Alternative Wastewater System Demonstration-1983

HISTORIC
li%"
DCM COPY DCM COPY
Olease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management
BATH
NORTH CAROLINA
Alternative Wastewater System
Demonstration
I
7 =�
0
A Coastal Area Demonstration Project by:
PLANNING & DESIGNASSOCIATES, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telephone[phone]

INCORPORATED 1705
HISTORIC BATH
OLDEST TOWN IN 171E STATE
..r. BA771. NORM CA ROLINA 27,1308
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ray S. Brooks, Mayor
Judy Edwards, Mary Brooks, Ira Hardy II, M.D., Bruce Tankard
Bubbs Carson, Town Administrator
PREPARED BY: THE BATH PLANNING BOARD
James R. Edwards, Chairman
.Erma Tankard, Rachel Tankard, Guy Cutler, Helen Brooks, Teeny Mason,
Ed Swindel
Bubbs Carson, Town Administrator
WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM:
Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612 [phone]
Terry W. Alford, President
Consultants: Terry W. Alford, MRP, Project Manager; Rex H. Todd, AICP;
Michael V. Butts, MUP; James S. J. Wang, P.E., Wang Engineering; Gregory
Miller, Grapbic Designer; C. Willis Williams, Engineering Grapbics; Debbie
Tant and Janet Roberts, Word Processing.
The preparation of this plan was financed in part tbrougb a grant provided by
the Nortb Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, wbicb is administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospberic
Administration. The Town of Bath contributed cash and in -kind services.
May, 1983

Page
CHAPTER I
''SODUCTION
1
CHAPTER II
LBGAL COHSTSAIIiTS
3
CHAPTER III
TARGET ABBA SELECTION
9
CHAPTER IV
888D AND DKKWM ANALYSIS
12
CHAPTER V
NITRIFICATION FIELD ANALYSIS AND SELECTION
21
CHAPTER VI
SYSTEMS DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES
29
CHAPTER VII
SYSTEB.MANAGENOT AND MAINTMEANCE
36
CHAPTER VIII
SYSTEM FINANCING
40
CHAPTER IS
DBNDNS?SATI08 VALUE FOR OTHER COASTAL CO2ffiJNITIBS
49
APPMMIX:
A. PDA TARGET AREA AT.'MRSATIVES
54
B. COVER LETTER AND gUESTIOMMAIR8
59
C. CLASS I AND CLASS II OPERATORS LIST
62
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY
66

C9APTM I
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan for small alternative
wastewater systems for selected areas within the Town of Bath, that is easily
adaptable to other coastal area communities.
The Town of Bath is characteristic of the North Carolina coastal region in
that it is plagued by a complex set of wastewater treatment circumstances.
The older sections of the Town are declining in population while the outlying
area is experiencing growth largely due to the seasonal recreation demand.
The entire town must rely on septic tank systems because.a conventional
centralized treatment system is not economically feasible. The prime
development lands are along the Town's water areas (Bath and Back Creeks)
where such lands are subject to periodic flooding and soils are often
unsuitable for traditional septic tank and soil absorption field sytems. The
area has a history of septic system failures and a potential for sewage
pollution of the areas ground water, streams and areas of environmental
concern.* Additionally, there is latent demand for some commercial
development in the Town which cannot be realized unless the wastewater
treatment problem is resolved.
The Town of Bath undertook earlier efforts which determined that the costs
for construction of a new centralized wastewater treatment system for the
Town of Bath was too expensive. The "Bath Wastewater Treatment Plant
Feasibility Study," March, 1982 found that a centralized plant (to include
collection and treatment of wastes) for lands within the corporate limits
would total approximately $1.2 million. For lands within the entire Planning
Area (i.e., lands within one —mile of the corporate limits), the facility
costs would total $2.7 million. This equates to $9,000 and $14,000 per
book —up for the corporate limits -and planning area respectively (based upon
existing and future demand to 1990). The study concluded that:
1) A conventional waste treatment system is not economically feasible.
2) The majority of soils in the Town have severe limitations for acceptance
of traditional septic tanks and aerobic field solutions.
3) Although the Town's water quality appears satisfactory at this point in
time, increased development may cause an eventual load of the soil
system, contaminating the Town's wells and creeks.
Therefore, the study recommended that the Town should:
1) Identify the legal and regulatory authority of local governments to
develop and maintain small wastewater treatment systems.
*As this document is being written, the school is being closed daily
at 2:30 p.m. since its commodes are overflowing due to septic tank
malfunctions from heavy rains.

2) Develop schematics and cost estimates for small innovative wastewater
systems for targeted areas within the Batb Planning Area.
.3) Identify funding sources and methods for financing small wastewater
systems.
Alternative wastewater treatment systems utilize small waste flows
tecbnologies and management while optimizing the use of existing on —site
septic systems. Examples of alternatives to a centralized waste treatment
plant or the traditionally designed septic tank and field absorption system
include low pressure pipe systems, mound systems, leacbing chambers,
alternating absorption fields, cluster systems and more (see Appendix A).
Most small communities bave not been exposed to the full range of small
innovative wastewater systems available nor are they equipped administra—
tively and technically to either assist local developers or to undertake the
projects themselves. The Batb town officials recognized that if they were to
solve existing and potential septic system failures and accommodate their
projected and desired growtb, the Town must foster the development of small
alternative wastewater systems. To this end, application was made to the
Nortb Carolina Coastal Resources Commission to help finance the development
of this plan.
The plan is organized under seven principal headings which include: 1) Legal
Constraints, 2) Target Area Selection, 3) Need and Demand Analysis, 4) Ni—
trification Field Analysis and Selection, 5) System Design and Cost
Estimates, 6) System Management and Maintenance, and 7) System Financing.
Each section contains a description of the metbodology employed for use by
otber coastal area communities and a major findings and conclusions statement
applicable specifically to the Town of Bath. Chapter IX, Demonstration Value
for Other Coastal Communities, serves as a guide to other coastal communities
desiring to undertake a similar planning effort.
6

Prior to undertaking a project of this nature, it is essential to first
identify the legal constraints within which one must plan. The following is
a. digest of the rules and regulations effecting on -site wastewater treatment
systems in the State of North Carolina which are relevant not only to Bath,
but other coastal communities considering the design of alternative
wastewater treatment.systems.
The regulation of on -site wastewater disposal systems for North Carolina is
shared by the State Commission for Health Services and local health
departments, and the Environmental Management Commission. The health
services section comes under the administrative code of Department of Human
Resources and the environmental management section comes under the
administrative code of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
North Carolina General Statutes governing the Regulation of septic tank
systems include G.S. Chapter 130-166 to 130-203, known as the Ground
Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act of 1981, G.S. Chapter 130-17,
the Powers and Duties of local Boards of Health and G.S. Chapter 143-215, the
Regulations of the Environmental Management Commission for systems not
discharging to surface waters. Supplementing the Environmental Management
Commission's rules and regulations are requirements set out under Rule no. 15
NCAC 2H .0400, applicable to Coastal Areas.
Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act
The Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act of 1981 (G.S. 130-166
to 130-203) requires a person either "owning" or "controlling" a dwelling
(single or multi -family), business, or place of public assembly to provide a
sewage treatment and disposal system. Approval for public or community
sewage systems or systems which discharge to the land surface or surface
waters, come under the authority of the Environmental Management Commission.
(Note: the Act defines "public or community sewage system" as "a single
system of sewage collection, treatment, and disposal owned and operated by a
sanitary district, metropolitan sewage district, and water sewer authority, a
county or municipality or public utility"). All private sewage treatment and
disposal systems, to include approved privies, septic tank systems,
incinerators, mechanical toilets, composting toilets, recycling toilets and
similar systems which do not discharge effluent to the land surface water,
are to be approved under the rules and regulations of the Commission for
Health Services. Local Boards of Health may adopt regulations which are
.more stringent," but not "less stringent" than the Commission's regulations.
Such regulations are in the formulative stages for Beaufort County, but final
rules and regulations have not yet been adopted, nor received the Department
of Human Resources approval of compliance with State regulations.
3

An "improvements permit" must be obtained from the local health department
prior to the construction, location or relocation of any residence, place of
business or place of public assembly. This step allows for the review of the
proposed system and a determination as to its adequacy. Once the system is
installed, but prior to its being covered or placed into operation, a
"certificate of completion permit" must be obtained, proving proper
installation of the system. Only after these two permits have been issued
can construction, location or relocation of a dwelling, place of business or
place of public assembly begin.
Appeals conserving the interpretation and enforcement of the local Board of
Health rules must be taken within 15 days of the challenge. Anyone
contesting the decision of the local Board of Health has the right to appeal
to the District Court having jurisdiction over this matter.
Rules and Regulations of the Health Services Commission
In conjunction with the recently revised Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment
and Disposal Act of 1981, new rules and regulations were established
(effective July 1, 1982), for the Commission of Health Services relative to
sewage treatment and disposal systems (reference: 10 NCAC 10A .1934-.1968).
Included within these rules and regulations is a repetition of the
improvements permit and certificate of completion permits required under this
disposal act. Additionally, where systems are proposed to serve a
condominium or other multi -family development and such systems will be under
common or joint control, an agreement (tri-party) must be submitted with the
improvements permit application. This agreement must be properly executed
along the local health department, developer, and homeowners association
which address ownership, maintenance, repairs, operation and performance and
necessary funds.
Any sewage treatment and disposal system which exceeds a design capacity of
three thousand gallons per day and other systems which are required to be
designed by a professional.engineer, must be inspected annually.
Prior to assurance of an improvements permit, the local health department
must investigate each site and make an analysis based upon the following
factors:
1. Topography and landscape position.
2. Soil characteristics.
3. Soil drainage.
4. Soil depth.
5. Available space.
Through this analysis, sites are classified (by the above factors) as either
suitable, provisionally suitable or unsuitable. Generally, when adaptations,
can be instituted such as terracing of land for slopes greater than 30% or
mounding of soil where high water tables exist, an unsuitable classification
can be adjusted to provisionally suitable and hence a permit can be issued.
4

A new provision under "available space" requires an amount of land for both
the proposed system and available space sufficient for an alternative site,
should the initial system fail (those lots with evidence of existence, as
filed with the local health department prior to July 1982 or those lots
described in a recorded deed or plot prior to January 1983, are exempt from
this latter requirement).
The rules and regulations also include standard sewage .flow rates and minimum
horizontal distance requirements between the septic tank and field absorption
system and certain features. These minimum distance include:
1. Any private water supply -- 100 ft.;
2. Any public water supply — 100 ft.;
3. Streams classified as A —II -- 50 ft.;
4. Waters classified as S.A. — 100 ft. from normal high tide marks;
5. Any other stream, canal, marsh, or coastal waters — 50 ft.;
6. Any Class I or Class II impounded reservoir used as a source of
drinking water -- 100 ft. from normal high water lines;
7. Any other lake or impoundment — 50 ft. from normal high water
lines;
8. Any building foundation -- 5 ft.;
9. Any basement -- 15 ft.;
10. Any property line -- 10 ft.;
11. Top of slope of embankments or cuts of two feet or more vertical
height -- 15 ft.;
12. Any water line -- 10 ft.;
13. Drainage system:
A. Interceptor drains — 10 ft. up slope and 25 ft. downslope,
B. Groundwater lowering and surface draining ditches — 20 ft.;
14. Any swimming pool -- 25 ft.;
15. Any other nitration field (except repair area) -- 20 ft.
No system can be installed at sites where the seasonal high water table is
within one foot of the ground surface at any time of the year. Under certain
restrictive circumstances, the system can be located closer than 100 ft. from
a private.water supply but in no case closer than 50 ft. An areal fill may
be used.where at least one foot of natural occurring soil is present within
the classification of either suitable or provisionally suitable. Finally, the
septic tank system must not be located under paved areas or driveways.
Systems which are in use or for which permits were issued prior to July 1,
1977, which are too small to meet the above regulations, are exempt from
these requirements.
Additional regulations cover septic tank construction, prefabricated tanks,
design criteria for conventional sewage systems and privy construction and
maintenance.
In recognition of alternative wastewater systems, two sections have been
added to established regulations for alternative wastewater systems such as
nitration trenches, alternating dual field nitration systems, modified
nitration lines and low—pressure pipe systems.
5

If an existing system falls into disrepair or the use is discontinued for any
reason, the system must be brought up to the standards of these regulations
before the system can be reused. If a determination is made by the local .
bealth department that a reuse will not create a health hazard, then .
compliance with these regulations can be waived.
Rules and Regulations of the Local Boards of Health
Under G.S. 130-17, the Local Boards of Health have the responsibility to
ensure that sewage systems, as installed, are in compliance with the rules
and regulations of.the Commission for Healtb Services. As noted previously,
these rules and regulations can be superseded by locally adopted provisions
where there exists "an emergency, or peculiar local condition or
circumstances." Sucb additional regulations must be "more stringent, but not
less stringent," than those of the Commission.
An important provision of G.S. 130-17 authorizes the local boards of health
to enter into contracts with local units of government and private agencies
or persons, for the purpose of providing services in exchange for fees. This
provision may be useful for long term maintenance agreements for innovative
sewage treatment systems.
Rules and Regulations of the Environmental Management Commission
As noted above, all public or community sewage systems and any systems which
discharge to the land service.or surface waters, must be approved by the
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development under the rules and
regulations of the Environmental Management. Commission. Title 15 (which is
presently under revision), subchapter 2H, Section .0200 addresses directly
the requirements for sewage systems not discharging to service waters. Under
this section, a permit is required before constructing or altering any sewage
system, treatment works or disposal system not discharging to surface waters.
These regulations outline the required supporting documentation and
information, as well as requirements of various systems. Those requirements
thought to be specifically applicable to the Bath situation have been
included below:
For pumping stations:
a. design data;
b. plan and profile or force main;
c. plot plan;
d. specifications describing all materials to be used, methods of con—
struction and means for assuring the quality and integrity of the
finisbed project;
For septic tank - ground absorption systems:
a. percolation data on soil;
b. design data;
c. plans of complete system including plans for septic tank, system
layout and cross section profile of nitration lines; .
6

For spray irrigation or land application disposal systems and treatment
works:
a. topographic map of disposal areas;
b. test borings and subsurface data adequate for site evaluation;.
c. soil evaluation of the disposal site conducted by a recognized soil
scientist and his recommendations concerning application rates for
liquids, solids, minerals and other constituents of wastewater;
d. a project evaluation conducted by a recognized agronomist and his
recommendations concerning cover crops and their ability to accept
the proposed application rates of liquid, solids, minerals and
other constituents of wastewater;
e. complete plans and specifications for entire system.
The regulations specify that the permit application must be signed by a
consulting engineer or "other agent" when accompanied by a letter of
authorization. For spray irrigation or land application disposalsystems and
treatment works, soil evaluations must be conducted by a "recognized soil
scientist."
Two additional references are made relative to the small area wastewater
systems. Specifically, the regulations referenced Section .0300, "septic
tank systems" and Section .400, "coastal waste treatment and disposal."
Under Section .0300 (which is presently under revision), the regulations are
basically the same as those contained within the Ground Absorption Sewage
Treatment Disposal Act of 1981 for septic tank systems. Section .0200 —
coastal waste treatment disposal, contains regulations wbich_are specific,to
coastal areas like Bath. These regulations are applicable to public and
community sewage systems along the coast.
Most important is Regulation .0404(f) prohibiting the use of septic tank
systems for "high density" areas. High density has been defined in these
regulations as any development for use of more than 1200 gallons of water per
acre per day or which contain more than 3 residential units per acre.
Section .0404 (g) provides that where approved area —wide collection and
treatment systems are not available, interim systems may be approved to
include a subsurface disposal trench, low pressure distribution systems and
rotary distributions (i.e., spray systems).
Additionally, according to Alton Hodge, Environmental Engineer, in order to
comply with the Division's regulations, a replacment disposal field must be
available (May 12, 1983 letter to Lee Fleming, et al).
Applications must be submitted to the Director of Environmental Management,
NRCD, in Raleigh. The Director must complete his review and take final
action within 90 days following receipt of the application. An applicant can
request an adjutacatory bearing if the permit is denied or the applicant
deems the conditions of approval are unacceptable.
7

Conclusions
Over the course of the last few years, gains have been made in amending State
laws and rules to further accommodate alternative wastewater treatment
systems.
The latest revision of the Ground Disposal Sewage Treatment Disposal Act is
supportive of Alternative Wastewater Systems and at this point in time, is
the controlling set of regulations. The Environmental Management Commission
rules (i.e., Title 15, subchapter 2H) are presently being revised to comply
with the Act.
The biggest stumbling block with 15 NCAC 2H to Bath and other coastal
communities is Section .0404(f), which restricts septic systems in "high
density areas" (more than 1200 gallons of water per acre per day demand or
more than three residential units per acre). Under section .0400, if it is a
publically or community owned system, septic systems are prohibited for high
density development. If.tbe septic system is privately owned, one can
develop at high density provided design, soil suitability, etc. requirements
are met.
Conversations with Environmental Management Commission staff (Dale Crisp)
indicate that Bath could make application for the entire corporate limits and
then perhaps meet the high density limitation through a city—wide density.
Alternatively,.a variance to Section .0400 (the procedure for which is
presented in Section .0200) could be applied for constructing the case that
Bath is an individual and not a community, for purposes of an areawide
demonstration project like this. Or, more practically, the Town could give
the entire system to a private individual (with proper assurances for
maintenance, etc.) and then lease it from that individual for $1.00 per year,
thereby meeting the letter of .0400.
Through this review of county and state regulations and discussion/corre—
spondence with officials, the Town of Bath became aware that a variance may
be required to Section .0404(f) and that a suitable nitrification field and a
replacement field are required to obtain a non -discharge permit from the
Division of Environmental Management.
With this understanding of that section, while keeping open the options for
privately owned smaller systems, the Planning Board began the task for
selecting target areas within the corporate limits.
8

\ - CHAPTER 311
AR+ ABIRA SMCTI0N
Since the aforementioned study of a Conventional community -wide system
indicated exhorbitant costs, this study was begun on a target area basis.*
The selection process begins with a review of existing or easily obtainable
data in the community. One of the most valuable sources of information is
the CAMA Land Use Plan. Within the land use plan are inventories and survey
results on existing land use, hazard areas such as floodplains, and areas
likely to experience new growth. Detailed soil maps/descriptions from the
Soil Conservation Service can be used to locate areas likely to have existing
or potential septic system failures due to soil limitations. When this soil
data is overlayed with the vacant land survey of the land use plan, lands
suitable for future nitrification fields can be identified.
The local county health department sanitarian is also a valuable resource.
His or her knowledge of the community will serve to pinpoint areas of
existing and potential septic failures, the nature of those failures and
needs for improvement., The local sanitarian can also help identify areas
suitable for field absorption application.
The most suitable method for analyzing the data listed above is to plot each
element (e.g., hazard areas, soils unsuitable for septic systems, growth
modes, etc.) on a set of overlay maps. The next step is to select one or
more target areas based upon a set of criteria. The following criteria was
developed for use.in the Town of Batb, but should be adjusted to suit each
jurisdiction's needs and desires.
Target Area Selection Criteria:
1. Is the area designated either "developed" or "transition" in the adopted
CAMA Land Use Plan (LUP)?
2. Does one or more of the areas include concentrations of septic failures
or noncomplying systems?
3. Does the area include lands having known or proposed changes in type of
use, density, or otherwise targeted for specific uses which are suppor-
ted by the LUP and highly desirable to the community in terms of job
creation, income generation, increase in tax base, etc.?
4. Are the areas withinreasonably close proximity to vacant lands suitable
for field absorption systems?
5. Is the nature of the effluence (i.e., quantity and quality) generated
within the area treatable through small waste flows technologies?
*It later came to recommend a community -wide land based system (see
Chapters VII & VIII).

6. Is at least one of the areas feasible for immediate implementation fol—
lowing completion of this plan?
Based upon an analysis of local data in light of the above criteria, the
local staff or consultant can identify from four to six potential target
areas for public review. The local Town council or planning board can make
the final selections from the alternatives presented at a scheduled meeting.
For the Town of Bath, a series of map overlays was developed to include
existing land use, fragile areas, hazard areas, land classification, zoning,
septic systems failure areas and areas suitable for drainage fields. This
information was obtained tbrougb a reading of the "Historic Batb Land Use
Plan, 1980 - 1990".and interviews with the Beaufort County Sanitarians,
Bobbie O'Neil, Horace Moore and Donnie Woolard.
Four preliminary target areas were selected for review by the Bath Planning
Board. See Exhibit A. These areas included: 1) lands generally at the
intersection of Carteret and Main Streets, 2) lands along Main Street between
Grover and Front Streets, 3) lands along the north side of Craven Street
between King and Carteret Streets, and 4) lands within the extraterritorial
area located across Back Creek opposite Handy's Point.
The Bath Planning Board met in September, 1982 and decided on a target area.
which combined the preliminary target areas identified as #1 and #2. The
Planning Board selected an area targeted for application of the small area'
wastewater treatment systems to include the parcels and development along
Main Street in the Town of Batb extending from the State Park at Bonners
Point north to Bowen Avenue.
10

4
It
W
rf
s�srr A
as
HISTORIC
BATH
NORTH CAROLINA
Jut" WaOwmMw 3v*ftm
001MAMIM

t:SAPTER IV
NEED AND DEMM ANALYSIS
Once the target area(s) have been selected, the septic system problems and
opportunities for development must be identifed. The success of a program of
this nature in small coastal area towns is dependent upon a proper blend of
"need" (i.e., existing and potential septic system failures) and "demand"
(i.e., opportunities for new development) for alternative wastewater
treatment systems.
Need for Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems
In order to optimize the use and operation of, existing on -site septic
systems, the performance of that system must first be documented. Reliable
data on the various types of septic system failures is often scarce.
Further, there is a conflicting bias between the local sanitarian and home
owner regarding the frequency and potential for septic system failures. For
these reasons, mailed questionnaires and on -site investigations with the
local sanitarian are suggested.
The target area of Bath was surveyed during the -month of October, 1982. A
copy of the cover letter and questionnaire mailed to residents of the Bath
target area is included in Appendix B, while the results of the survey are
summarized below.
There are 61 structures within the Main Street Target Area of Bath. The
uses include 51 residences, 9 business (3 are combined residences and
businesses), 1 church and 3 institutional uses. Returns from the
households surveyed indicate about a 60% return rate (30 of 51 surveys
mailed). Of those returned surveys, 87 percent (26) were year -a -round
residences, 7 percent (2) were seasonal and 3 percent (1) were vacant.
Families were predominately one and two person households (30%-8 and
26%-7, respectively) with 18% (5) having 3 person households, 18% (5)
having 4 persons, and 4% eacb (1) with 5 and 6 person housebolds.
The majority of housing units had tbree bedrooms (45%, 13 total),
followed by 2 bedroom houses at 28% (8) and 4 bedroom houses at 24% (7).
Only 3% (1) had one bedroom houses.
Fifty-five percent (16) of the houses had a single toilet, 38% (11) had
two toilets, while 7% (2) had three toilets. For shower facilities, 65%
(19) had one tub or shower, 28% (8) bad two showers and 2% (2) had three
shower facilities. Water conservation devices were being used in 20%
(6) of the households, 83% of whicb were shower restrictors and 50%
baving both shower restrictors and low water volume toilets.

The entire Main Street area is on septic tank/field absorption systems.
Twenty-nine percent (6) were installed over 30 years ago, 33% (7)
installed between 20 and 30 years ago, 29% (6) were installed 10-20
years ago and•only 9% (2) installed witbin'the last ten years.
Nearly 40% (11) of the systems have had system failures. -Sixty percent
(13) indicated there has never been any maintenance. Only 11% (3)
indicated they would like to expand their house if adequate wastewater
treatment capacity was provided.
Of the nine businesses along Main Street, four returned their surveys.
All four businesses were open year -around and indicated -no problems with
their existing septic systems. All were built in the 19701s. Only one
business utilized water flow restriction devices.- Three of the four
businesses indicated a desire to expand their facility if additional
waste treatment capacity was provided.
The next step in the "needs definition phase is on -site investigation and
analysis. Beaufort County Sanitarians, Horace Moore and Donnie Woolard,
together with Dr. James Wang,'P.E., of Wang Engineering, and Terry Alford,
AIA, of Planning and Design Associates, P.A., conducted the on -site
investigations. Their findings and conclusions are summarized below;
Sixty-one structures within the Target Area were placed into one or
more of the following categories, according to their type of
system problem and need for alternative system:
1, Inadequate space for drainage field.
2. Inadequate system design (i.e., too small).
3. Inadequate maintenance (i.e., requires regular maintenance).
4. Unsuitable soils for leaching field (this category was applied
to vacant lots;
Of the 61 structures (lots), 26 rated as having inadequate: space,
16 as baving.an inadequate design, 7 required regular maintenance
to avoid system failure and 3 were located on sites with unsuitable
soils.
Based upon these findings and local knowledge of the individual systems
performance, a judgement was made relative to the present wastewater system
suitability. The following suitability rating system was applied to each
site.
A. Good, adequate with no future problems anticipated.
B. Marginal,.eitber has had problems or potential for problems.
C. Poor, in need of redesign and/or connection to community system.
As shown ,in Exhibit B1, given the above rating system, 20 houses were judged
"good;" 16 marginal and 16,poor. This shows that a significant number of
houses (62%) are either in need of a new or redesigned wastewater system or
will be in such need within the near future.
13

EXHIBIT B1
12.4
1.3
Bath
Creek
1
2 So en Avenue 127
30 128
4
5 126
7 0❑ ❑ 6 6Fq ❑ 1290 �130'
❑ 124 � ❑
❑ ,o ❑ ❑ ❑
�� ❑ Ttr 125
1J' • 23 24 25I �lll
1 0 13 El 1191'ra 122 121 22123 135 ,34
�
�27,�� 137
�rjpj t, 25
� f 1 it �rteret tr❑ eat �0 � � —] 139
I L, L 1 1- -ID
29 ❑ ❑ 28 118
© IYl ❑
31 ❑ 32
` 33 ❑
. 35 ® 34
f 36❑ © ❑
38 37 _ „6
39 40
44 ❑
46� 4
1 47 2
48 ❑ 2!%❑ 49 1.2 107
50 ❑ in 51 —
� — U U l
S7 ,
58 0
_ 104
59 161 ❑ 60
62 63
0
64
67
® �� 100
68
I 96 I
HISTORIC
BATH
NORTH CAROLINA
Small
Alternative Wastewater System
Demonstration
LEGEND:
suitability
❑
p..Yenllel
Good - .e r.Wn ►roale.eo
©
Wo.ne.cW
roelr..r
Y.ryln.l-yyoteetl.1 la p.14
sri.00l
neoff for
pow_ r.eon..e
eor..lo..ret.nl
or0
CIWK11
m
Y.etlt.11-1
166
Parcel If—,
t No adeq olo apece e.elleal.
2 lolerbr or.le.n or so .row.
•
tabll.q septic
3 Ileart.r .rolalowrlp turf" d
0
pelWra.
► —ttsl septic
4 U... Item* for oe.elr.dew fe1
relluno
leecol..a INId
`
= -1 D..lno cap—&&"
�Vf "T 11e 1181
D '
l '
144 ��lJ
152
�148
151 ,53 ,541 T5 1 156 1 157— —
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ " 1
5a' i59 1. 161 162
raven treat ' ' ❑ I ❑ I ❑' ❑
103
�o
i
EXISTING
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CONDITIONS
❑ 9 '
❑ 94
93
92
91 /
90 /
89
88
79 80 / ❑ 87 ()
82
or.— by: W. Williams
8 4 85 O cl..c..d by: T. Alford. M. Butts
1 ( 0.10: oclaUer 10112
lt.rloleeo. J.ollorr 1963
0
Ptaming A Design Associates. P.A.
teY 0-ed .w..� . 11.IHp.IlC alatl Ia..1ray.
Terry Alford . a.a Todd . Y1eAeel eNle
14

The nine businesses along Main Street were analyzed against the same
standards. Five of the businesses' wastewater systems were judged to have
inadequate space for drainage fields, three had an inadequately designed
.system, one required regular maintenance to ensure against failure and two
had sites with unsuitable soils for leaching fields. The nine businesses
were evenly distributed with three each judged good, marginal and poor. The
one church had no treatment system and the three institutional structures all
rated as good..
The final step in the "needs" definition phase is a comparison of the results
from the questionnaires and on —site surveys. Of those sites judged good,
surveys showed that one (#14) was in need of more drain lines and therefore
was reclassified as B2.
Of the nineteen sites classified as marginal, nine questionnaires were
received. Five of the returned questionnaires indicated system failures and
four had no problems. Only one indicated a desire to expand if additional
capacity was provided.
Nineteen sites were classified as bad. Of this group, fourteen
questionnaires were returned. Only three indicated problems, while five
indicated a desire to expand.
Conclusions:
The return rates for categories A, B and C (i.e., good, marginal and bad)
were 39 percent, 53 percent and 74 percent respectively. Although there is a
low correlation between questionnaire results and on —site investigations,
there is a strong correlation between the judged severity of the problem and
interest on the part of the residents as exbibted through the returned
questionnaires.
Based on the age of existing systems and the documented number of system
failures and/or deficiencies, the Town of Bath has a substantial need for
improved wastewater treatment.
Demand for Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems
It is essential, in the planning and design of any municipal wastewater
treatment system to differentiate between Need and Demand..
Need, as presented in the preceding section, is characterized by
documentation of existing and potential septic system failures, including
ability of the target area to accommodate present and projected wastewater
discharges within limits of existing environmental and program constraints.
Demand, is most often characterized by those economic forces in the
marketplace that result in the willingness to spend money to meet desires as
well as needs. In most small coastal communities, as in Batb, community
needs far exceed the real marketplace demand. .
15

This can be best illustrated from the Bath questionnaire results in which 62%
of residents indicated a need for a new or redesigned wastewater system; yet,
only 11% of residents indicated a desire to expand their house or business if
adequate wastewater capacity was provided.
In the absence of a major and immediate threat to their health, safety, and
personal goals, Bath residents are less likely or able to spend the
additional money required to individually upgrade their existing systems. In
a community dominated by older residents, living on fixed incomes, there is
little tolerance for additional monthly costs due to book -up to a central
wastewater system.
Within this socio-economic climate, demand for a central wastewater system
must be derived from the individuals desire to achieve community -wide goals.
The active public participation, over the past three years, in the
development and adoption of a community Land Use Plan has generated
community -wide interest in an adequate wastewater system. This improved
wastewater system would overcome the potential environmental health problems
presented by the present system as well as foster appropriate develoment
desired by the community. Specific development desires include recruitment
of light industry, residential construction on in -town agricultural land, and
limited addition of commercial uses along highway 92 and Main Street.
The challenge in Bath, as with many small coastal communities, is to
accommodate the discrepancy between individuals inability to pay vs.
community goals of growth and improved quality of life. The challenge for
the Planning Board and its consultant is, therefore, to identify commercial
development opportunities within the target area that would reduce individual
residential hook-up charges, while achieving community growth goals. That
is, can new income -generating projects be developed as a means of financing
a significant proportion of the total hook-up costs.
In order to identify potential new development opportunities in Bath, a
public meeting was held at the Bath Town Hall on October 18, 1982 to solicit
community input. Prior notification was provided via letters to property
owners, town officials, and key individuals.
Exhibit B2 provides a summary of the input derived from this brainstorming
session with over thirty community residents.
16

Exhibit B2
PLANNING BOARD WORRSESSION - BATH TOWN HALL
OCTOBER 18, 1982
A. Overview: Provided by Consultants (Alford, Todd, Butts and Wang)
1. Identify the Problem: Need (current failures; future failures)
Demand (opportunities for commercial/resi-
dential development, etc.)
Supply (potential sites for absorption
fields
2. System Alternatives: Design of Solutions - cost/benefits (what each
system is).
3. Systems Maintenance: Wbat it takes to keep it working, over time.
Costs.
4. System Financing: Wbat is the cost? How share it?
B. Suggested Opportunity Projects & Recommendations from Community
1. Plot 20 - Farmer's Market for Fisberman (via town lease).
2. Plot 66 - Expanded Bed and Breakfast Guest House, to include Luncb
and Dinner.
3. Plot 3 - Convert the Barn, near ampbitbeatre, to a restaurant/lounge
to accommodate tbeatre patrons.
4. Cluster Swindells Grocery, Harbour Hotel & Property N. of 92 into
single wastewater system.
5. Plots #77, #103 and #163 could accommodate additional housing (e.g.,
on Craven St. "Clustered Development") as incentive to development
of central nutrification fields.
6. A playground for children is desired for one of the is -town vacant
lots.
7. Target initial projects to utilize publicly owned land (e.g., Beau-
fort County scbools owns 13 acres).
8. Explore ways to use wastewater byproducts, via recycling/reclamation
9. Explore techniques for segregating waste categories.
10. Include more commercially zoned areas in Target Area.
17

Exhibit B2
(con,t.)
11. Provide wastewater systems for existing marinas.
12. Plot #127 - would be suitable for Ligbt Industry, if cbanged from
R1.
13. Encourage the State to let the Town percolate.town wastewater on
their land.
14. Vacant lots on waterfront could be developed witb adequate waste-
water system (e.g., Parcels 3 & 163).
15. Consider using available land on existing residential/commercial/
institutional sites to assist adjacent property.
C. Related issues: Parking
Improved parking would be essential for area development. Areas outside
target area also have future development potential (e.g., Back Creek Marina
restaurant).
Parcels #34 and #37, and #36/#38 are conducive to restaurant development
(Jim Middleton).
18

i
Real demand for development within the target area appears to cluster into
three major categories: Restaurant, Housing, and Light Industry. A summary
of impact of these proposed future uses on construction of a town wastewater
system and is as follows:
Restaurants:
Broad community consensus exists to encourage development of an in -town
restaurant.. Five (5) specific sites were identifiedfromthe community
meeting:
1. Ampitbeatre Barn
2. Swindells Grocery
3.. Bath Guest House
4. Parcels 34/37
5. Parcels 36/38
There exists an apparent market for a modest family restaurant, to seat 50 to
75 persons during tourist season, operating with a 15 to 25.seat capacity
during the off season. The narrow margin of profit affordable by a class A
or B restaurant in this seasonable marketplace would negate any significant
contribution of capital to a clustered wastewater system. That is, a
restaurant would more likely follow, ratber,tban lead the development of
improved municiple wastewater capacity.
Housing:
A total of eleven vacant parcels, suitable for residential construction were
identified within the target area. Available residential in -fill sites for
single family detached or duplex units, on scattered parcels will not
generate sufficient volume of construction to significantly contribute to
capital costs of a central wastewater system. Rather, like the restaurant,
scattered site residential infill would most likely occur after
installation of a central system.
Parcels 77, 103, and 163 are suitable for clustered "patio home," duplex
townhouse, or single-family detached units. With a phased development plan,
parcels 103 and 163 could easily accommodate thirty (30) single-family units
on quarter acre lots, with sufficient land remaining to serve as
nitrification field for the entire town (See Wastewater Schematic Design 4).
Assuming the Town's willingness to provide development incentives to the
Developer/Owners of this property, the Developer may be able to provide
significant private capital contribution to construction of a central
wastewater system.
Light Industry:
Parcel #127, north of Bowen Avenue, was identified in the community meeting
as a potential site for light industry. With appropriate incentives from the
Town, the owner of this parcel has expressed an interest in developing a
small apparel manufacturing facility at this location. Assuming an expanded
19

employment base of 50 to 75 workers, attributable to this project, a
significant capital contribution to the cost of a central wastewater system
might be gained; especially due to the projects potential for leveraging
other sources of public capital due to job creation.
Otber.Opportunities Considered:
Other projects identified in the community meeting included a "Farmers Fish
Market" (Plot #20) and the need to accommodate wastewater at existing'marinas
(Plot #21).. Neither of these projects would generate sufficient revenue to
contribute, beyond their direct costs, to the construction of the overall
target area wastewater system..
Conclusions
Real demand for a centralized wastewater system in Bath, measured by the
ability of the marketplace to recruit private capital in its construction, is
likely to be derived from new development rather than from existing
residential and commercial uses. New development potentials identified
include a moderate density residential subdivision and addition of a small
scale, light industry.
Upon completion of the system, pent-up market demand for residential and
commercial in —fill will result in additional scattered site development, as
an aid to reducing operating costs.of the central system.
Individual acceptance of the additional dollar costs of central wastewater
treatment must be tied to that individual's desire to achieve larger goals of
community development.
'New development within the community must make a significant capital
contribution to construction of the central system, to reduce operating costs
to existing residents.
20

NITRIFICATION PTM ANALYSIS
AM SELECTION
Once the need and demand for wastewater treatment has been determined,
"potential" nitrification fields must be selected and detailed soil analysis
conducted.
Based upon the need,to identify one or more nitrification fields within close
proximity to the target area, ten alternative sites were selected in Bath.
These sites were selected through a review of the vacant land survey and
interviews with the Beaufort County Sanitarian. The local sanitarian has
knowledge not only of the soil characteristics of the area, but also knows
the location of existing drainage fields.
Following the selection of the potential nitrification fields, the County
Sanitarian conducted on —site investigations and soil boring tests. Based
upon their findings, and in accordance with State regulations, the fields
were judged either suitable, unsuitable or provisionally suitable (see
Chapter II for definitions). The results of this analysis are listed below:.
EXHIBIT C
NITRIFICATION FIELD SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Site Number
Suitability as Nitrification Field
124
Suitable
118/28/26
Unsuitable
107/105
Provisionally Suitable
104/63/100
Provisionally Suitable
71
Unsuitable
72
Unsuitable
77
Suitable
103/163
Provisionally Suitable
117
Suitable
152
Suitable
Those sites identified as "suitable" (See Exhibit D) were next subjected to
additional soil borings and tests by Dr. James Wang, of Wang Engineering.
His findings.indicate that the Town of Bath has potential wastewater
nitrification field soil types 2A, 26 and 43 (See Exhibits E & F below):
21

