ORDER N0, 17777 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH DR. B. L. CARLILE, P. E., CPSS On this the 7th day of March 1988, upon motion made by Commissioner Lich, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, with Commissioners Ray, Lich and Baldwin voting "AYE", Commis- sioner Holland voting "NAY", and County Judge Edwards "ABSTAINING FROM VOTING", said motion carrying by a majority vote, approving a proposed contract with Dr. B, L. Carlile, P. E., CPSS, to develop a soil supplement report to be in conjunction with the published Kerr County Soil Survey Report, at a cost of $7,500.00, plus expenses, to be paid out oŁ the projected surplus of the UGRA Environmental Health Servicesi subject to interview with Dr. Carlile. Proposal for Evaluation and Remonstration of Appropriate Or.-Site Technology for Kerr County, Tesas by Dr. B. L. Carlile, P.E., CPSS B. L. Carlile 6 assoc., Inc. P.O. Eos 2677 Colle?e Station, T% 7781 February 1988 Evaluation and Demonstration of Appropriate On-Site Technology It is proposed that this project be conducted in four separate phases as described in the following scope of work. While the phases are identi- fled separately, one or more may be carried out simultaneously. Scope of Work Task 1) Develop soil supplement report to be utilized in conjunction with the published Rerr County Soil Survey Report. Task 2) Develop appropriate system design and determine minimum lot size requirements for each soil resource group of the county. Task 3) Conduct field and laboratory training progr m for local offi- cials and agencies to enhanc_ capabilities of evaluating soil and site condition and designing appropriate technology. Task 4) Demonstrate and monitor appropriate s;~stem designs for each soil resource areas. Develop new or modified technology where so needed. Detail Task Development: Task 1: Published SCS soil survey r=_cort of Rerr Cocr.ty is useful for broad planning purposes but has L mited use for small area evaluation. such as an individual lot. This is due to several factors such as: 1) not detailed enough for site specific use. 2) not accurate in some details. ~. _, 2 3) not understandable by non-soil scientists. 4) not helpful in system technology or sizing. 5) not accepted by regulatory officials. While there are some thirty different soil mapping units identified in the Kerr County Soil Survey Report, these units may have enough similar characteristics in many cases to be classified together as a Soil Resource Group. For Kerr County some 5 to 7 soil resource groups most likely can be delineated which: 1) Represent soils with similar physical and hydraulic properties. 2) Represent soil with similar site restriction. 3) Represent soil which require similar system design and loadings. The development of a supplement to the Kerr County Soil Surve;~ will delineate these 5 to 7 soil resource groups, illustrate what the signifi- cant soil and site limitations are for each group, define the current available technology to overcome or minimize the limitation of each group, and develop the appropriate field evaluation procedures to technically evaluate a site and determine its appropriate soil resource group. The basic soil resource information will still be found in the Kerr County Soil Survey Report but the on-site supolement will allow this infor- mation to be utilized without having to make broad abitrary interpretation. Task 2: Appropriate system design and technology for each soil resource group will be developed. These systems will be defined and documented based on sound soil science and engi- neering principles. The system or systems proposal for each 3 soil resource groups will be Lhat which is the simplest and least expensive technology which function reliably to protect public health and the environment. The ultimate goal of this task report will be to develop system design options for each soil resource group which offers a functional waste system of least expense and manage- men[ problems to the home owner or management authority. This information will be developed in a logical sequence as follows: 1) Soil and site modifications. 2) System design criteria. 3) System design loadings rates. 4) Minimum lot size required. The question of minimum lot sizes in a very debatable issue. Having reviewed state and local ordinances in some fifteen southern U.S. states over the past five years, it has become evideat that regional or county density restrictions cannot be technically justified based on septic tank standards. The only technically justifiable density restrictions are based on specific soil and site limitations and should be developed are as follows: 1) Determine appropriate systea technology for each soil resource group. 2) Determine loading rates and area required far the selected waste system design. 3) Depending on data base (or confidence from experience) with system selected, add 50 to 100 percent reserve area. j p_ 4 4) Determine needed set backs. 5) Determine development area required - house, pools, driveway, patio, etc. 6) Determine potential unusable area on a lot due to rock- outcrops, gullies, drainage-way, etc. 7) Summarize to obtain minimum lot size requirement. The approach is quite conservative and will result in varying lot size requirements for each soil resource group. This in turn will require con- siderable site investigation before minimum lot size can be specified for any development area. Task 3: A training program is most critical for the implementation of this program. The information developed in the On-Site Soil Manual and Design Manual is only useful if local regulatory officials ars trained in its appropriate use and the nen- t=_c:^.rical community has confidence in its nor.-ar~itrary interpretation. The initial training phase should be a combination field and laborator;~ hands-on training program for local technical and regulator;i officials to gain confidence in making aporo- pr ate soil and site evaluations. These evaluations should culminate in the ability cf the evaluator to readily deter- mine which soil resource group a site should belong in. This analysis will then allow a technically rigorous but non-arbi- trary assessment procedure for on-site sewage disposal at any site. 6 1) Texture and bulk density analysis from selected sites. 2) Field permeability test in correlation with percolation tests. 3) Piezometer data to correlate soil mottling and color with perched water table data. 4) Shrink-swell potential of major soil types. 5) Moisture release curves of major soil types. Developing a soil data base in conjunction with field monitoring of various system designs will allow the ultimate development of the proper system design for any site. This may even require systems to be modified from todays known technology if all sites in Rerr County are to be used for on-site waste disposal and still protect the integrity of the environment, especially the ground water. The development of this program, however, will allow such decisions to be made including the necessar;~ operation and management requirement as well as costs of various options. Only then can a program of on-site waste management be compared to programs of regional sewage collection, treatment and discharge into our surface waters. 