater Resources C.J. Corvette, Professional Geologist, made the following presentation: Slide #1 Community Wells: ARM Siting, Construction, APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.PC and Testing C.J. Cornette, PG 18 Slide #2 Outline • Professional Background Public Supply Well Yield and Water • What is a Well? Quality Testing • The Hydrologic Cycle • Down hole Video Survey • Well Overview • 24-Hour Drawdown • Public Supply Well Overview • Water Quality Testing • Final Construction and Permitting • Public Supply Well Siting • Completion of Drilling and Testing • Hydrogeologic Evaluation • Design and Construction • Setbacks • Well Drilling Costs • Public Supply Well Drilling • Long-Term Well Health • Well Construction AK M IPPLIED RESOURCE 1-GEIENT PC Slide #3 Personal and Professional Background • Hometown: Hampstead, NC • Education: a N »� • B.S. Geology-UNC CH • M.S. Geology-ECU • A Family of Geologists: • Mother and Father both Geologists... • And Licensed Well Drillers Coastal Studies institute • Experience: • Geotechnical Geology • Environmental and Hydrogeologic Consulting ARM APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.PC C.J. Corvette described his varied geological experience across the state and internationally, noting he returned to work with his family business six years ago. 19 Slide #4 Applied Resource Management • Offices in Hampstead, Cary, Oriental, NC • 10 Level A Licensed Well Drillers • 7 drilling rigs • Multiple drilling and excavation crews • Potable,irrigation,geothermal,and exploratory well capabilities A K MA • Licensed scientists APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.PC • Geologists,soil scientists,environmental scientists • Design,modeling,and remediation work • Contract and subcontract with other drillers, scientists, and engineers across the state and beyond In addition to the work detailed in slide#4, C.J. Cornette said his company also does a lot of consulting work. Slide #5 The Hydrologic Cycle • Humans need water Pr[aprphan Erapar°tian ' • The easiest connections in the hydrologic cycle are rivers. Or[rl°nd runalf �.<< • Wells allow humans to %,,Graund r°fsr shortcut the hydrologic cycle So with science and engineering. Heath,1983.Basic Ground-Water Hydrology ARMIk Beginning with the hydrologic cycle, C.J. Cornette explained how wells create a shortcut to the hydrologic cycle, allowing development away from surface water sources. 20 Slide #6 Well Overview Water-fable Artesian • Well (n): A pit or hole well well sunk into the earth to Land surface o Palentiamelric... reach water =- 5"`'° e = = a _ UNCONFINED SAND Cfi�gey t \ o AQUIFER m77 • Water-table vs Confined :Water I°C;e well _..1. .;green a wells w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - d CONFINING _—�—_ ' BED _—_ — - CLAY • Sustainability and s CONFINED OOen _ susceptibility to LIMESTONE= hole _ contaminants varies AaUIFER Heath,1983.Basic Ground-Water Hydrology AKM C.J. Corvette defined wells simply as a hole in the ground that water is pulled out of, distinguishing between shallow water table wells in unconfined aquifers and deeper confined aquifer wells. He emphasized that community wells target confined aquifers because they are more protected from any contamination that happens at the surface. Shallow wells are susceptible to contamination from various sources, including, for example, nitrate from fertilizer from a property across the street. Slide #7 Well Overview cont. • Well uses: • Extraction • Information • Resources like water,oil,minerals • Contaminants • Injection • Water tIL • Heat - • Treatments for contaminants 1 • Monitoring 4 • Drinking Water Ii Af�M C.J. Cornette said wells aren't just for water. He said boreholes can 5be+drilled to examine sediments and identify the type of rock under the surface, which can be used to advise a variety 21 of things, including wastewater applications for soil types, contaminants, etc. Conversely, he said wells can be dug to inject something like heat, water, or treatments for contaminants. He explained that monitoring wells provide the potential to monitor impacts over time, like the leaching of contaminants into wells that are near landfills. that are. He said his main is focus on drinking water and the extraction of drinking water responsibly and effectively. Slide #8 Public Supply Wells • Wells supplying water to greater than 15 residences • Installed to higher standards than private *�' J waterwellsr•r, • Water Quality {„ • Yield testing forsustainability .• w • Managed by individuals or companies that maintain Drinking Water Operator �= Certifications through DEQ • 52%of NC residents obtain their waterfrom wells(NC Groundwater Association) ARMM� C.J. Corvette said public supply wells, or community wells, colloquially, serve more than 15 residences, bringing them under greater state protections with higher installation standards and more comprehensive water quality testing than private wells. He highlighted that 52%of North Carolina residents obtain water from wells, with 7,683 community wells currently in the state's database. Slide #9 ARM& Public Supply Well Siting • Topographic and lithologic trends _ r' 22 C.J. Cornette detailed the hydrogeologic evaluation process, examining topographic and lithologic trends. He said Orange County's 2001 groundwater report is unique, and noted most counties lack such comprehensive data. Using the map on the slide, he demonstrated identifying topographic features like valleys that might indicate areas of geological interest. Slide #10 ALMA Public Supply Well Siting • Topographic and lithologic trends • Site geology Zhe S ./ - `cdgr:kld . Culmy�r C.J. Cornette explained that site geology includes various rock types: metavolcanics, andesite or, andesitic and basaltic tufts, metavolcanics, and granodiorites, or diabase dikes. The geological diversity provides opportunities for targeting specific formations for water yield. Slide #11 ARMk Public Supply Well Siting Zhe • Topographic and lithologic trends 0� ;, { • Site geology �� - •3�' • Regional well trends ' Jd Zhe , ZO qpm �' ZdI 79c • Pollutant setbacks � • •� 1�PM �� -: t •SO 4p- 23 C.J. Cornette explained that each blue dot on the map represents a public supply well that have been 24-hour drawdown tested and are publicly reported as in operation right now by NCDEQ Public Water Supply. These public supply wells provide an understanding of how wells in different rock types perform. He explained that by looking at well trends paired with geologic trends gives an idea of how conducive a site is for a well before drilling begins. He said a well the measures approximately a gallon per minute per residence is sufficient to support a community. Despite the practice of prioritizing areas of high likelihood before drilling wells, he explained that it's impossible to know for sure until drilling begins. The other factors allow for a first glance to decide if it's even worth drilling. C.J. Cornette said with public water supply wells, there are guidelines about how far a well can be drilled from certain setbacks. For example, every community supply well must have a 100 ft radius controlled by the owners of the well, and he said his company recommends a 110 ft radius. Slide #12 Public Supply Well Siting Distance ft Potential Source of Pollution• Setback requirements 100 • From any sanitary sewage disposal system,sewer,or sewer pipe unless sewer is constructed oFwater main materialsand joints,In which the sewer pipe shall be at least 30 feet from the well. • From buildings,mobile homes.permanent structures,animal houses or lots, cultivated areas to which chemicals are applied. • 1 00' radius controlled by the • Fromachemcalo surface rp g ry • From a chemical ar etroleum Fuel unde ound storage tank with semnda containment operators of t h e well • From an other potential source of Dilution not listed in this table. 200 • From a subsurface sanitary sewage treatmentand disposal system designed for 3,000 or more gal tons of wastewater a day,unless your well water source is a confined a ui€er. 300 • From Any Cemetery or burial ground. Soo • From a septage disposal slte. • Requires a P G o r P E to • coFror a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage tank without secondary ntainment • From the boundary ofa ground wa aminationarea. submit a sealed letter to NC • From aSani[ary landfill or nor-permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal site. D E Q e e rt i fy i n g due diligence 1,000 • From a hazardous waste disposal site or in any location which conflicts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Mans emeot Rules cited as SSA NCAC I3A regarding setbacks P,f� A 24 Slide #13 Private Well vs Public Well Land Requirements • Private Wells require 50'from • Public Wells require 100' radius* septic* 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 *This is an approximate.Some of the larger setbacks for Public Wells can also impact Private Wells(hazardous contamination). N AKM C.J. Cornette illustrated the land use efficiency of community wells by comparing one public well's 100-foot circle to 30 private wells' 50-foot circles at half scale. He noted one public well can serve up to 49 connections, eliminating the need for 48 individual well setback circles. Slide #14 AKMk PPsEo e[sOuucF rnruEratHi,a[ Public Supply Well Construction • Drilling Rigs N� s5{� i I I '�f 25 In this region, where crystalline rock is the norm, C.J. Corvette explained that air rotary drilling is used. He said it is like an upside-down ballpoint pen with a hammer that pounds while rotating, using air to lift rock cuttings out. This is different from mud rotary used in coastal areas. Chart #1: z5rt(.5- u[ 4 11 C.J. Corvette used the illustration in chart #1 to show that casings function as straws, getting past soils to access beneath the crystalline rock, with grout surrounding it to prevent contamination. Well videos verify construction quality, with every community well videoed to ensure standards are met. 26 Slide #15 AKM , Public Supply Well Construction • Casing to seal off surficial aquifer l / 1 Slide #16 ARM Public Supply Well Construction • Open-hole rock bore or gravel- walled well 0®r: .2 . C.J. Corvette said screens (like the picture on the left of slide #16) are put in place to prevent sand and other natural sediments from falling into the well and water supply. The middle picture shows a fracture in crystalline rock. He said these are hard, solid fractures that operate as pipes flowing sideways through the ground that allows water to be pulled through into the pump and up and out of the system. 27 Slide #17 ARM PPUEO PFfvuPCF mreGFraEWT.P[ Public Supply Well Testing • Drawdown testing for yield • 24-hourtestingto determine sustainable yield �, s► WPM CUM,.PW 43.2717 1 63.2717 A. 83.2717 u� 103.2717 C.J. Corvette said drawdown testing involves 24-hour continuous pumping to certify yield, contrasting with private wells'one-hour"airlift yield"estimates. He said he just completed this type of test, and water levels and flow rates are monitored throughout. He explained that steady state is achieved when the water level fall is 0.1 feet per hour or less. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if the time of year impacts the drawdown. C.J. Corvette said it can, but he explained that crystalline rock aquifers draw from distant recharge regions, making them less susceptible to seasonal variations than shallow wells. He noted that human demand, particularly lawn irrigation, typically has a more immediate impact than weather changes. Wesley Poole, Orange County Water Resources Coordinator, said Orange County monitors 13 wells every two months with hourly data collection uploaded to USGS. C.J. Corvette was glad to hear about this data collection and said it helps assess aquifer resilience. Cy Stober said Orange County also monitors surface waters. He said there are USGS gauge stations on the Eno River, and as part of the nutrient monitoring program with the Upper Neuse River Basin Association, there are numerous points of collection. He said this data helps paint a picture of groundwater and surface waters. C.J. Corvette said there are a lot of assumptions. He said he has drilled wells that have great water, but had contaminants close by that resulted in the well-being unusable. He explained that one of the biggest assumptions is the sameness of the rock (homogeneity) between nearby formations. He said there is variation that occurs naturally. He said North Carolina has some of the most complex geologic features of any of the states he's studied, and each county is unique, because there is such variation and difference. He said geologists must try to classify differences as the same. Chair Bedford asked about the length of time for community well tests, recalling that he said a well is supposed to be run for 12 hours. 28 C.J. Corvette said the standard is for a well to have a standard daily use of 12 hours. He said, generally, there is a lot of water use in the morning and evening, but less throughout the day. However, wells are tested for 24 hours to strain or stress them. Commissioner Carter asked the hours of constant use could be decreased if there were a containment system where water could be stored. C.J. Corvette said yes, storage tanks can help manage drawdown. He said there are storage requirements for public water supply to ensure demand can be met if it exceeds the output of the wells. Slide #18 Public Supply Well Testing • Water quality samples for y contaminants '3'f.303:9" • Collected during drawdown testing • Advises on filtration requirements • Significantly larger sample spread than private wells P ARMS C.J. Corvette emphasized that iron and manganese are common in Piedmont wells. �}� Community wells tests look for significantly more constituents than private wells, including PFAS compounds, radiologicals, and various organic and inorganic chemicals. Commissioner Carter asked about testing stringency for private wells in Orange County. Commissioner Fowler said she thinks Orange County only requires coliform testing. Tony Whitaker said that is correct. C.J. Corvette noted the cost difference, mentioning PFAS testing requires expensive mass spectrometry which is unavailable to most homeowners. 29 Slide #19 Public Supply Well Testing �m`°�Ym'�'a` `@ce6e 03 -TV 62 -91 GIYtle ?sa ROL ss rM& FMp& I egll ep.t Oa lok kon 63 -v& 4.oe WIL • Water quality samples for m.p_ "Oo°6 0,No mwprLE contaminants Aapl„ HenseelwEN�.a ,a n�E • Contaminants can be ZNe 6m6 vt Cbbr w. 1s unee b unY natural or man-made Tp1e1 Herdneib 4OOe.400ea N PH 6.5-8.5 oft 7.5 uNa Asp6:y Nm.yfpMeM1ed M wx TDS 50a O9lE fe] ag1L • Inorganic chemicals TOW COYam pe IOa rtl he.eN per 160 E Cal ,lelM eelA4Yhed Abunt M TOW1M 66 mph 00006 myL • Synthetic organics 066 oM • Volatiles •'•O1a"�' EPA Slsndrd ww G_At- 15 K.L 60 Pc:L CmPGN.b Ia6lam s Pc .10 PC • Semivolatiles Rdwma6 6 1� 11D P L rs.ar,mae a.a.n,..r,e. P� �yL • Radiologicals o1m.Gem sa .5 •16AYCACOX 02G1 GYO!lCVATEROIrPtITY STAlGPPDS.Mtq Naa.neyeWlmunanlaka.riapeuWaurLY03fQ • PFAS .RMon,eYes RIe.EPA.Miq.IMx.epagoWp.epYdlMgnxYM,Me TMr1ab4Pauitlra a brill w.w�waal aigiicreaxrtauwea F4(x ieiM IJlabe�NwYwFen la plarwpak ireaimwkNiana AFM C.J. Corvette noted that contamination can be so high that it is untreatablenwithout extensive cost, so the well cannot be used. He added that there were 3 new PFAS added to the watchlist for North Carolina recently. Slide #20 Final Well Drilling and Testing Report • Summarizes geology and well construction • Certifies construction meets 15A NCAC 02C standards • Certifies yield testing results • Provides water quality samples for State review and filtration design = fie" r O Z SEAL i➢ 2580 a •re CORN�fi.J-'` aN� AKM 30 Slide #21 It Takes a Team • After completion of drilling and testing, a distribution system engineer will need to be consulted with to design distribution,which leads to.... • Utility operator review o • �. l� • NC DEQ final permitting after distribution design • Contractors for construction • What does this cost?What's next? ARMt Slide #22 Well Drilling Costs • Expenses vary significantly per well • Drill costs influenced by: • Maintenance Costs: • Depth • Pump replacement • Surface Casing • Well cleaning • Diameter Requirements • Water quality monitoring • Site Access ARMS Slide #23 ARMAk Long-Term Well Health • Well lifespans generally range 30-50 years, but may be extended with proper maintenance. c' • Well cleaning and rehabilitation • Or add iticnalwell construction 31 C.J. Corvette said long-term maintenance includes well rehabilitation for mineral buildup and biofilm formation. He said he performs 5-10 rehabilitations annually, using methods like chemical treatment, high-pressure jetting, brushing, and development. He emphasized each well's uniqueness in determining appropriate treatment methods. He said the higher construction standards of community wells can provide confidence that the system is meant to last. Regarding well longevity and failure, C.J. Cornette reported drilling about three replacement wells annually for communities, with original wells often lasting 30+ years. He stressed the importance of monitoring for issues like system leaks that can overtax wells and the value of redundant well sites, though acknowledging space constraints in developments. Slide #24 Long-Term Well Health • Regional groundwater trends may impact well lifespans beyond the control of operators. • Water mining • Contamination • Anthropogenic forcings V ARMAL C.J. Cornette said groundwater trends are used to evaluate well health. If a whole region or development is seeing low water, they might look at if the well is being run for more time than it's supposed to be, or if there's more demand in the system, or if there's a leak in the system. He said contamination can influence any active system at any time. He added that one of the biggest takeaways in his career has been that humans, or anthropogenic forcings, seem to be the most significant, measurable, and obvious way that wells and regional groundwater trends are influenced. 32 Slide #25 Commissioner Questions • How do the types of rocks matter for water supply to wells? • Types of rock matters to a great degree, but that is part of the whole for each site. Rock types vary from site to site and some rock types may be better in one region due to local deformations as opposed to other regions where they remain minimally altered. • Can any portion of our county be predictable or not for water supply aquifer? • Yes and no. Every well is different.We can use the information at our disposal to reduce the risk or randomness in drilling, but there will always be risk. • Can wells be tested ahead of approval for zoning change or building? • Yes, and they should be.This work can be completed prior to any development on a property. No development work should be undertaken without ensuring that well water(or another water source) can sustain the development. Chair Bedford said there are community members who have opposed developments because of the type of rock and the thought that it would lead to other wells in the area being depleted. C.J. Cornette said a community well is different than 40 wells that don't have a timer on them or requirements for maximum use or review from the state. He reiterated that there are more protections for sustainable drawdowns than with a private well. Chair Bedford asked what the diabase rock specifically has to do with that. C.J. Corvette said a diabase dike comes in and cuts through the middle of a type of rock. He said this creates a channel that water could flow through, but is also a means for water to be pulled out. In certain geologies, the dikes are more important to target than the other types of rock because the other types of rock don't have as conducive water flow. However, any well runs the risk of drawing down another well if it's close enough. He explained that the utilities and professionals involved in a project will advise if a well is likely to interfere with something else. Cy Stober asked for clarification on the relationship between the distance between wells and the likelihood of influence. C.J. Cornette said, generally speaking, the closer two wells are to each other, they more influence they will have on one another. Commissioner Carter asked if neighboring wells are factored into the testing for a new well. C.J. Corvette said there are no state requirements to test beyond a 100 ft. radius. Vice-Chair Hamilton about the impact over time when a well is located close to the headwaters of a stream. C.J. Corvette referenced the depiction in chart#1: 33 f 2 L40-41 - 1 , t C.J. Corvette explained that with proper casing depth (typically 50+ feet), wells shouldn't directly affect surface streams. Springs fed by groundwater could potentially be affected by upgradient wells, but deep crystalline rock wells are very likely not going to have a strong impact on the stream nearby. Vice-Chair Hamilton asked if there are wells that are fed from streams underground. C.J. Corvette said yes. He said if there's a site where the groundwater is feeding the stream or is a spring and the water is tapped into uphill, it might remove the water from the system. However, if the water is downhill and the water is already out on the surface, it may not. He clarified that community wells are less likely to have an impact on a nearby stream than, for example, a spring that someone puts in on their private residence. Using the whiteboard, C.J. Corvette illustrated the concept of the cone depression, showing how pumping creates a cone-shaped area of reduced water pressure around the well. In confined aquifers, this represents pressure reduction rather than actual dewatering of the formation. Commissioner Fowler asked the presenter to confirm if deep wells are less likely to affect the water table and groundwater. C.J. Cornette said that is true if they are constructed well. Commissioner McKee said his takeaway is that with all the variables, it is nearly impossible to say whether one well will impact another well. C.J. Cornette said if a second well is within a 500 ft. radius, they could test one while doing a drawdown test in the other, and that is the internal guidance in his company. 34 Slide #26 Commissioner Questions cont. • Impacting other wells? • All wells run the risk of impacting other wells, community or private. Community wells are typically focused on due to the higher demand they require with more residences connected. However, the increased efficiency of operators and distribution systems with the higher scruple of regulatory agencies means they are also generally maintained and monitored to a higher degree than private wells. • 24-hour drawdown tests performed on community wells are a great opportunity to monitor nearby wells for fracture interconnectivity. Slide #27 Commissioner Questions cont. • Costs to drill? • This can varywidely, but the major expenses in drilling are the surface casing,well diameter,and depth requirements. • Wells with 100'or more surface casing become very expensive due to specialty equipment holding the borehole stable during casing installation and the expense of larger piping materials for the casing. • Deeper wells are more expensive as greater depths frequently correlate with Longer drill times. Footage prices increase with depth which coincides with those longer drill times. • Access to sites across difficult terrain and strict regulations on sedimentation during drilling can also increase prices. • Costs to maintain? • General maintenance is outside the scope of our work, but most operators will replace some of the mechanical equipment like Rumps and motors in time.Should not have to replace very frequently if properly maintained. • Mineral build-up may also require well maintenance, but this can be reduced if the well is monitored and regulated appropriately. 35 Slide #28 Commissioner Questions cont. • Reliability? Failure Rates? • The strict requirements of NC DEQ help provide confidence that at the end of drawdown testing with water quality results,you have a final idea of long-term sustainability. However, any aquifer is subject to change with continued human or natural forces acting on it. • Aquifer change versus well change will vary per well. • In face of climate change? • This is going to be a site-specific discussion, but most wells in the Piedmont are going to be influenced by immediate anthropogenic forcings to a greater degree than global scale climate change. C.J. Corvette said, generally, humans will impact wells more than climate change. Commissioner Fowler asked about PFAS distribution. C.J. Corvette indicated it's typically localized near sources, citing biosolids application as a local example. He confirmed that iron and manganese filtration is standard and relatively simple, while heavy metals treatment varies by specific constituent. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about human impacts beyond lawn watering. C.J. Corvette identified general consumption and, particularly, irrigation as major impacts. He described situations where residents ignore watering restrictions. Slide #29 Thank You! C.J. Cornette, PG Applied Resource Management, PC ARM 1135 Kildaire Farm Rd #200 APPLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,PC Cary, NC 27511 910.270.2919 (Office) cjc@armnc.com 36 Adjournment The Board adjourned the meeting at 11:59 a.m. without a formal motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.