EXHIBIT D
HISTORIC
BATH
NORTH CAROLINA
--_Bplye Small
V--- 127 Alternative Wastewater System
; 3 4 ITA L 128 Demonstration
160,000 atpuusoaapblae
\�� ❑ 5 e�O to GPp/sl city 128
w/ simultaneous use
El1 ❑ 6 ! x for 071cultun ❑ 1290 /13300, )I' LEGEND:
/� ❑ 8- 24 X D ❑' u Q 11w1e..11.1 x iNl Nrini tNt all..
��� 4 ❑10
125 131 O To.w waar was
/ ...T 11232 ❑ ❑1 � arnuol t Tariat Araa
I120 ��—23 24 25 c, .��. ►ol«u.l»rrmll—rr.,s..u.
j\ 17 C ❑ © ❑ 119 12 D123 135 13d ID a.uwl wo.l
❑ ❑ ❑ 122 13d 3d 137 166
�8
I 21 22 26 11t 1 Glrteret reef © D D V 139
I _ ❑ ❑ ITABLE -
C _ 27 © 1 Ljjpoor *oils
29 ❑ ❑ 8x 118 D 140
�� 30 © D
x x 141
31 ❑ 32 E v D14SUITABLE O O
\\ 125,000 at useable
3 ❑ �"� �_ D 31.250 GPD capacUy / C 166
34 00.2g9 GPD/af w/ 164
5 ® ❑ O 117 olrpult�lacte Yse for / / 1� C/
�i / 7 .cDDoo Lcr.auon
117
% •ram ' Q W
�— 9 B 40 1llX
� x
\ 41 42 ; r
\ L_ ❑ � J O x
ITABLE
'\ 44 ❑ 43 X 400.000 of useable
I� 6❑ ❑ 45 I I ALL 100.000 GPD capacity
47 ter• a 0.2S GPD/of ar/
1 rprous
48 ❑ ❑ 49 Pool lolls ❑ ,09 ❑ 143 -�� 1 152 %fic�lture we for
0
Ir-❑ N ❑ s1 x 107 x 144 O �, J
`p14 Bath 25 ❑ ❑ 64I 105 146 ❑ 1s2 X
Creek 156 106 ❑ 'j /14 153
e Q57 Q 151 ❑ QD�TTT 62
rL�j i5s 157
1 I rave" ❑ ❑/ 1581 1D Doc
1
104 treet
/ 59 / D 60 I ��
�
\ 62 63 ❑❑ 3
,1 IA° I x D x
1/ 5 Q ' PA° ALLY /X,
X
64 STAA C65 Poor Bells x103
6 I 67 r SUITABLE O D
1.pppppp pppppp .af
653,000 l uwaDle
100 163,350 GPD capacity
♦ 0.25 GPD/at r./
68 �=•�.s—
/ 9 Q ❑ 102 slmult n pus use l
la jag Cullure l
\ \ x71 ° 101
1
\ 96 - '.
\ L 97 D
\\ ( 73 / 2 ` PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE /� TARGET AREA
setback 1lm11611 /) ' 98 aoltlaerstiwly high water x r SHOWING POTENTIAL
table
\� (Q j NITRIFICATION FIELDS
\\ 76❑ x X ❑9
74 Back
❑94 Creek
77 93
\ 75 92 \ I
N ITABLE` .91
poor aoils90
\ \
89 (, Planning d Design Associates, P.A.
C3 wee! 88 I / a.0 o..,.w....... • a...r.nc cr.n ..,wm..00.
78 79 Tarry Atlas Ma TNe YlcMal sail.
80 82 D 87
' O ( 01— er: W. WIllh.mo
\ t
\ 83 84 85 V \ Ca.ca.e ar: T. Alford r M . Suits
I Daa: = IOWf 1%i w w
���� I / M•I.lon.• �rwary taa3
1 . 22

EXHIBIT E
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL TYPE 2A
Name: Typical Pedon: State silt loam on 3% slope
Taxonomic
Class:
Fine loamy, Mixed tbermic typic
bapludults
Depth
Clay
Moist Bulk
Permeability
pH
(in)
(x)
Dens�i5y
(in/br)
(G/CM- )
0-10
5-15
1.25-1.40
0.6-6.0
4.5-5.5
0-10
10-18
1.20-1.35
0.6-2.0
4.5-5.5
0-10
2-8
1.35-1.45
2.0-6.0
4.5-5.5
10-45
18-34
1.35-1.50
0.6-2.0
4.5-5.5
45-60
2-15
1.35-1.50
2.0
4.5-6.0
Soil Type 2A has a large range of soil
characteristics
for top soil of 0-10".
EXHIBIT F
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL TYPES 26 and 43
Typical Pedon: Altavista fine sandy loam - cultivated
Taxonomic Class: Fine loamy, mixed thermic acquic bapludults
Depth Clay Moist Bulk Permeability pH
(in) M Densi y (in/br)
(G/C)
0-12 7-15 1.4-1.6 2.0-2.0 4.5-6.0
0-12 10-24 1.3-1.5 2.0-6.0 4.5-6.0
12-42 18-35 1.3-1.5 0.6-6.0 4.5-6.0
Soil codes No. of 26 and 43 are the same type except No. 26 indicates more
surface cover by development.
Additionally, a laboratory test for saturated soil hydraulic conductivity was
conducted at the potential nitrification field (lot numbers of 72, 103, 117
and 124) with soil samples collected at the depths of 0-12", 12"-24", and
24"-48." The hydraulic conductivity test results indicated that lot no. 72
is not suitable for wastewater treatment due to low permeability less than 5
cm/hr on the average. The other lot numbers of 103, 117 and 124 are suitable
for wastewater treatment with the average saturated hydraulic conductivcity
about 20 cm/br.
23

Based on the soil type, permeability, water table depth and location of the
sites, the wastewater loading rate for a low2pressure system was designed to
be 0.15 gpd/ft for lot no. 124, 0.25 gpd/ft for lots no. 103 and no.
117.
This data led to the calculation of the nitrification field acreage
requirement for treating the domestic wastewater, and system design was
developed, as presented in Chapter VI.
24

CHAPm VI
SYSTEMS DESIGN & COST ESTIHATES
Data regarding need, demand and constraints of the soils were incorporated
into the following schematic design studies prepared for the target area.
Preliminary engineering designs were also prepared by.James Wang, PhD., P.E.
and Terry Alford, MRP, AIA based on both conventional collection system
technology and low pressure nitrification field layout derived from
Dr. Wang's soils analysis.
Cost estimates were derived from actual construction data on projects built
in the North Carolina and South Carolina coastal region within the past two
years.
Four alternative geographic layouts were evaluated. Design criteria, cost
estimates and schematic layouts for each are provided in the following
Schematics 1 — 4.
A comparison of each of these schematic designs indicates the lowest cost per
book —up for construction of a single system to serve the entire target area.
25

SCHEMATIC WASTEH2O DESIGN 1
FISHERMAN'S MARKET CLUSTER
I
LA ❑_
LZ -
NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 10
TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 4,100 GPD
(future demand)
COST ESTIMATE:
$75 , 0004100, 000
I. COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. 6" GRAVITY.LINE
625 lin.ft.
B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP
SYSTEM
C. 6" FORCE MAIN
500 lin.ft.
tt
a
_J
— 26
u,
F
II.
H=RlC
BATH
NoRTM
Lw
II. STABILIZATION & PUMPING
SYSTEM
Seotic Tank/Pumnine Tank
III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(PARCEL 124)
Area Useable: 160,000 sf
CaDacitv•. 24,000 GPD
@ .15 GPD/SF with
Simultaneous use
for Agriculture.

SCHEMATIC WASTEH2O DESIGN 1
FISHERMAN'S MARKET CLUSTER
Existing and Projected System Demand
Parcel
Existing Use Description
GPD
Proposed Use (MAX)
GPD
NO..
Description
7
Residence
300
Same -- -
300
9
Vacant
Two-family Residential
600
12
Residential
300
Same
300
13
Residential
300
Same
300
15
Residential
300
Same
300
16
Commercial (Auto service station)
500
Same: 25% gal/H20
closet or unused x 2
equals 500 gpd
Soo
17
Vacant
17, 19, 20 combined
into Public Farmer's
19
Vacant
Fish Mkt., Fisherman's
20
Vacant
Public Wharf. (Assume
1500
10
Residence
300
5 gpd per visitor for
300
max. of 40 visitors/
day + 2SO gal ea. for
5 H2O closets or urinal
TOTAL
2000
GPD
4100 GPD
27

SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2
MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER
4-13
r == O
24 t ,
s,
I. A n o
�- ALI. CB
y 47 v r
w
so we
31
,os
Bath u
`u sa
Crook 1 sa
c7 0
r f,
61 so
NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 27
TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 10.380
(future demand)
COST ESTIMATE:
$85.000-$120,000
a.. f
ago#* AW
H=R1C
BATH
NORTH G ou"
mom" WWWMAW op"
I. COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. 6" GRAVITY LINE
1,000 lin.ft.
B. INTERMEDIATE•PUMP
SYSTEM
C. 6" FORCE MAIN
1,300 lin.ft.
II. STABILIZATION 6 PUMPING
SYSTEM
Seutic Tank/PumDine Tank
III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(PARCEL 117)
Area Useable:125,000 sf
Capacity: 31,250 sf
@ .25 GPD/SF with
Simultaneous use for
School Recreation.

SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2
SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER DESIGN
MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER
Historic Bath, N.C.
EXISTING
& PROJECTED SYSTEM DEMAND
Parcel
Existing Use
GPD
Proposed Use (Max.)
GPD
No.
Description
Description
MARINA -MOTEL
21
Marina/Motel 10 gpd/Boatslip
200
Existing + 8 Additional rooms
1,880
for 20 slips
@ 120 gal/room/day
120 gal/room/day
720
22
Residence
300
27
Commercial - Grocery. Store @
400
Existing + small Delicatessan/
1,200
200 ga/1000 S.F.
Restaurant w/ 20 seats at 40 gal.
per seat/day
29
Residence
300
Same
300
30
Commercial
400
Same
400
31
Vacant
-
Single Family Residence
300
32
Residence
300
Same
300
33
Residence
300
Same
300
34
Commercial
300
Same
300
Residence
300
Same
300
35
Residence/Commercial (sail shop)
300
Same
36
Residence
300
Same
300
Residence
300
Same
300
SUBTOTAL:
4,420
5,880
GPD
GPD
(continued)
29

38
39
40
41
43
44
46
47
48
49
5.0
51
52
53
54
55
SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2
SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER DESIGN
MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER
Historic Bath, N.C.
Vacant
Residence
Vacant
Residence
Residence
Residence.
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
MIDTOWN
-
Vacant
-
300
Same
300
-
Residence
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
4,200
4,500
GPD
GPD
8,840
10,380
GPD
GPD
30

SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 3
BED 6 BREAKFAST (South End) CLUSTER
t ss Cl
Bath ss
Crook f1 is
�" oaf '0❑
III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(PARCEL 103)
Area Available: 1,000,OOOsf
Area Useable: 660,OOOsf
Capacity: 163,3SOGPD
@ .2S GPD/SF with
Simultaneous
Agricultural use.
NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 9
TOTAL GPD DISPERSED:4,460
(future demand)
COST ESTIMATE:
$75,000-$100,000
n
HWORic
BATH
MOM CAFAXX"
saw
A11r�.rw WWWN" *,am
o.•u.uww
I. COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. 6/1 GRAVITY LINE
6SO lin.ft.
B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP
SYSTEM
C. 6" FORCE MAIN
700 lin.ft.-
rI. STABILIZATION $ PUMPING
SYSTEM
Septic Tank/Pum oina Tank

SCHEMATIC WASTEH2O DESIGN 3
BED $ BREAKFAST (SOUTH END) CLUSTER
Existing & Potential System Demand
Parcel Existing Use
No.
Description
56
Residence
58
Residence
61
(two) residences
59
Residence
59A
Residence
63
Residence
66
Commercial (Bed & Breakfast)
(8 rooms @ 120/room)
57
Episcopal Church
5 gal/seat @ 120 seats
GPD Proposed Use (Max.) GPD
Description
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
600
Same
600
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
300
Same
300
960
Expand restaurant to
1260
20 seats 860+800
600
600
3060 4460
TARGET AREA TOTAL:
Design #
Sub -Area Cluster Name
Existing Demand (GPD)
Future Demand (GPD)
1
Fisherman's Market Cluster
23,000
4,100
2
Marina Motel/Midtown Cluster
8,840
10,380
3
Bed & Breakfast Cluster
3,060
4,460
TARGET AREA TOTAL
13,900
18,940
32

SCHEMATIC WASTEH2O DESIGN 4 HISTORIC
COMPREHENSIVE CLUSTER BATH
NOMCAFAXIMA
Iw...u.. rw..w..r «.r..
l
LA �.
;2
LB�
LA2.
IF
NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 46
'DOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 18,940
(future demand)
COST ESTIMATE:
$175,000-$200,000
I- COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. 6" GRAVITY LINE
I.North Section:
1500 lin.ft.
2.South Section:
650 lin.ft.
B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP
SYSTEM
C. 6" FORCE MAIN"
750 lin.ft.
IT. STABILIZATION & PUMPING
SYSTEM
Septic Tank/Pumoin¢ Tank
ZII DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(PARCEL 103)
Area Available: 1,Oe0,000s,
Area Useable: 660,000sf
Capacity: 163,350GPD
@.25 GPD/SF with
Simultaneous
A¢riculture use.

SCHEMATIC WASTEHZO DESIGN 4
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Components of Cost
Estimated Cost
I. COLLECTION SYSTEM
A. 6" Gravity Lines:
1. North Section: 1500 lin. ft.
@ assumed average depth of
9 ft. @ $14 per lin. ft.
$21,000
2. Tunneling below Highway 92
1,200
3. South Section: 650 lin, ft.
@ assumed average depth of
6 ft. @ $12.50 per lin. ft.
8,125
SUBTOTAL
$30,325
B. Intermediate Pump Station
1. Pumping Tank w/2 pumps
.12,000
2. Standby Power generator
7,000
3. Pump House & Accessories
18,000
SUBTOTAL
37,000
C. 6" Force Main
1. Home Run: 750 lin. ft.
@ assumed average depth
of 3 ft. @ $8.00 per lin. ft.
6,000
SUBTOTAL
6,000
COLLECTION SYSTEM TOTAL
$73,325
II. STABILIZATION $ PUMPING SYSTEM
20,000
A. Septic Tank (assumed 20,OOO gallons),
and
B. Pumping Tank (assumed 10,000 gallons).
STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM TOTAL
20,000
III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
A. Distribution lines for 20,000 gpd
field @ 2� ft. depth for agricultural
use above.
30,000
30,000
B. Land Lease: Assumes allocation of
NONE
of 200,000 sq. ft. from parcel 103.
SUBTOTAL I, II, III
$123,325
34

SCHEMATIC WASTEH20
DESIGN 4
Components of Cost
Estimated Cost
IV. FEES $ PERMITS
A. Engineering, Topographic,
utility, soils 8 property
survey
$8,000
B. Planning 8 Engineering Design,
Construction 8 Bid Documents,
8 Construction Administration.
15,000
C. Attorney/Accountant Fees
5,000
D. Miscellaneous Permits, Reimbursable
Expenses, 8 Town Admin. Costs
3,000
TOTAL FEES 8 PERMITS
$31,000
SUBTOTAL I - IV
154,325
V. CONTINGENCY @ 15% (I - IV)
23,150
GRAND TOTAL:
$177,475
VI. ILLUSTRATIVE FINANCING
A. Base Costsl
177,500
B. Misc.Admin. 8 Closing Costs @ 4%
7,100
C. Assumed. Loan Principal
$184,600
D. Loan Assumptions
PV 185,000
%I = 5%
Term = 30 years
E. Monthly Payments
993
F. Annual Payment
11,917
G. Monthly Cost/Hook-up assuming
50 hook-ups
19.86
Notes
1Base costs do not include estimated average unit initial hook-up
charges of $400/unit.
35

After delineating alternative schematics and considering costs, an assessment
of local ordinances, and of system management and maintenance alternatives
must be conducted.
1. Local Ordinances.
First, towns should determine what changes in local ordinances would be
required to accommodate (or control) the proposed system. In Bath, a
community -wide system will serve the R1, R2, B1, and B2 Zoning Districts.
All of these districts already have densities, etc. established at levels
desirable when the town gets public sewer. No changes in that ordinance are
necessary. The town will consider a sewer ordinance to establish permitted.
types of hook-ups, types of waste permitted in the system, rates, etc. The
Town of Bath does not have subdivision regulations.
Next, the town should consider what easements: will be required to allow the
system to cross private property outside of the public rigbt-of-way, and
perhaps for the subsurface use rights in the nitrification field itself. In
Bath, these easements will be drawn by the local attorney and .will be
financed as an allowable cost under FmHA (see Chapter VIII).
2. Management and Maintenance.'
The Town should estimate the management and maintenance systems which will be
required. In the case of Bath, Schematic #4 was used as a basis for
estimating the management and maintenance for a community -wide system. (It
is important to emphasize that a considerable amount of planning and
engineering is yet required in order to determine the final cost of any
community -wide system. The numbers shown in this chapter and in Chapter VIII
are preliminary_ estimates).
The community should determine what agency will oversee the management and
maintenance. For Bath, Mr. Donnie Woolard, sanitarian, and Mr. Richard
Clayton, Head Sanitarian, Beaufort Co. Health Department, were contacted
regarding the Bath Management Alternatives. Assumed for discussion purposes
was 18,940 gallons per day (GPD), with 46 units, pumps and septic tank (for
the target area) and 60,500 GPD for 121 units for the whole community.
36

Mr. Woodard stated that if the system is publicly owned, the regional
engineer of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(Roger Thorpe, whose office is in Washington, N. C.) will determine the
classification of operator required. If it is privately owned, the County
Health Department will monitor the operator of the private company. The law
separates oversight according to ownership category (rather than technology,
flow, etc.).
Since the proposed system is to be publicly owned, Mr. Thorpe was contacted
to determine the class of operator required. He stated that both the target
area system and community -wide systems would require only a Class I operator,
based upon a point system which allocates points for pumps, flow and tank.
From the aforementioned assumptions, Mr. Thorpe said that the Batb system
would get no more than 10 points for the target area and only slightly more
for the extra flow from a community -wide approach. The bracket for. Class I
is 1 to 25 points. Class II goes from 26 to 36 or so, on up to a Class IV.
Any Class higher can operate a lower class system.
Next, the community should determine the organizational arrangement that is
to manage the system. Class I provides that a local official of the Town of
Bath (or someone with experience in operating a system) can operate the
system. Mr. Ed Warren, training director for NRCD in Washington, said that
someone without experience could acquire a temporary certificate and attend
classes, take an exam and gain the required experience under the temporary
certificate, thereby qualifying upon passing the exam. Mr. Warren stated
that there are several contracting firms that communities can contact for
terms, fees, etc. He provided the NRCD computer list of Class I and Class II
operators and Commercial Laboratories in North Carolina which communities may
choose to contact in designing their own management and maintenance systems
(see Appendix D).
Finally, communities should talk with qualified operators and other experts
to determine the type and level of management and maintenance required on
site and determine what types of maintenance contractual arrangements are
best suited for the Town. In the Bath instance, Mr. John Melvin (of Environ-
ment I, Greenville), Dr. Jim Wang, P.E. (Wang Engineering) and PDA were
consulted.
37

Since Bath has capable and trainable local administrative personnel, and
contracting engineers with lab facilities are nearby (Greenville, etc.), a
two-tier management process is recommended. Tasks ,(Exhibit G) and
preliminary budget (Exhibit H) for a community -wide system are as follows:
EXHIBIT G
PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT TASKS, BY PERSONNEL TYPE
Assumptions:
System consists of collection lines,
3 collection pumps, interceptor line,
1 interceptor pump, two rectangular septic tanks and
the septic field. 121 units served.
Local Land
Preventive maintenance, minor repairs, monitoring and
Management
reporting.
Tasks:
Maintain warranty: each day monitor the pumps and the
second rectangular tank (water); check first tank
(sludge decomposition and sand accumulation) periodi-
cally. Make judgements and reports to consulting
engineer. Supervise pumpout as needed.*
Contracting
Assure initial operation of system.
Engineer
Visit site monthly.
(Operator
Review report
Company):
Intervene to trouble -shoot as requested.
Take samples; analyze and respond.
38

EXHIBIT
S
PRELIMINARY BUDGET, BATH ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Item Mo. Cost
Annual Cost
Local Operator
$250
$3,000
Bookkeeping
20
120
Contracting Operator
300
3,600
Lab Services
30
360
Electricty to run pumps
200
2,400
Pump out honey —wagon*
(per visit) .
25
300
Contingency for repairs, etc.
50
600
$865
$10,380
According to FmHA, the cost of $10,380
dollars per
year would compute to cost
of $7.88/month. Average for comparable
systems in
N. C. ranges between $5
and $10 (See Cbapter VIII for complete
preliminary
budget, for wbicb
management and maintenance is one line
item.) -
*It is recommended by Alton Hodge, NRCD Environmental Engineer, that this
system be pumped out more often than a single family system, possibly on a
two to three year period. This should prevent solids from clogging the
system.
39

C•' - ;jr�4,p**
In earlier days, even small coastal communities could engage in sophisti—
cated waste treatment systems,financed heavily by Environmental Proection
Agency (EPA) funds. This practice has been drastically curtailed by federal
cutbacks in EPA (in FY183, North Carolina was allocated only $35 million,
financing approximately 8 projects per year), and by moratoria from dumping
municipal wastes into surface waters (e.g., the Chowan, Trent and Neuse
Rivers). Thus, communities interested in alternative wastewater treatment
systems must engage in creative financing strategies.
The Town of Bath found that the constraints (i.e., eligibility requirements,
timing, etc.) of several funding sources posed particular problems for small
communities.
One of the most significant factors in Bath is the need to develop an
alternative system for the entire community, rather than for a particular
target area.
Below is the array of funding sources developed for Bath by extrapolating.
Schematic 4 to cover the entire community. Each source is considered in .
turn, enumerating critical points which led to its selection in or exclusion
from the recommended course of financing, and its preliminary dollar amounts.
Alternative Funding Sources
The funding sources considered by the Town of Bath include the following:
1. Sale of Revenue Bonds backed by the Tax Base of the Community or
use of Tax Increment Financing.
Tax increment financing could be used,,in which case a bond referendum could
be held and bonds sold with which to undertake the project. As lots are sold
and reassessed for higher taxes (that is, improved), the tax "increment"
(value of the improved property minus previous value times the tax rate) will
be used to retire the bonds. It is doubtful, however, that a place as small
as Bath with a project cost of less than $500,000 would be marketable under
this option. Pay back may be unsure as well, with a limited municipal budget
($18,000), indicating the type of situation which led the State to get into
the Clean Water Bond business in the first place.
40

2. Developer. Incentives
Real demand (that is, ability and propensity to pay by private individuals)
is often required by third party funding sources (such as Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA), which.requires that each household on the wastewater
treatment system pay $100 per year for debt service). Also, actual growth
and development of opportunity projects is often a fundamental piece of
generating a strong base from which to generate sources of revenue (whether
user fees or taxes).
In the latter case, the Town's cost of acquiring land may be foregone by
accepting dedication of land by the developer for the treatment field.
Other public/private partnership options available for towns which select
alternative systems include involving the land owner in the deal, such as
leasing the field rather than purchasing it; leasing the land or selling the
owner the wastewater as fertilizer during periods of simultaneous
agricultural uses (aeeeation systems only); or acquiring leasehold interest
(easements) for the use rights on the sub -surface.
Alternatively, a town may engage the landowner in a form of "value increment
financing." In this case, a developer's lots are enhanced in value (first,
by making them marketable and second, by generating a bigher.price) largely
through the spillover effect of the use of public funds (FmHA, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), local taxes, etc.) to plan and install the
community septic system. Upon sale of the lots, the developer would "pay
back" part of this increased value by paying part of the local share of the
financing package (that is, the money could go to help amortize a FmHA loan,
for instance). In this case, the buyers get a dependable septic system at a
cost under that of an individual rate, the developers get a better return on
their land, and the Town gets a portion of its wastewater treatment cost
paid.
In contrast to these advantages, the disadvantages include the fact that the
vacant land which is centrally located and near enough to residences to
reduce the cost of the collection system, may be inappropriate for
agricultural use of the pretreated waste. Also, the issues of fair market
value of the lease or dedication would have to be adequate to entice a land
owner to participate at rates comfortable to the town. This could be
proceeded upon a case by case basis.
3. Farmers Home Administration Community Facilities Program
The Farmers Home Administration Community Facilities Program provides both
loan and grant opportunities to communities like Bath, but for community -
wide programs rather than for target areas or partial -community programs.
The loan programs will cover up to 75% of the total project costs, except for
operation and maintenance and individual hook-up fees. To qualify for the
loan, a town must have a median family income below 85% of the State's median
family income level. The 1980 census indicates that Bath does qualify, with
a median.family income of $10,000 which is below the required amount (NC
$15,249 x .85 . $12,961.65). This median income level also qualifies the
town for the intermediate interest rate of 7-3/8%, rather than the full rate
41

Additionally, if Batb meets two additional criteria, namely, median family
income below the national poverty level (now $9,300) and presence of a health
problem related to wastewater treatment, the Town would qualify for a 5%
loan. In either case, the Town must pay $100 per year per household for debt
service (based upon $1.00 per thousand dollars of median family income).
FmHA also provides a combination of the loan and grant program. Allowable
costs and logistics of the grant portions of FmHA are explained in Exhibit I
below.
Advantages of the FWU program include that it is conveniently available and
well suited for small communities, and it caters to innovative and
alternative systems.
Disadvantages include FmHA's requirement of a community -wide approach rather
than a portion or target area. (However, small areas with few units served
are rarely cost effective, regardles of the type of financing used).
4. Community Development Block Grant.
Developm-nt Planning Grants (of up to $10,000) and Community Revitalization
Grants (CR) (of up to $750,000) are competitively available tbrougb the NC
Department of Natural Resources and Community Develoment, Division of
Community Assistance. The former will finance the preparation of a full CR
application for wastewater treatment in which the analysis would be expanded
from the target area to a broader based program (increased number of units).
The larger Community Revitalization Grant will pay for planning and
administration, and construction of the system in a target area of 80%
low -to -moderate income persons, with a local option of up to 20% of the total
dollar amount used to benefit persons 50% of whom are classified as
low -to -moderate income.
Advantages of using the CDBG Sm-ll Cities Program include that the timing for
this application is excellent, with the application deadline of May 2. The
fact that Bath has never received CDBG funds before is consistent with
State's priorities for the Development Planning Grant. Additionaly, the
extensive work placed into the CAMA Demonstration for the target area may be
adequate to develop a full application for the target area (Schematic 4) if
the cost per household is cost effective.
Disadvantages include bigb monthly costs per unit, based upon only 46 units.
The CDBG staff considers the grant amount per unit served and the grant
amount per low -and -moderate unit served. In both cases, the basis cost of
the target area system ($177,745 plus book -ups (400 x 46--$18,400)), plus
(15% for planning and administration) warrants a CR Block Grant of $245,181.
For 46 units in Schematic 4, this renders a grant amount of $5,330 per
recipient, which may not be competitive with other systems using larger
numbers of recipients (for example, a city-wide system, assuming 100% less
low -to -moderate income residents, would qualify $411,765 divided by 121 a
$3,403, a 56% reduction in cost per household).
42

This latter determination of grant per unit served indicates that a
Development Planning Grant may be in order to better design the project,
especially in light of the CDBG requirements of leveraging other public and
private funds, which FmHA and DEM, plus the developer incentive posture
above, avail to the Town of Bath.
Advantages of the Development Planning Grant ($10,000) include their low cost
of preparation and their utility in marshalling additional funds.
Disadvantages are minimal, if any.
Advantages of the larger grant include the fact that 100% of the costs are
allowable to.low and moderate income. It also provides an attractive
opportunity to pay for only the connection fees as referenced above.
5. Clean Water Bond Act of 1977.
The state previously bad two accounts for wastewater funds: one for
localities (counties, etc.) which would have funded collection lines, and a
separate statewide account which only funds the interceptor system and
treatment systems. In Beaufort County, $25,000 lapsed into the statewide
account last year, and there are no other funds available for collection,
etc.
In a February.8, 1983 interview, Herb Davis of the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) indicated the following regarding Clean Water Bond funds:
In order to qualify for Clean Water Bond Funds, Bath must have a federal
grant (either FmHA or CDBG will do). Clean Water Bond funds will not pay for
any collection lines within the town limits but will pay for the interceptor
if it's inside. If there are pumps on the interceptor line or preliminary
treatment (septic) tanks, they will pay for them as well.
The DEM money will pay for the lesser of 25% of the eligible costs or
one-half of the non-federal share.
The Clean Water Bond application must go through both A-95 (state and
regional) review (regional means the Mid -East Commission in Washington and
the State means the NRCD office (Mr. Roger Thorpe) in Washington). This
includes an impact statement, an engineering assessment, etc.
Clean Water Bond funds are available only if the system receives a permit,
and only if the other funding sources show firm commitment.
43