5 The training program should be an on-going program of up-grading and refinement of evaluation procedures but with a finite goal to be achieved. Task 4: A continuous upgrading of technology will be needed in any program of this nature. Several different types of system technologies will be proposed in this program. A11 of these will have been widely utilized in some part of the U. S. to overcome problem conditions but will have limited or no data base for use in Rerr County. If these varying systems are to be widely used and accented in the local area, a program should be established to develop a data base for their use. This will include the installation and demonstration of each system under appropriate field conditions and evaluation of its performance using established scientific procedures. The soils data base must be expanded since soils of the county have tremendous variability in their capaci[;a to accept and treat wastewater. Percolation test have very limited use but any existing data from percolation tests and soil permeability analyses should be studied and determine any possible correlation with the soil resource groups. This will serve as the starting point for development of the data base necessary for a comprehensive on-site waste management program in Kerr County. An on-going field study can then be developed for local agencies to gather data for each soil group that might include such information as: _. 7 Scope of Work and Project Budget Task and Out put Time Task 1. a) Review all information available from the USDA-SCS and other appropriate agencies ' concerning the soil and hydrogeology of Kerr County and potential impact of waste- water disposal. 8 hrs. b) Consult with appropria*_e SCS and agency personnel on applicability of various tech- nologies for each soil groaning and envir- onmental setting which may be encountered in the county. 8 hrs. c) Conduct necessary reconnaissance to verify field conditions of various soil groupings. 10 hrs. d) Prepare draft manual for On-Site supplement to the county Soil Survey Report, to include significant soil resource groups, appropriate technology for each group, and recommended siting and evaluation criteria for regulatory use. 16 hrs. Total hours Task 1 - 42 hrs. 8 Task and Output Time Task 2. a) Review all state and county statutes and regulations concerning on-site disposal of domestic wastewater along with provisions for alternative systems and fundamental levels of environsental protection to be maintained. b) Prepare draft manual for Design of On-Site waste systems including criteria, guide- , lines and regulatory review for the siting, design and installation of various system technologies. This shall include a descrip- tion of each system, its capabilities, operation and maintenance requirements, unique technical features, the degree and e:ctent of treatment expected with respect to bacteria and virus removal; nitrogen, phosphorous, inorganic and organic and suspended solids removal. Design criteria for each technology will include loading rate evaluations for 8 hrs. each aaplicable soil resource group. Based on system sizing and other appropriate land use requirements and set backs, minimum lot sizes will be calculated. ' 28 hrs. Total hours Task 2 - 36 hrs. 9 Task and Out put Time Task 3. a) Conduct training programs for local techni- cal and regulatory officials including field and laboratory hands-on experience in soil and site evaluation. 24 hrs. b) Conducted training program for local engi- neers and technical agency representatives on design and installation procedures of various system technologies. 16 hrs. c) Assist local agencies in public meetings and hearings to explain technical aspects of the project and assist in implementation of the on-site management program. as requested d) Conduct follow-up training programs on various aspects of the plan as problems arise during implementation. as requested Total hours Task 3 - 40 + to Task and Output Task 4. a) Assist local agencies in developing data base for continual upgrading of the pro- gram. This will include analyzing avail- able data and initiating a program to gather additional field data to establish a broad soil data base. b) Assist local agencies in design review, installation and monitoring of various sys- tem technologies. This will be an on-going program to continuously up-grade system technology for each soil resource group. c) Design and implement new and unproven tech- nologies for severe problem sites including comparative studies of appropriate collec- tion and off-site treatment and disposal technologies. Time 24 hrs. as requested as requested Total hours Task 4 - 24 + Task 5. a) Upon evaluation of the draft documents by appropriate agencies and officials, final- ize the documents as directed. 8 hrs. r 11 Compensation 1) The project will be directed and carried out by: Dr. B. L. Carlile, P.E., CPSS . Other professionals which may be utilizied in the project would be: 1 Cert. Professional Soil Scientist 1 Professional Hydrogeologist 2) Compensation will be at the hourly fee rate of $50.00 for all professional services rendered. Services will be rendered as requested by the contracting agency. 3) Professional fees as well as out of pocket expenses such as mileage, lodg'_ng, meals, etc., shall be reimbursed upon sub- mittal of monthly invoices and receipts. Time of Performance Professional services as outlined in the proposed tasks can commence as soon as practicable after the execution of an agreeable contract or letter of agreement. Tasks 1, 2, 3a, and 3b should be carried out and completed within 60 days of execution of the agreement or as specified by the contracting agency. The remaining tasks will be conducted at the request of the contract- ing agency but should be substantially completed in a two year time frame. RESUME H. L. Carlile Title: President - B. L. Carlile & Associates, Inc. Environmental Engineering/Soils Consultant College Station, Texas Director, Vice-President, and Principal Engineer - North State Utilities, Inc. Community Wastewater Utilities Company Raleigh, North Carolina Director, Vice-President and Engineering Consultant - EPTEC, Inc. Community~Wastewater System Construction Raleigh, North Carolina Research Scientist (part-time) - Waste Management Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Education: B.S. - 1959 P±. S. - 1966 r?. s. - 1966 Ph.D.- 1972 Registrations: Professional Certified Pr Texas A&M University - Agronomy Washington State University -Soils 6Tashington State University -Sanitary Engineering Washington State University - Soils Engineer - Texas, Delaware ~fessional Soil Scientist -ARC PAC E: