; 20th Annual
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

20th Annual

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 151

  • pg 1
									          20th Annual
    On-site Conference 2004
  Planning, Implementing, and
Managing Decentralized Wastewater




                OCTOBER 11-13, 2004
    Jane S. McKimmon Center for Extension and
Continuing Education, North Carolina State University,
                    Raleigh, NC
                  Proceedings of the

          20th Annual
    On-site Conference 2004
  Planning, Implementing, and
Managing Decentralized Wastewater

                October 11-13, 2004


 Well



                   Aerobic       Aerobic
                                   soil
                   zone
         Groundwater




    Jane S. McKimmon Center for Extension and
Continuing Education, North Carolina State University,
                    Raleigh, NC

               Edited by David Lindbo


                                                     2
                                      Agenda
Monday, October 11th
7:30-9:00      Registration
               Welcome
8:15-8:30
               David Lindbo, NC State University

GENERAL SESSION:

Development and On-Site Wastewater: Can They Coexist?
Moderator: David Lindbo, NC State University

               Getting the Professionals and Planners on the Same Page: A view as a
8:30           member of the Technical Review Board for a major watershed project
               Randy Miles, University of Missouri
               County-Wide Sewer: The Impossible Dream
9:15           Greg Thompson, New Hanover County Engineer
               Dianne Harvell, New Hanover County Health Dept.
10:00          Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
               On-Site Wastewater Meets Land Use Planning and Zoning: A Happy
10:30          Marriage or a Match Made in Hell?
               Richard Whisnant, UNC School of Government
               Roadmap to On-Site Wastewater Management
11:15
               Terry Pierce, NC DENR
12:00          Luncheon and Awards




                                                                                      3
BREAKOUT SESSION 1:

GIS/GPS Technology in Planning and Permitting
Moderator: Barbara Grimes, NC DENR

                What is GPS?
1:30
                Heather Cheshire, NC State University
                Spatial Information for Wastewater Management
2:00
                David Crouse, NC State University
2:30            Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
                GIS Planning Tools for Environmental Professionals
3:00
                Jeff Essic, NC State University
                A GPS Pilot Project for Well and Wastewater Locations and Permits
3:30            Wright Lowry, Wake GIS
                Ed Duke, Wake County Department of Environmental Services
                Volusia County Case Study
4:00
                Pete Thornton, Volusia County Health Department

5:00-7:00pm     Reception in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall




BREAKOUT SESSION 2:

Failure Prevention through Proactive Measures
Moderator: Andy Adams, NC DENR

                Case Study Failures (Type IV-VI)
1:30
                Joe Lynn, NC DENR
2:00            Case Studies of Subsurface Operator Issues: A Panel Discussion
3:00            Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
                Case Study Failures (Type I-III)
3:30
                Gene Young, NC DENR
4:00            The Importance of Compliance Visits: A Panel Discussion
5:00-7:00pm     Reception in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall




                                                                                    4
Tuesday, October 12th
7:30           Continental Breakfast in the Exhibit Hall

BREAKOUT SESSION 3:

Approaches to Management and Inspection
Moderator: Joe Lynn, NC DENR

               The Homeowner is Part of the System
8:30
               Diana Rashash, NC State University
               Inspection and Evaluation of Onsite Wastewater Systems at Time of Sale:
9:00           The Missouri Experience
               Randy Miles, University of Missouri
               Time of Sale Inspection: The County Experience
9:30
               Judith Tillman, NC Office of the Attorney General
10:00          Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
               County Education Program Efforts
10:30
               Andy Siegner, Chatham County Health Dept.
               Health Department Inspections of Type 3b, 4, 5, and 6 Systems
11:00
               David Cunningham, Union County Health Dept.
               Working with Certified Subsurface Operators
11:30
               Len Gilstrap, Carteret County Health Dept.
12:00          Lunch on Your Own

BREAKOUT SESSION 4:

Certifications and Related Issues
Moderator: Tricia Angoli, NC DENR

               The Reevaluation of the Subsurface Operator "Needs to Know"
8:30
               Nancy Deal, NC State University
               Certification of Installers and Time of Sale Inspectors for NC
9:00
               Doug Lassiter, NC Septic Tank Association
9:30           Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
               Contractor Registration, Warrantees, Certifications, and Proprietary
10:00
               Products: A Panel Discussion
               NSF Standard 40: What’s Needed for the Future
11:00
               Adriana Greco, NSF International
12:00          Lunch on Your Own




                                                                                      5
GENERAL SESSION:

Planning, Implementing and Managing On-Site Wastewater Systems in the
21st Century
Moderator: Alan Clapp, Orange County Health Department

              Land Use Planning and On-Site Wastewater
1:00
              Steve R. Gurley, AICP, Lincolnton Planning Dept.
              Four County Approaches to the Permitting Process: A Panel Discussion
1:30          Representatives from four North Carolina counties (Randolph, Guilford,
              Wake, Craven) discuss the pros and cons of their permitting processes.
2:30          Break in the Manufacturers Exhibit Hall
              The Role of Communication: How to Avoid Making a Good Site into a
3:00          Difficult Site
              Kathy Morris, February Associates, Inc.
              Friend or Foe: Land Use Regulation
3:30
              Mike Corry, NOWRA




                                                                                       6
FIELD OPTIONS
Wednesday, October 13th
Choose 1 of 5 Field Options.
All Field Options will run 8:30am-12:30pm. Transportation to your selected Field Option is
on your own. Maps and further information will be provided at the conference.

                Yadkin Valley Winery (Winston-Salem area)
                Joe Lynn, NC DENR
                Gene Young, NC DENR
                Kevin Neal, NC DENR
Option 1
                • Soils and agronomy
                • Liquid and solid waste
                • Winemaking process and waste generation
                Down East Winery (Duplin County)
                Ron Monk, Brunswick County Health Dept.
                Tim Crissman, NC DENR
                Diana Rashash, NC Cooperative Extension
Option 2
                • Soils and agronomy
                • Liquid and solid waste
                • Winemaking process and waste generation
                Tire Chip Aggregate Processing and Installation (Cameron, Moore
                County)
                Barbara Grimes, NC DENR
Option 3
                • Visit Central Carolina Tire Disposal, a highly experienced recycling and
                aggregate producer
                • Tire processing and monofilling
                • Tire chip installation for septic system drain lines
                Wastewater Reuse in a Planned Community Development (Chatham
                County)
                Robert Rubin, NC State University
Option 4
                • Visit The Preserve, a golf course community
                • Emphasis on reuse
                Site Evaluation "State of Practice" for Large Subsurface Systems.
                Steven Berkowitz, NCDENR-OSWW Section
Option 5
                       Standards of Practice
                       Field review of procedures
                       Regional variations




                                                                                             7
                                                 Table of Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................................... 11

Awards ....................................................................................................................... 12

Getting the Professionals and Planners on the Same Page:
A view as a member of the Technical Review Board
for a major watershed project
Randy Miles, University of Missouri......................................................................... 20

County-Wide Sewer: The Impossible Dream
Greg Thompson, New Hanover County Engineer
Dianne Harvell, New Hanover County Health Dept. ................................................ 21

On-Site Wastewater Meets Land Use Planning and Zoning:
A Happy Marriage or a Match Made in Hell?
Richard Whisnant, UNC School of Government ....................................................... 30

Roadmap to On-Site Wastewater Management
Terry Pierce, NC DENR ............................................................................................ 35

What is GPS?
Heather Cheshire, NC State University ..................................................................... 36

Spatial Information for Wastewater Management
David Crouse, NC State University ........................................................................... 37

GIS Planning Tools for Environmental Professionals
Jeff Essic, NC State University.................................................................................. 38

A GPS Pilot Project for Well and Wastewater Locations and Permits
Wright Lowry, Wake GIS
Ed Duke, Wake County Department of Environmental Services .............................. 60

Volusia County Case Study
Pete Thornton, Volusia County Health Department .................................................. 72

Case Study Failures (Type IV-VI)
Joe Lynn, NC DENR ................................................................................................. 73

Case Study Failures (Type I-III)
Gene Young, NC DENR ............................................................................................ 74




                                                                                                                                     8
The Homeowner is Part of the System
Diana Rashash, NC State University ......................................................................... 75

Inspection and Evaluation of Onsite Wastewater Systems at Time of Sale:
The Missouri Experience
Randy Miles, University of Missouri......................................................................... 76

Time of Sale Inspection: The County Experience
Judith Tillman, NC Office of the Attorney General .................................................. 77

County Education Program Efforts
Andy Siegner, Chatham County Health Dept. ........................................................... 78

Health Department Inspections of Type 3b, 4, 5, and 6 Systems
David Cunningham and Reed Cranford, Union County Health Dept. ...................... 79

Working with Certified Subsurface Operators
Len Gilstrap, Carteret County Health Dept. .............................................................. 80

The Reevaluation of the Subsurface Operator "Needs to Know"
Beth Buffington, NCDENR, WPSOCC, Nancy Deal, NC State University,
Steve Reid, NCDENR, WPCSOCC........................................................................... 81

Certification of Installers and Time of Sale Inspectors for NC
Doug Lassiter, NC Septic Tank Association ............................................................. 85

NSF Standard 40: What’s Needed for the Future
Adriana Greco, NSF International ............................................................................. 86

Land Use Planning and On-Site Wastewater
Steve R. Gurley, AICP, Lincolnton Planning Department. ....................................... 107

The Role of Communication:
How to Avoid Making a Good Site into a Difficult Site
Kathy Morris, February Associates, Inc. ................................................................... 111

Friend or Foe: Land Use Regulation
Mike Corry, NOWRA ................................................................................................ 114

Field Tour 1

Yadkin Valley Winery (Winston-Salem area)
Joe Lynn, NC DENR
Gene Young, NC DENR
Kevin Neal, NC DENR ............................................................................................. 120




                                                                                                                         9
Field Tour 2

Down East Winery (Duplin County)
Ron Monk, Brunswick County Health Dept.
Tim Crissman, NC DENR
Diana Rashash, NC Cooperative Extension............................................................... 122

Field Tour 3

Tire Chip Aggregate Processing and Installation (Cameron, Moore County)
Barbara Grimes, NC DENR ....................................................................................... 124

Field Tour 4

Wastewater Reuse in a Planned Community Development (Chatham County)
Robert Rubin, NC State University ........................................................................... 144

Field Tour 5

Site Evaluation "State of Practice" for Large Subsurface Systems.
Steven Berkowitz, NCDENR-OSWW Section.......................................................... 145

Speaker List and Addresses ...................................................................................... 148

Vendor List and Addresses ....................................................................................... 151




                                                                                                                        10
                                         Preface
Onsite wastewater systems are a fact of life in most of the southeastern United States. As
their use continues to grow there is a need to integrate their use into many aspects of landuse
planning. Coupled closely with planning is the need for managing the more complex
systems. These aspects of onsite systems, planning and management are the themes for this
year‟s conference. One of the goals of this conference is to show practitioners some of the
tools available to assist in planning with onsite systems. Several presentations are designed
to illustrate the use of GPS and GIS technologies that can enhance planning capabilities.
Several case studies will illustrate the use of these tools both in planning and in management
of onsite systems. Professionals are needed in order to assure proper management. With this
in mind we have devoted an entire session on professional certification and process. This
session should add some insight into what is happening on the local as well as national scene.
Expert panels have been organized to look at how failure of systems can be avoided through
proactive planning and management of the siting to implementation process. An additional
panel of experts has been scheduled to delve more deeply into how counties are making use
of management option when it comes to permitting issues. The presentation portion of the
conference will conclude with a presentation on national code development.




                                                                                            11
             Awards:

        Tyson Scholarship

North Carolina On-site Systems Hall
             of Fame




                                  12
Tyson Scholarship




                    13
Tyson Scholarship Award Winner




                                 14
                            North Carolina
                     On-Site Systems Hall of Fame
The North Carolina On-Site Systems Hall of Fame was established by the NC On-Site
Conference Planning Committee in 1995 to recognize superior contributions of
individuals to the on-site field. The Conference Planning Committee is responsible for
establishing qualifications for this award, selecting inductees and recognizing these
individuals at the Annual On-Site Conference.

Inductees have demonstrated superior contributions to the on-site wastewater treatment
arena in North Carolina over a minimum of five (5) years. These contributions include
significant positive influence in the field, at a supervisory level, or through educational
activities at the county-level. Contribution may also include significant positive actions
through national, statewide, or regional field, supervisory or educational programming.
This award recognizes a select group of exemplary individuals who have, upon their own
initiative, consistently performed above and beyond the normal expectations for their
position. Individuals are recognized either for substantial and significant contributions
made over a minimum of five (5) years or alternatively for lifetime achievement during
their career.




                                                                                         15
Hall of Fame Inductees




                         16
17
18
Presentations




                19
              Getting the Professionals and Planners on the Same Page:
   A view as a member of the Technical Review Board for a major watershed project
                         Randy Miles, University of Missouri

          Housing and tourism in the Branson area of southwest Missouri has provided a
strain on the marginal soil and plentiful water resources of the region. A large federal
grant has been obtained for the Table Rock Lake area has provided the means to assess
the capability of these resources as well as provide a status of the onsite systems in the
area. One of the major challenges in the area is a P limit of less than 0.5 ppm in the
surface water bodies. An overview of the author's role on the technical review committee
for the project as well as the soil resources and education of the local stakeholders will be
presented.




                                                                                          20
   County-Wide Sewer: The Impossible Dream
 Greg Thompson, New Hanover County Engineer
Dianne Harvell, New Hanover County Health Dept.




                                                  21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
          On-Site Wastewater Meets Land Use Planning and Zoning:

                   A Happy Marriage or a Match Made in Hell?
                   Richard Whisnant, UNC School of Government

Slide 1                                                           By Richard Whisnant, Assoc. Prof
                  On-Site Wastewater Meets
                                                                  of Public Law and Government,
                Land Use Planning and Zoning:
                    A Happy Marriage or                           UNC-Chapel Hill. All rights
                   a Match Made in Hell?                          reserved. Images reproduced from
                                                                  Ronald S. Barlow, The Vanishing
                                   Richard Whisnant
                      Assoc. Prof. Of Public Law and Government   American Outhouse: A History of
                            UNC School of Government &
                         UNC Environmental Finance Center         Country Plumbing (Cajon, Cal:
                                                                  Windmill Publishing, 1992) and are
                                                                  intended solely for use in the
                                                                  classroom, not for reproduction,
                                                                  distribution or public display
                                                                  outside the classroom.



Slide 2
                                  Outline
            •   Hey Good Lookin‟!
            •   Sewer‟s from Mars, Septic‟s from Venus
            •   Money issues
            •   Power issues
            •   Therapy and counseling
            •   Is Marriage Worth It?




                                                                                                  30
Slide 3                                           Public enterprise statute does
          Hey, Good Lookin‟!                      include both sewer systems and on-
                   Why sewer *and*
                                                  site systems. G.S. 160A-311.
                    OSWW look attractive          But services must be provided
                     – N export quandry and
                       the “point source
                       clampdown”
                                                  equitably, I.e. same as other
                     – Cost                       municipal service recipients get,
                     – Annexation
                     – Preserving rural quality   with exception for economic
                       of life
                                                  feasibility due to unusual
                                                  topography. G.S. 160A-47.
                                                  Municipality is given leeway to set
                                                  its policies; court‟s basic question is
                                                  whether some residents are being
                                                  discriminated against
                                                  New involuntary annexation
                                                  provisions allow some delay in
                                                  when sewer is extended “in areas
                                                  where the municipality is required
                                                  to extend sewer service according to
                                                  its policies, but the installation of
                                                  sewer is not economically feasible
                                                  due to the unique topography of the
                                                  area, the municipality shall provide
                                                  septic system maintenance and
                                                  repair service until such time as
                                                  sewer service is provided to
                                                  properties similarly situated.” 160A-
                                                  47.
                                                  This amendment in 2001 was made
                                                  to codify the Supreme Court‟s
                                                  decision in Greene v. Valdese, 306
                                                  N.C. 79 (1982) (upholding
                                                  Valdese‟s plan for extending sewer
                                                  and septic maintenance services at
                                                  the same cost to newly annexed
                                                  area, given that Valdese was already
                                                  providing septic maintenance
                                                  service in areas of town where
                                                  sewer was problematic).




                                                                                      31
Slide 4                                                        G.S. 130A-1.1: “The Departments
          Sewer‟s From Mars,
                                                               of Environment and Natural
          Septic‟s From Venus
                                                               Resources and Health and Human
                  Wastewater‟s cultural, psychological
                   and regulatory divide                       Services shall attempt to ensure
                     – Urban vs rural, city vs county,
                     – Libertarianism and agrarianism:
                       implications for collective action on
                                                               within the resources available to
                       OSWW
                     – Environment vs health
                                                               them that the following essential
                     – Focus on installation vs. maintenance
                     – The preliminary evaluation problem
                                                               public health services are available
                                                               and accessible to all citizens of the
                                                               State, and shall account for the
                                                               financing of these Services: ….
                                                               (2)b. On-site domestic sewage
                                                               disposal.

                                                               Current jurisdictional split on pre-
                                                               installation approval and extent of
                                                               rule authority: see G.S. 130A-335

Slide 5                                                        S**t is already taxed, of course, but
             Money Issues                                      in thinking about fees for OSWW,
                    Funding differences
                        – The past is not dead, it is
                                                               there‟s that cultural divide again.
                          not even past: public
                          funding for wastewater has
                          a thing going with
                          centralized, discharge
                          systems
                        – WADE, CWMTF, other
                          innovative incursions across
                          the funding divide
                        – Local utilities and OSWW:
                          will stormwater lead the
                          way?
                        – “Rain tax”, meet “S**t tax”




Slide 6                                                        County has strong liability
             Power issues                                      protection for failure to furnish
                     • Who calls the shots?
                                                               water or sewer service. See G.S.
                         – Power to require
                           connections
                                                               153A-283; but see Browning-Ferris
                         – Power to regulate
                           extra-territorial
                                                               Industries v. Wake County, 905 F.
                           enterprise services                 Supp 312 (E.D.N.C. 1995) (can‟t be
                         – Power to regulate
                           OSWW generally                      arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise
                                                               violate federal law or constitutional
                                                               rights in denying access to a sewer).

                                                               City and county have strong power
                                                               to require hookups, and to require
                                                               payment of hookup and availability
                                                               fees for sewers within a “a
                                                               reasonable distance” (whether or not


                                                                                                      32
                                                      hookup actually occurs). See G.S.
                                                      153A-284 (county), G.S. 160A-317
                                                      (city). This power is not only
                                                      statutorily explicit, it has been
                                                      upheld against an attack in federal
                                                      court based on antitrust law, breach
                                                      of contract, and (under special
                                                      circumstances) the anti-takeover
                                                      provisions of Farmers Home
                                                      Administration financing (7 U.S.C.
                                                      1926(b)). Pinehurst Enterprises, Inc.
                                                      v. Town of Southern Pines, 690
                                                      F.Supp 444 (M.D.N.C. 1988), aff‟d,
                                                      887 F.2d 1080 (1989).

                                                      City or county and health boards (or
                                                      other entity operating water/sewer
                                                      system) have legal power to set
                                                      technological requirements for
                                                      cross-connections, backflow
                                                      prevention, etc.

                                                      Basic environmental health statutes
                                                      on point: G.S. 130A-333 to 345.

                                                      DENR, city, county and health
                                                      departments have power to deal
                                                      with OSWW problems as nuisances
                                                      and public health nuisances. DENR
                                                      and health director, G.S. 130A-19.

Slide 7
          Therapy and counseling

                      What will it take to make
                       a happy marriage?
                       –   Cultural shift?
                       –   Political entrepreneurs?
                       –   Special incentives?
                       –   Real estate transfer
                           information?




                                                                                        33
Slide 8
          Marriage, or avoidance?
                      • Research issues
                         – Equity in funding and
                           annexation
                         – Basic environmental
                           and health impacts
                         – Better technology
                         – Success stories from
                           particular local
                           jurisdictions
                         – www.efc.unc.edu




                                                   34
Roadmap to On-Site Wastewater Management
         Terry Pierce, NC DENR




                                           35
           What is GPS?
Heather Cheshire, NC State University




                                        36
Spatial Information for Wastewater Management
        David Crouse, NC State University




                                                37
GIS Planning Tools for Environmental Professionals
          Jeff Essic, NC State University




                                                     38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
A GPS Pilot Project for Well and Wastewater Locations and Permits
                     Wright Lowry, Wake GIS
   Ed Duke, Wake County Department of Environmental Services




                                                                    60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
           Volusia County Case Study
Pete Thornton, Volusia County Health Department




                                                  72
                       Case Study Failures (Type IV-VI)
                             Joe Lynn, NC DENR


                               Panel Members

George Pendergrass     Catawba County
David Hinson           Iredell County
Reed Cranford          Union County
Greg Grimes            Orange County
Gwen and Jack Dezern   Orange County




                                                          73
Case Study Failures (Type I-III)
   Gene Young, NC DENR




                                   74
                         The Homeowner is Part of the System
                          Diana Rashash, NC State University

As a Cooperative Extension agent who deals with Environmental Education...primarily
water and wastewater...I get to listen to all kinds of questions and comments. And I do
mean ALL KINDS! These past several years have thoroughly convinced me that septic
systems need to come with operating instructions. Expectant parents get to attend
childbirth classes. New mothers learn techniques for burping and breastfeeding their
infant. So, why do we assume that everyone knows all about the care and feeding of a
septic system?

With septic systems (or, "on-site", "off-site", or even "decentralized" systems) ignorance
is not bliss. Who HASN'T heard someone proudly state that their system has worked
great for more than 15 years and they've "never had to pump the tank"? If I were a
prospective homebuyer, I'd be mightily cautious about that site. This presentation will
discuss some of the tales of woe from first time septic system homeowners, what went
wrong, communication failures, and possible ways to improve the bad reputation attached
to septic systems.




                                                                                       75
    Inspection and Evaluation of Onsite Wastewater Systems at Time of Sale: The
                               Missouri Experience
                        Randy Miles, University of Missouri

A certification program for professionals to perform inspections and evaluations of
existing systems at the time of property transactions in Missouri will be discussed. Two
types of assessments are involved: 1.) inspections which are more comprehensive of the
two in that digging, taking measurements, performing a stress test, and exposure of
system components are mandated and 2.) evaluations which are a visual and sensory walk
over of the system with only measurements relative to setback distances. A private water
well water sample for microbial assessment is essentially the only common tool for each
assessment. Training for this certification is provided in a hands-on, real world manner at
the Missouri SmallFlows Wastewater Research/Education Training Center. A general
overview and status of the two assessments will be provided.




                                                                                        76
Time of Sale Inspection: The County Experience
Judith Tillman, NC Office of the Attorney General




                                                    77
   County Education Program Efforts
Andy Siegner, Chatham County Health Dept.




                                            78
           Health Department Inspections of Type 3b, 4, 5, and 6 Systems
          David Cunningham and Reed Cranford, Union County Health Dept.

Union County North Carolina has a variety of innovative, alternative, and large systems.
We will convey our thoughts on instillation, maintenance, and inspections of these
systems. This will include a brief history of we started in 1977 thru present day.
A summary will be made of the success as well as failures when we discuss installation,
maintenance, and inspection of our 10,000 plus systems that fall under our current
maintenance rules.




                                                                                       79
Working with Certified Subsurface Operators
 Len Gilstrap, Carteret County Health Dept.




                                              80
     Updating the Subsurface System Operator Certification Program Curriculum
                      Beth Buffington, NCDENR, WPCSOCC
                          Nancy Deal, NC State University
                         Steve Reid, NCDENR WPCSOCC

                                          History

The need for Certified Operators in North Carolina was firmly established when Rule
.1961 Management of Septic Systems was added to the North Carolina Onsite Sewage
Rules in August, 1991. A committee composed of people from academic, regulatory and
private industry sectors was established to develop a Needs to Know (NTK) and
presentation materials. This group, lead by Mike Hoover, Cindy Finan and Steven
Berkowitz, deserves a great deal of credit for their work in the early and intervening years
of Operator Certification. Committee members not only wrote the curriculum materials,
but have also continued to serve as instructors at the school. North Carolina‟s curriculum
and approach to training has long been viewed as a model for instructing practitioners
and is regularly borrowed from, imitated and utilized by entities across the country.

The Operator School was first offered in 1991. Since then more than 1,800 people have
attended, most of who have gone on to take the certification exam. Currently there are
about 800 Certified Operators in the state. Some of these are „Owner-Operators‟ who
may only look at their own systems. Many are employees of local health departments
and thus not working in the private sector. Since 1999 alone, nearly 3,000 Operation
Permits have been issued for Type IV, V and VI systems and every year additional
permits for these more complicated systems are issued. Rule revisions to require
operators for additional categories of systems are currently being considered. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that the onsite/decentralized
approach is an effective, permanent and essential means of wastewater treatment and
dispersal. With the growing realization that all onsite systems require some level of
management, it is clear that the role of certified subsurface operators in the onsite
industry is not only critical, but also permanent. North Carolina is the first and only state
in the country to require certification for subsurface system operators.

In the years since the establishment of the Operators School, the onsite world has
experienced an incredible amount of technological development. This has resulted in
more treatment component options for system designers and development of increasingly
difficult sites. There are clearly risks associated with this combination, but that risk can
be managed effectively by ensuring that operators in the state are properly trained to
maintain the more complicated systems being used today. These facts have resulted in a
clear need to update the Subsurface Operator Curriculum.

                            Updating the Operator Curriculum

The staff of the Water Pollution Control System Operator Certification Commission
(WPCSOCC) is located within the Department of Natural Resources (DENR) Technical
Assistance and Certification Unit (TAC). The TAC is responsible for initiating and



                                                                                           81
facilitating curriculum development and revision of the certification programs that it
oversees. Periodic review and revision of programs ensures that operators continue to be
well equipped to properly and efficiently operate and maintain wastewater treatment
systems. The established protocol for the process states that TAC should:

                  Assemble a curriculum development/revision committee
                  Develop/revise Needs-To-Know and program curriculum
                  Develop/revise/create new reference/training materials
                  Develop/revise/create new examination questions
                  Obtain Commission approval for the new or revised program.

The purpose of current update is to address the many innovative and alternative systems
in use today by updating the technological information in the curriculum. Additionally,
regulators, operators and instructors have expressed specific concerns about the program,
all of which also seem attributable to the passage of time. Some of these include:

                  Overlap and repetition of some material, at the expense of
                      adequate coverage of other important material
                  Time spent on theoretical aspects disproportional to the time
                      spent on the basics of O&M and troubleshooting
                  Current structure of the NTK‟s does not facilitate the process of
                   updating the materials as technologies and regulations evolve

The Committee assembled by the TAC first met in October of 2003 to begin the process
of updating the curriculum. The group agreed on an approach that included revising the
NTK‟s as broadly and inclusively as possible (without rendering them meaningless) to
streamline future updates. Another fundamental idea was to present the NTK, the
curriculum outline and slide presentations in the general order that wastewaster is
processed as it moves through a subsurface system (i.e., following the treatment train).
Lastly, it agreed to place more emphasis on operational issues than on theoretical topics.

                                   Available Resources

The committee already has valuable resources readily available for use in the update
process. The current materials (including the original Needs to Know, the NC
Subsurface Wastewater System Operator‟s Handbook and many of the current slide
presentations) serve as a firm starting point for the process. Additional materials are
available as a result of NC State University‟s membership in The Consortium of
Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT or “The Consortium”). This
group of academic institutions is in the advanced stages of developing curricula through
two projects funded by EPA. These curricula include modules for training practitioners
and university students on onsite treatment technologies as well as operation and
maintenance of onsite/decentralized systems. The modules include written text,
PowerPoint presentations, a glossary of terms and a video, all of which are available for
selection, modification and use by the committee. Participation by NC State personnel in
development of the materials has resulted in material that bears significant resemblance


                                                                                         82
to our in-state programs. From the revised NTK‟s (and using the state and national
resources listed above) the committee will generate:

                  A standard, detailed curriculum outline
                  A standard slide presentation set following the outline
                  A standard text to accompany the slide presentation
                  A glossary of terms for operators
                  A math guide
                  A revised and augmented bank of exam questions

It is the committee‟s intention to complete the materials and have them approved for use
in time for the 2005 Subsurface Operator Schools.

                                        The Future

In the process of this update, ideas for other improvements in the overall program have
been put forth by committee members. There is a strong desire to create additional
classes beyond the Operator School to train operators on advanced topics. Another
subject that has been enthusiastically discussed is the potential need for multiple levels of
Operator Certification. While the first idea will be achieved through the continued efforts
of this committee and others, the second will require significant rule changes for
establishment.

Thanks to the efforts of the original Operator School planning committee, North Carolina
has earned a fine reputation as a leader in practitioner training. Current activities to
update and improve our Operator School aim to preserve and improve that standing.




                                                                                          83
         Original Program Planning Committee

          Steven Berkowitz, OSWS, DEH, DENR
                 Cindy Finan, DEM, DENR
                Lex Harrison, Harco Utilities
            Stan Hofmeister, North State Utilities
        Dr. Mike Hoover, Soil Science Dept., NCSU
        Tom Konsler, Orange County Health Dept.
 Albert Mills and Darryl Poe, Durham County Health Dept.
         John Myers, Craven County Health Dept.
        Chris Packer, Lincoln County Health Dept.
     Dr. Bob Rubin, Biol. and Agr. Eng. Dept., NCSU
                    Mike Outlaw, DEM

Operator Training School Curriculum Revision Committee
                        Advisors:
          Steven Berkowitz, OSWS, DEH, DENR
              Dr. Mike Hoover, CES, NCSU
              Dr. David Lindbo, CES, NCSU

                  Committee Members:
            Trish Angoli, OSWS, DEH, DENR
  Tim Banister, Tri-County Wastewater Management, Inc.
                Robert Barr, RPB Systems
                  Steve Barry, Aqwa, Inc.
       Beth Buffington, WPCSOCC, DWQ, DENR
     Reed Cranford, Union County Health Department
           Robert Crissman, Bord na Mona, Inc.
                 Nancy Deal, CES, NCSU
     Len Gilstrap, Carteret County Health Department
         Jack Harman, Wastewater Systems of NC
     Greg Hodges, Craven County Health Department
     Tom Konsler, Orange County Health Department
              Joe Lynn, OSWS, DEH, DENR
          Kathy Morris, February Associates, Inc.
  George Pendergrass, Catawba County Health Department
      Daryl Poe, Durham County Health Department
          Steve Reid, WPCSOCC, DWQ, DENR
     Robert Swift, RC Land Design and Maintenance
      Brent Toth, Guilford County Health Department
       Eric Valentine, American Manufacturing, Inc.
            Gene Young, OSWS, DEH, DENR




                                                           84
Certification of Installers and Time of Sale Inspectors for NC
          Doug Lassiter, NC Septic Tank Association




                                                                 85
NSF Standard 40: What’s Needed for the Future
       Adriana Greco, NSF International




                                                86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
          Land Use Planning and On-Site Wastewater
Steve R. Gurley, AICP, Town of Lincolnton Planning Department




                                                                107
108
109
110
 The Role of Communication: How to Avoid Making a Good Site into a Difficult Site
                 Kathy Morris, RS, PG, February Associates, Inc

Difficult sites - those “where a familiar system can‟t be used” - earn that label for any or
all of three basic reasons:
          Natural limitations, including soils and topography, are obvious. Our
             regulations and technology are most often directed towards the best and safest
             means of applying wastewater under varying natural conditions. The more
             highly-regulated or technologically-complex the solution, the more “difficult”
             the site.
          Manmade limitations include: lot size and shape relative to natural
             conditions, size and position of structures, political issues such as zoning
             and environmental buffers, and rules or local preferences that affect design
             options.
          People-related issues include: lack of experience and/or large work loads for
             LHD staff, unrealistic expectations from property owners, the economics
             of land development, and lack of communication among the parties involved
             in every step of the process from raw land evaluation to operation of a
             wastewater system by the consumer.

Natural limitations and many of the manmade limitations are generally addressed at the
planning stages, particularly with large subdivisions. From the planning process emerge
sites that can be permitted as long as nobody screws up. However, the planning process
is only as good as the material that goes into it.

Communication is both the means by which we exchange information and the content of
that exchange. The means continue to evolve. We‟ve come a long way from mail
delivery and the telephone call. Voice mail, fax machines, cell phones, text messages,
email, downloads, and so on make it much easier to exchange huge amounts of
information; but as the quantity goes up the quality seems to be going down, or at least
to be diluted by fluff.

Communication occurs in two realms with respect to Onsite Wastewater:
communication with those outside the profession (mostly owners, builders, and
developers) and communication among those within the profession (regulators,
consultants, vendors).

Within the profession, one of the areas where exchange of information is most critical is
within the Local Health Department - especially those with large staffs, or those who
have multiple office locations. In a perfect world, any EHS should be able to pick up a
project started by any of his/her colleagues and run with it. Strategies that can allow
this to happen include (but aren‟t limited to)
     Standardized documentation - not just forms, but how they‟re filled out
     Consistent strategy for evaluating and marking sites
            o Flag holes or flag boundaries? Unique flagging material?



                                                                                        111
           o Level of detail - evaluate whole lot? Look at soil-based options other
             than conventional?
           o Shooting layouts - record lengths and elevations?


Better coordination between county agencies with different functions - planning, zoning,
permitting, inspections, etc., is a good thing, but it can lead to some unwieldy
documentation. Both paper forms and computer screens are becoming complex, hard
to read, and complete gibberish to the outsider.       The design of paper forms and
electronic interchanges should:
     Assess the audience. Who will use this, and how? What information do they
        need? Are abbreviations clear?
     Consider legibility - typeface, font size, arrangement. Sooner or later this is
        going to get printed, copied, faxed, reduced, Will it still be useful?

Participation by the private sector - soil scientists, engineers, designers, installers,
vendors - in the planning process contributes to the prevention of difficult sites.
However, sometimes good sites turn bad, and in such cases the private sector can
augment the activities of the Local Health Departments by providing specialized or
advanced evaluation and design services. Whether use of a consultant is recommended
by the LHD or whether a client decides on his own to seek outside help, cooperation and
communication between the regulators, the consultant, and the client are necessary for
satisfactory resolution of a “difficult site” problem.
     LHD‟s should provide clear expectations, prompt and complete response to
        requests for information, and consistent review procedures.
     Consultants should seek simplest solution that will solve problem, recognize
        LHD‟s procedures and preferences, and serve as a buffer & go-between balancing
        what the client wants with what the client needs.

Improving communication with those outside the profession consists largely of asking the
right questions.    Individual lot owners who are only going to go once through the
procedure of applying for a permit and having a wastewater system installed can best be
dealt with by establishing clear procedures and simple instructions.

For the recurring client - the builder, the developer - clear procedures and simple
instructions are beneficial too, but dealing with someone who “knows the system” isn‟t
always a good thing. Demonstrations (such as the “Lunch and Learn” collaboration
between Wake County Environmental Services and their local Home Builders
Association) are an excellent way to get the regular applicants to understand the entire
process from site evaluation to installation & operation.

However, it‟s not enough to tell applicants what we, the wastewater professionals, want
from them. We have to drive this communication process by asking what they want.
This can occur early - in the subdivision planning stage - when we should ask not just
about soils and lot size and impervious surface, but about utility corridors and entrance
landscaping and road cuts. It can occur with permit application, when we ask not just


                                                                                       112
about bedrooms and footprint, but also about grading and retaining walls and irrigation
and space for a pool. It can also occur in a roundabout way when we provide operation
information to homeowners, when we can give them questions to ask themselves about
things that will affect their wastewater systems, such as
     What are long term landscaping plans?
     Are there drainage problems?
     Might additional structures be added in future?
     What will happen if water use increases?

There is one area of communication that cuts across all these lines, and that is the visual.
Drawings - especially maps and site plans - are critical to what we do. There is nothing
more useless than a site plan that isn‟t to scale, however, and the single worst invention
in the technology of sharing documentation is the “shrink to fit” function on a fax
machine.

It is my strong opinion that however we as professionals choose to document our
activities, we should consider the possible audiences and ask ourselves, “Who is going
to use this? Is it clear? Is it complete? Will it meet the user‟s needs?”




                                                                                        113
                           Friend or Foe: Land Use Regulation
                                  Mike Corry, NOWRA

The purpose of this paper is to urge the land use planning and zoning industry to support
the onsite industry in the development of wastewater treatment systems and methods to
allow the full use of any parcel of land zoned for development. Access to a treatment
system for any location on any sized lot will increase the flexibility of land use planners.

Land use planners, regulators and designers for rural development rely on access to
wastewater treatment solutions if the planned and zoned parcel is to be fully developed.
Ideally, planners of rural development should have the same freedom as urban planners
because they are assured access to a wastewater solution without regard to the soil
conditions of the area. Access to a full range of onsite treatment systems removes
constraints for land use planners, subdivision designers and platting officials. Current
onsite codes limit access to treatment solutions and force rural subdivision designers and
regulators to work around “unsuitable” soils both for the selection of a site for the
subdivision and for the design of the subdivision itself. Further, because a site evaluation
is usually not conducted for every lot during the platting approval process, some platted
lots are often found to be unbuildable by the new owner. The onsite wastewater
treatment industry goal should be to provide a wastewater treatment solution for every
platted lot.

The purpose of each regulatory function is to serve the interests of the public.
Cooperation between the functions serves that interest. Land use planning and zoning
agencies and onsite regulators should display highly supportive behavior in assisting each
other to meet their respective goals. Land use officials should assist the onsite regulatory
agency in code changes that permit the needed treatment designs.

Unfortunately, the respective functions often either intentionally or unintentionally
obstruct one another to the great disservice of the public. The onsite industry fails to
provide treatment options for every platted and zoned site. Land use regulators and allied
interests often obstruct attempts to authorize additional treatment designs and methods
that facilitate construction on currently “unbuildable” residential lots in the name of land
use control.

Onsite treatment systems and methods are now available for any site and can meet any
performance standard. The only constraints are cost and the regulatory permission to use
them.

Why then this obstructionist behavior?

Obstruction by the Onsite Regulatory Industry.

Failure to provide wastewater treatment options is a function of multiple factors; the
youth of the industry, the regulatory structure, the personalities of individual regulators,




                                                                                          114
and the occasional regulatory desire to block or restrict rural residential construction
through the onsite code.
      Youth – The modern regulatory and provider industry as been emerging over the
         last 30 years. Compared to municipal wastewater treatment and the building
         construction industries the regulation and industry methods and technology are
         relatively immature.
      Regulatory Structure
             o No accepted model code - The onsite industry is regulated by thousands
                 of independent and semi-independent jurisdictions that write unique
                 specifications for treatment systems. Unlike the building industry with
                 mature national model codes, standards and systems for product
                 evaluation and listing, each onsite regulatory jurisdiction performs these
                 functions largely on its own. The result is thousands of unique
                 specifications and product/design approval processes. To deploy a new
                 method, design or manufactured product, approval is needed in each of
                 the jurisdictions, surmounting the barriers of code restrictions, local
                 tradition, embedded myth, and the variable personalities and opinions of
                 individual regulators and local officials. The result is that proven
                 treatment designs in wide use remain outlawed in many jurisdictions.
             o Code Approach – The two general code design approaches are (1)
                 prescriptive and (2) performance. Municipal treatment regulation is
                 largely performance and onsite is largely prescriptive.
                      Prescriptive codes define the means of achieving an objective and
                         prevent all other solutions absent a code change. It is not unusual
                         for a code change adopting alternate technology or methods,
                         obstructed by land use control interests, to fail or take 5-10 years
                         to approve.
                      Performance codes determine the ends or objectives of the
                         wastewater treatment process by establishing measurable
                         standards and requirements. Performance codes allow solutions
                         that meet the requirements without a code change. All sites are
                         buildable under a performance codes. The primary constraints
                         are cost and the political/bureaucratic will to set up systems to
                         ensure performance.

The combination of prescriptive codes, the lack of an accepted model code, and the
immature and often ignored national product evaluation programs significantly retards
implementation of the goal of an effective wastewater treatment system for every
residential lot.

Obstruction by the Land Use Planning and Regulatory Industry

The public purpose of land use regulation is to shift the power to determine land use from
the landowner to a regulatory body in order to represent the interests of the general public
in orderly development. Once the land is planned, zoned and platted, the average citizen
believes that each rural lot or parcel can be developed by the owner for the permitted use.



                                                                                         115
Further, citizens should be allowed to build on land not subject to restrictive zoning. This
presumption is not shared by everyone, including some within the onsite, planning,
zoning and platting industries. Vigorous attempts are often made to block the
development by many strategies, including denial of access to a wastewater treatment
systems.

Land use regulation is politically volatile. It can create great turmoil and generate; recall
elections, budget cuts, program transfers, and terminations of regulators and
administrators. It can cause community discourse that exhibits the rationality and fervor
of religious wars. Why?
      Land use regulation as about power to determine the use of private land. Many
         people want to determine the use of their own land but control the use of their
         neighbor‟s land. Cities and village governments want independent control of
         their own jurisdictions but to control the decisions of their neighbors.
      Major urban governments attempt to attract and retain population, business and
         industry by limiting land development opportunities in neighboring suburban and
         rural areas. A favored development control tool is to limit access to water and
         wastewater treatment through regional utilities they control. Access to onsite and
         cluster treatment systems and private water wells defeats that strategy. Further,
         lack of access to onsite replacement systems in nearby subdivisions with many
         failing systems permits the city to trade access to the municipal wastewater
         collection system for voluntary annexation.
      Current rural residents often desire to block further development of land in their
         existing subdivisions and in neighboring areas. The vacant lot next door is a free
         amenity lost if an alternate treatment system is approved..
      The desire to preserve existing farmland and undeveloped natural areas.
      The desire to protect the natural environment from the general effects of rural
         development and specifically from wastewater pollutants. Blocking access to a
         treatment system blocks construction of the house and avoids both effects.
      The desire among some interests groups to discourage development in urban
         fringe and rural areas and direct the development to urban areas. If rural and
         fringe areas are to be developed, the desire is for highly concentrated housing –
         conservation subdivisions for example. These are major goals of the Smart
         Growth movement. Restricted access to onsite treatment technology both helps
         and harms this purpose, as explained below.

All these objectives can be achieved through zoning regulations and development of
effective onsite and cluster treatment systems.

Methods and Effects of Obstructive Behavior

The methods and tactics of obstructive behavior include:
    Attempts to block approval of treatment designs and methods that will allow the
      development of currently “unbuildable” land.
    Setting treatment performance standards at unnecessary, unachievable or
      unaffordable levels.



                                                                                         116
      Imposing excessive vertical and horizontal setback requirements
      Imposing excessive minimum lot sizes
      Imposing higher than necessary administrative fees and red tape.
      Restricting cluster system development
      Making unfounded claims of the risks of onsite treatment systems.

The primary effect of this obstructive behavior is harm to citizens, the environment,
urban and rural interests, and reduced the effectiveness of both onsite and land use
regulatory processes. Further, many tactics are counterproductive to the obstructionist‟s
goals. Specific examples follow:
     Rural health risk, nuisance control – Many rural residents are forced to live with
        failed systems because an available alternate technology is not allowed under the
        prescriptive codes. A primary purpose of onsite regulation is to correct the
        “sewage on the ground” problem but lack of access to affordable alternate
        treatment technology causes regulators to frequently ignore failed and illegal
        systems. In some circumstances obstructionists lobby against or sue to block
        approval of alternate replacement system technology for over fear that the same
        technology will be used for new construction.
     Blocking access doesn‟t prevent development - A frequent planning and zoning
        political tactic is to purposely fail to adopt appropriate zoning to avoid adverse
        public reaction because the planners believe that the current onsite code will
        block the development of the area. The tactic fails for the following reasons:
            o Bad assumption – Planners and zoning officials often rely on existing soil
                maps that label an area as “generally unsuitable” for onsite systems,
                assuming that the current onsite regulations will block the development
                no political cost to the land use regulatory agency. The problem is the
                maps do not record soil variability at the level of a drainfield footprint.
                “Generally unsuitable” might mean 80% unsuitable under the current
                code, leaving 20% suitable for onsite systems (5.6 million square feet of
                suitable soil in a section of land). A good soil evaluator, properly
                motivated, can often find enough suitable land to install 20, 50 or more
                drainfields. When that happens staff of the planning and zoning agency
                often complains that the onsite regulatory agency is promoting
                inappropriate development. The head of a regional planning commission
                once labeled onsite systems as the “hidden enemy of land use planning”
            o Onsite codes change - An onsite code revision may increase the suitable
                land area of the unzoned parcel to 50 or 80 or even 100%. The zoning
                officials then complain that the new regulation will allow unregulated
                development on this land and attempt to block approval of the alternate
                treatment technology. The stated reason is often that onsite systems are
                dangerous to public health and the environment, claims often made at the
                same time newspapers report billion gallon municipal sewage bypass
                events, leaky collection systems and polluted urban beaches.
     Sprawl control– Current onsite technology restrictions increase sprawl by
        reducing design flexibility for concentrated development in rural subdivisions.
        Designers are forced to work around “unsuitable” soil conditions and some lots



                                                                                       117
       remain vacant because they “don‟t perc.” These displaced potential
       homebuilders create demand for additional low density subdivisions. A good
       solution for subdivisions with variable soil conditions is the cluster system
       design. However, many states and counties resist or prevent the creation of
       cluster systems.
     Farmland preservation – Existing onsite regulations shift housing development to
       the deep soils that are prime farmland because of restricted access to treatment
       technologies or methods for land with marginal or no agricultural use.
     Affordability and segregation by income - Many obstructive techniques are
       intended to increase the cost of owning and operating an onsite system to a level
       that discourages their use. The logical conclusion is that the wealthy are less
       discouraged than the poor. The combination of increased land costs caused by
       large minimum lot sizes, reduced supply and the excess costs for a treatment
       system makes the land most affordable for the wealthier segment of the
       population. The affordability issue also affects regulatory behavior relative to
       failed systems. Regulators will often drive by a failing system if they believe that
       the cost of a replacement system is unaffordable for the occupant.
    Subversion of the legal protections in zoning laws – Restrictive zoning to block
      residential construction is subject legal procedures and may require municipalities
      to pay compensation to the owner under the takings clause of state and federal
      constitutions. The denial of access to a wastewater treatment system affects the
      same result and is not similarly protected.
    Failure of planning agencies to perform their function – If the land is subject to
      restrictive zoning based on factors that would ordinarily result in that zoning
      decision, the planning and zoning officials are derelict in their duties by
      attempting to shift the restriction to the onsite code. They also behave
      irresponsibly by obstructing the onsite agency‟s attempts to approve technologies
      that will allow construction on lots zoned for that construction.
    Failure of onsite regulatory agencies to perform their function – regulatory
      agencies are charged with protecting health and the environment, not to block
      construction of homes. Failure to allow effective wastewater treatment
      alternatives to landowners on “difficult sites” harms citizens and negates the
      decisions of zoning officials that zoned the land for development. Onsite
      regulatory agencies provide a disservice to the public they are hired to serve if
      they continue to deny access to appropriate wastewater treatment technology and
      methods so that the citizens can enjoy the full intended use of their property.

The NOWRA onsite code will be a major step in increasing access to a treatment system,
increasing the affordability of systems, providing tools for health and environmental
protection and increasing the flexibility for land planners by facilitating denser
development.
     The NOWRA code is designed as a performance code. Performance codes allow
        design solutions that meet adopted standards. Under a performance code there is
        a wastewater solution for all otherwise buildable lots. The primary barrier is cost
        at some sites.




                                                                                       118
      The code establishes a national effluent quality evaluation and listing framework
       for treatment components. State and local regulators can then consult the listings
       for treatment components that meet the adopted treatments standards. A national
       system should eliminate the need for local evaluation programs.
      The code will support the planning and zoning process by providing a wastewater
       treatment solution for every permitted structure.
      The presence of a national model code will serve as a tool to reduce variation in
       state and local codes in a similar manner that national building codes have done
       with the building industry.

The key for improving the effectiveness of both onsite and land use regulation is mutual
cooperation to permit waste treatment solutions that increase the flexibility of the land
use planning function.

Mike Corry is the Chair of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association Model
Performance Code Committee. He can be reached at 16 N Carroll Street, Suite 920,
Madison, Wisconsin 53703. Phone: 608-257-1787 Fax: 608-257-1407 Email:
nowracode@sbcglobal.net




                                                                                       119
                                       Field Tour 1

                      Yadkin Valley Winery (Winston-Salem area)
                                 Joe Lynn, NC DENR
                               Gene Young, NC DENR
                               Kevin Neal, NC DENR



Shelton Vineyards

Founded in 1999, Shelton Vineyards is the largest family-owned estate winery in North
Carolina. Located in the Yadkin Valley near Dobson and Mt. Airy, NC, the winery
features a spacious visitor center with a tasting bar and gift shop. Shelton Vineyards
offers tours and tastings every day of the week. Shelton Vineyards‟ grounds are
beautifully landscaped, and picnicking is encouraged. Picnic supplies are available on the
premises. During the summer months, we sponsor a summer concert series on our
outdoor stage. Shelton Cheeses & Deli is located on the estate and offers handcrafted
artisan style cheeses and gourmet lunches. (excerpt from www.sheltonvineyards.com)

                                         Agenda

         8:30-9:15 Meet at the Shelton Vineyards Parking lot. Obtain an overview of
wine industry, soils, and waste handling
         9:15-11:00 Vineyard tour. Detailed discussion of viticulture, soils, etc.
         11:00-12:30 Tour of processing plant. Discussion of wine making process and
waste production, and treatment.




                                                                                      120
                            Directions to Shelton Vineyards

Shelton Vineyards is located in Dobson, North Carolina.

Directions From Charlotte

Take I-77 North to Exit 93 (Dobson), then follow the signs to the vineyard. We are
approximately 1 ½ hours north of Charlotte.

Directions From Winston-Salem /Greensboro/Triangle

Take I-40 West to Highway 421 North. Take I-77 North to Exit 93 (Dobson). Follow the
signs to the vineyard. We are approximately 1 hour from Winston-Salem, 1 ½ hours from
Greensboro and 2 ½ hours from the Triangle area.

Please note that Exit 93 is approximately 20 minutes from where Highway 421 meets I-
77.

Alternate route from Winston-Salem/Greensboro/Triangle: Take Highway 52 toward Mt.
Airy. Take Pilot Mountain/Highway 268 exit and travel west on Highway 268.
Approximately one mile west of intersection of Highway 268 and Highway 601 take a
right onto Twin Oaks Road. Winery is approximately 5 miles.

Directions From Blue Ridge Parkway

Take Highway 52 North (near mile marker 200) 1 mile to VA Highway 148. Turn Left
onto VA Highway 148. Travel 1/2 mile to I - 77 South. Take I - 77 South to NC Exit
93(Dobson). Follow the signs to the Vineyard. We are approximately 23 miles from
Fancy Gap, VA.


Call 336 /366-4724 if you need additional help with directions.




                                                                                     121
                                      Field Tour 2

                          Down East Winery (Duplin County)
                       Ron Monk, Brunswick County Health Dept.
                              Tim Crissman, NC DENR
                       Diana Rashash, NC Cooperative Extension

The Coastal Plains of NC offer both challenges and opportunities for creative thinking.
This tour will cover what a local winery did to address local soils, water and wastewater
treatment issues, and agritourism. Today's businesses need to utilize everything possible.
At this winery, even the seeds from the Muscadine grapes have been put to use as a
source of antioxidants and other beneficial compounds.

Duplin Winery

Our primary goal for Duplin Winery has always been to produce outstanding wines.
Duplin Winery is known for promoting innovative and experimental research. We also
support diverse programs to educate the public about the many enjoyable aspects of
Muscadine Wine. In 1976, David and Dan Fussell founded Duplin Winery and over the
years our family of Muscadine Wines has grown. Each wine with it's own unique
qualities and characteristics, allow us to exceed our goal of producing outstanding wines.
(excerpted from www.duplinwinery.com)

         8:30-9:15 Meet at the Duplin Winery Parking lot. Tour museum; obtain an
overview of wine industry, soils, and waste handling
         9:15-11:00 Vineyard tour. Detailed discussion of viticulture, soils, etc.
         11:00-12:30 Tour of processing plant. Discussion of wine making process and
waste production, and treatment.




                                                                                       122
                         Directions to Duplin Winery

From Raleigh

I-40 EAST towards BENSON - go 68.4 mi
Take the US-117 exit towards MAGNOLIA/WARSAW, exit #369 - go 0.2 mi
Turn left on US-117 - go 8.4 mi
Arrive at 505 N SYCAMORE ST, ROSE HILL




                                                                      123
                             Field Tour 3

Tire Chip Aggregate Processing and Installation (Cameron, Moore County)
                       Barbara Grimes, NC DENR




                                                                          124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
                                       Field Tour 4

     Wastewater Reuse in a Planned Community Development (Chatham County)
                         Robert Rubin, NC State University

The Preserve is a planned community in Chatham County. The wastewater treatment
needs of the residents of this planned community are provided through a collection and
treatment facility which relies on complete recycle and reuse of the treated water in the
community. The liquid generated and treated at the facility is utilized to support the golf
course irrigation operation.

Extensive planning and comprehensive design requirements exist to assure systems are
designed properly. Site and soil investigations are required to assure the liquid is
assimilated properly on the site. Finally, a management plan is required to assure the
system is managed properly.




                                                                                         144
                                       Field Tour 5

           Site Evaluation "State of Practice" for Large Subsurface Systems.
                     Steven Berkowitz, NCDENR-OSWW Section

Synopsis: "State of Practice" for Large Subsurface Systems Site Evaluations.
          Practitioners actively involved with large on-site wastewater systems shall
          present their approach to doing these evaluations, from conceptualization, field
          investigation, modeling to reporting of results, with the focus on what
          "standards" should be applicable to do these evaluations properly, recognizing
          there will be differences depending on project size and physiographic region of
          the State. At least one case study in each region shall be presented. A "field"
          review of field methods will close out this session. It is hoped that this will be
          the spring-board to the creation of a "Manual of Practice" for completing
          proper Large System Site Evaluations, to be completed over the next year.


Agenda: 8:00 am: John Allison: Evaluations in Western NC Mountains

          9:00 am: Tom Hinson: Evaluations in Eastern NC Coastal Region

        10:00 am: Ed Andrews: Hydrogeologic Considerations and Variable
                             Concerns/Approaches in the Different Regions of North
                             Carolina.

        11:00 am: Steve Price and Aziz Amoozegar: Evaluations and Analysis in the NC
                                                 Piedmont

        12:00 noon: Field Methods and Data Collection/Analysis
                    Techniques/Demonstrations

        1:00 pm: Adjourn

Speakers/Panel Members: See Table Below




                                                                                        145
Option 5: Discussion of
Standards for Large System
Site Evaluation

            (October 13, 2004)

Speakers/Panel Members
John Allison
Southeast Soil Science Inc.
533 Crabtree Mountain Road
Canton, NC 28716
(828) 648-3033
southeastsoilscience@charter.net

Tom Hinson
CPEC Environmental, Inc.
737 Comet Drive
Beaufort, NC 28516
(252) 728-6360
cpec@mindspring.com

Ed Andrews
Edwin Andrews & Associates, P.C.
P.O. Box 30653
Raleigh, NC 27622
(919) 783-8395
 andwater@aol.com

Steve Price
S&EC, PA
710 Boston Road
Taylorsville, NC 28681
(828) 635-5820
 secwest@bellsouth.net

Dr. Aziz Amoozegar
NCSU Soil Science Department
Box 7619
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
919-515-3967
Aziz_Amoozegar@NCSU.edu




                                   146
Steven Berkowitz, On-Site Wastewater
Section
Parker-Lincoln Building
1642 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1642
919-715-3271
Steven.Berkowitz@ncmail.net
Dr. Bob Uebler, On-Site Wastewater
Section
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481, ext. 209
Bob.uebler@ncmail.net




                                       147
                            Speaker List and Addresses

Andy Adams                                  Tim Crissman
On Site Wastewater Section DENR             DWQ Wilmington Reg Office
1642 Mail Service Center                    127 Cardinal Dr. Ext.
Raleigh NC 27699-1642                       Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
919-715-7498                                910-365-3900
andy.adams@ncmail.net                       tim.crissman@ncmail.net

Tricia Angoli                               Dr. David Crouse
On Site Wastewater Section DENR             Soil Sci. Dept.
1642 Mail Service Center                    Box 7619
Raleigh NC 27699-1642                       NCSU
919-715-3272                                Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
trish.angoli@ncmail.net                     919-515-7302
                                            david_crouse@ncsu.edu
Steve Bristow
Wake County Dept. Env. Services             David Cunningham
PO Box 550                                  Union County Health Dept.
Raleigh, NC 27602                           1224 W. Roosevelt Blvd.
919-856-7432                                Monroe, NC 28110
sbristow@co.wake.nc.us                      704-283-3553

Dr. Heather Cheshire                        Nancy Deal
Dept. of Forestry                           Vernon James Center
Box 7106                                    207 Research Station Rd.
NCSU                                        Plymouth, NC 27962
Raleigh, NC 27695-7106                      919-793-4428 ext 172
919-515-3433                                nancy_deal@ncsu.edu
heather_cheshire@ncsu.edu
                                            Ed Duke
Mike Corry                                  Wake County Dept. Env. Services
Suite 920                                   PO Box 550
16 N. Carroll St.                           Raleigh, NC 27602
Madison, WI 53705                           919-856-7436
608-257-1787                                eduke@co.wake.nc.us
nowracode@sbcglobal.net
                                            Jeff Essic
Reed Cranford                               Research and Information Services
Union County Health Dept.                   Box 7111
1224 W. Roosevelt Blvd.                     NCSU
Monroe, NC 28110                            Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
704-283-3553                                919-515-5698
                                            jeff_essic@ncsu.edu




                                                                                148
Rick Evans                         Dianne Harvell
Craven County Health Department    New Hanover County Health
PO Drawer 12610                    Department
New Bern, NC 28561                 2029 South 17th Street
252 636-4936                       Wilmington, NC 28401-4946
revans@co.craven.nc.us             910-343-6665
                                   dharvell@nhcgov.com
Len Gilstrap
Environmental Health Department:   Doug Lassiter
3820 Suite A, Bridges St.          500 Smithdale Street
Morehead City, NC 28557            Winston-Salem NC 27107
252-728-8499                       336-784-5311
leng@co.carteret.nc.us             douglassiter@bellsouth.net

Adriana Greco                      Joe Lynn
NSF International                  6768 George Hildebran School Rd
PO Box 130140                      Hickory NC 28602
Ann Arbor, MI 4811-0140            828-397-5152
1-800-NSF-MARK                     joe.lynn@ncmail.net
Greco@nsf.org
                                   Dr. Randy Miles
Scott Greene                       Soil Science
Guilford County Health Dept        University of Missouri
301 N Eugene St                    The School of Natural Resources
Greensboro NC 27401                302 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources
336-641-3566                       Building
sgreene0@co.guilford.nc.us         Columbia, MO 65211-7250
                                   573-882-6607
Dr Barbara Grimes                  MilesR@missouri.edu
On Site Wastewater Section DENR
1642 Mail Service Center           Ron Monk
Raleigh NC 27699-1642              Brunswick Co. Health Dept.
919-715-0141                       PO Box 9
barbar.grimes@ncmail.net           Bolivia, NC 28422
                                   (910) 253-2266
Steve Gurley
PO Box 617                         Kathy Morris
Lincolnton, NC 28093               February Associates
704-736-8930                       700 Olde Oaks Lane.
                                   Pittsboro, NC 27312
                                   (919) 467-5427
                                   febassoc@pcstarnet.com




                                                                     149
                                    Judith Tillman
Kevin Neal                          NC Attorney General's Office
NC DENR                             9001 Mail Service Center
1703 Waterford Point                Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Lexington, NC 27292                 919-716-6864
336-798-0565
kevin.neal@ncmail.net               Greg Thompson
                                    New Hanover County Engineering
Terry Pierce                        Department
NCDENR-DEH                          County Annex Building
1642 Mail Service Center            230 Market Place Drive
Raleigh NC 27699-1642               Wilmington, NC 28403
919-733-2870
terry.pierce@ncmail.net             Pete Thornton
                                    Environmental Health Department
Diana M C Rashash                   1360 S. Woodland Boulevard
Area Special Agent Env Ed           DeLand, FL 32720-7731
N C Cooperative Extension Service   386-822-6247
4024 Richland Highway               pete_thornton@doh.state.fl.us
Jacksonville NC 28540
910-455-5873                        Mike Walker
diana_rashash@ncsu.edu              Randolph County Planning Dept.
                                    2222-B South Fayetteville St.
Dr Bob Rubin                        Asheboro, NC 27205
Dept Of Bio & Ag Engineerying       mdwalker@co.randolph.nc.us
N C State Univ
Box 7625                            Dr. Richard Whisnant
Raleigh NC 27695                    University of North Carolina
919-515-6791                        School of Government
rubin@eos.ncsu.edu                  CB# 3330 Knapp Building
                                    Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Andy Siegner                        (919) 962-9320
80 East Street                      richard_whisnant@unc.edu
P.O. Box 130
Pittsboro, NC 27312                 Gene Young
919-545-8377                        NCDENR-OSWW Section
andy.siegner@ncmail.net             127 Creek Ridge Drive
                                    Lexington NC 27295
                                    336-764-9067
                                    gene.young@ncmail.met




                                                                      150
Vendor List and Addresses




                            151

								
To top