There may be new Clean Water Bond money from the.State if the sales tax (new
bill) passes, or if there is a general referendum statewide for such
purposes.
Advantages of the Clean Water Bond funds include the fact that they are in
grant form rather than loan,and in this case, pay for a major portion of the
system's cost (Bath's system is treatment heavy rather than collection
heavy).
Disadvantages are minimal, the requirement for receiving another federal
grant may be critical however, though minimized in this case by the FmHA
grant (see Exhibit I).
6. Coastal Area Management Act Implementation Demonstration.
In its new regulations for Local Planning and Management Funds (February 7,
1983), the Office of Coastal Management establishes highest priority for
"demonstration projects which can be used by more than one local government."
The second category (50% to 67% grant funded) includes projects which are
coastally dependent (water -related) or projects to implement the land use
directing policies in the approved local land use plan such as public
facilities planning.
Since CAMA has invested in the preparation of the Bath Land Use Plan and the
current demonstration project for facilities planning, there is a good basis
for applying for continuation funds to expand this demonstration to the total
area of Bath. Coordinating benefits among funding sources is worth
demonstrating, as is the continuation of this on -going planning program, and
this work related directly to implementation of an officially adopted CAMA
Land Use Plan.
Advantages include the timelines of the funding cycle and the value of
continuing a planning process already in process. Disadvantages are minimal.
Barriers to Financing
Time frames for many of the aforementioned funding sources do not lend
themselves to coordination. For example:`
Funding Source Application Date Award Date
CDBG May 2 July 2
FmHA April 1 June
Clean Water Bond March 1 July
The problem comes when the CDBG program requires creative leveraging (in this
case, of FmHA and CWB), which means that firm letters of commitment from
these sources must be in -hand at least by May 2, a month or two prior .to the
FmHA decision (June). The meeting of the Coastal Management Commission
(July).
44

The Recommended Course of Financing
Based upon the foregoing consideration of financial strategies, it is
recommended that the Town of Bath apply for several sources of financing
simultaneously. These include the FmHA and Clean Water Bond (Strategy 1),
the CDBG Community Revitalization Grant (Strategy 2), and the CAMA Grant
(Strategy 3).
Strategy l is illustrated in detail in Exhibit I. Discussions with Mr. John
Soles, FmHA (919-755-4640), strongly suggests that proposal to FmHA be for
community -wide system. This means that Schematic 4, (see Chapter VI), is
actually either the first phase of such a program or the basis for expansion
in a community -wide system design using the latter approach, extrapolating
costs and revenues for the target area to a preliminary community -wide
budget. It is important to emphasize that this budget is preliminary and
that considerable planning and engineering work is yet required to finalize
this attractive financial strategy.
Strategy 2 consists of applying for a CDBG Development Planning grant with
which to finance the estimated $48,400 for hooking up the homes of low -to -
moderate income households and related planning and administration. The Town
may also apply for a smaller Development Planning Grant of up to $10,000 to
plan a more comprehensive application for subsequent CDBG cycle.
Strategy 3 consists of applying for a $7,000 CAMA Demonstration Grant for
expansion of the original analysis to the rest of the community. This
analysis could provide the basis for a full CDBG application next cycle.
45

FINANCIAL STRATEGY 1
FmHA DEM
PRELIMINARY ONLY
One-time Annual.
Use of Funds: Total Construction Costs $350,000 -0-
Debt Service on $154,0002 12,174
Operation and Maintenance 3 10,380
Subtotal 22,562
Hook-up Costs of $400 per
Housebold 48,400
(times 121)
Source of Funds: FmHA Loan 154,000
DEM Grant (Clean Water
Bond) 5 61,000
FmHA Grant 135,000
Subtotal 350,000
EXHIBIT I
Montbly
-0-
8.39
7.15
15
Hook-up payments of
$400 per House -
bold (times 121)
48,400
1Total Project Costs for this budget are assumed at $350,000.
The
following is a sample budget for this
amount, and for $451,000:
Construction
$271,618
$350,000
Legal: Bond Attorney, N.Y.
3,104
4,000
Local Attorney
3,104
4,000
Interest
8,538
11,000
(on $154,000 loan)
Land Cost (right of way acquisition)
3,880 *
5,000
A/E Fees
32,594
42,000
Contingency (based upon .10 of
Construction Costs
27,162
35,000
Total Project Costs
350,000
451,000
If the project cost goes to $451,000,
then the FmHA Grant
would be expanded
to make the average monthly user costs
in line with other
comparable systems
or better (here, better is $15.44)(see
Note 6).
*This line item may increase to include
additional funds
from FmHA/DEM for
acquisition of easements or fee simple
purcbase.
46

Notes to Strategy 1 - FmHA/DEM
2The Amount required by FmHA for debt services, given median family income
of $10,000 is $100 per household per year, or 100 x 121 users - $12,100.
This $12,100 will amortize a loan amount of $153,068 (at 7-3/8% interest).
FmHA requires that loan amounts be rounded up to the nearest thousand
dollars, rendering the $154,000 as shown. It also requires that having
adjusted the loan amount, a debt service factor of $79.05/1000 be applied, to
render the debt service amount at $12,174 as shown. The maximum loan under
FmHA is 75% of the construction costs (in this example, $271,618 times .75 or
$203,714. Note: since the loan is to a local government, it is deemed part
of the local (non-federal) share).
3See Chapter VII.
4Clean Water Bond (CWB) pays only for the treatment system, in-
cluding the interceptor, inceptor lines, preliminary treatment tanks and if
critical, acquisition of the treatment field. CWB will grant the lesser of
25% of eligible costs or one-half of the non-federal share, whichever is
less. 69.7% of the $350,000 is 244,000 x .25 - $61,000. Half the non -local
share is $154,000 divided by - $77,000, therefore.rendering the lesser amount
$61,000) as the grant amount.
5Determined by subtracting the subtotal $215,000 (loan - $154,000 +
grant $61,000) from total construction costs ($350,000)).
FmHA has a maximum allowable grant of 75% of the allowable costs in
this case $203,714 (determined by multiplying construction costs of $271,618
times .75). In this case, with the average monthly rate of $15.44, it is
unlikely that Bath would get a higher grant amount,if the total costs remain
$350,000.
6The Town of Bath will have to issue General Obligation Bonds to
qualify for the FmHA Loan. A public referendum is required. FmHA will
purchase the Bonds with the loan amount (here, $154,000) and the tax base of
Bath will stand behind the bonds.
Maximum amount of the FmHA loan is usually 8% of the tax value (which
for Bath may be between $5 and $10 million. At any rate, a waiver can be
easily achieved to get the FmHA loan.
FmHA makes sure that the systems it loans to are self-sufficent. If in
the event it is not, the city will, under the GO bonds regulations, levy
taxes to pay for the system.
The town will have to issue bond anticipation notes in order to finance
the initial construction of the system (estimated that a six month period
will expend half of the construction budget). FmHA will lend the Town funds
at 8% to 10% to pay the interest on the six months of borrowing (say $7,000
or $8,000), plus, the amount required to pay for the bond anticipation notes,
totaling $18,000 to $20,000.
7Hook-up fee: This cost is an eligible cost under the FmHA loan
program. However, this will require clear easement on each of the 121
properties (signed by the homeowner, storeowner, etc.) and either brought by
the Town or donated to the Town.
47

Developing the easements will increase the legal fees associated with
land acquisition shown under Note 1.
Normally, the cost of connecting the house to the collector is left to
the individual bomeowner, with the city acting as an organizer. The city may
let a contract to one plumbing company to do the entire area, tbereby gaining
economies of scale and passing them on to the homeowner, etc. in the form of
reduced connection charges.
Connection fees are eligible under the CDBG program, usually as part of
a bousing rehabilitation project.
48

[M: /.i:j 4 *0 S.
VALUE FOR OTHER COASTAL CO?Rl MTIES
INTRODUCTION
This year, the Office Coastal Management of the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development funded five coastal demonstration
projects. The Town of Bath's Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plan is one of
them.
This chapter is an epilogue which reflects upon the wastewater treatment
situation in Bath and the -technical work undertaken to address that
situation. It highlights the strengths of that work which other communities
may wish to replicate, and exposes points upon which other communities may
wish to improve as they apply methods used in the Town of Bath.
Much of the demonstration value of the Bath Wastewater Treatment project lies
with its analysis of the situation, selection of planning methods, and
techniques of carrying out those methods. Additional value is found in its
emphasis upon making the plan become a reality (that is, establishing the
goal of installing an alternative system in Bath as a result of this, and
preceding work).
This chapter examines each of the Plan's chapters primarily from a
methodological standpoint. To gain the most from this chapter, it is best to
have read the entire document, and to refer to it while working through this
chapter.
ARTICULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF DE!lONSTRATION VALUE
Chapter I --Introduction
Prior to this project, the Town of Bath had proceeded t'-rough a model
planning sequence, beginning with its land use plan, update of its zoning
ordinance, amending its plan as necessary, undertaking a feasibility study of
a conventional treatment system, and then the study of alternative wastewater
systems. While it is not necessary to have completed all of these steps to
undertake this last study, it is important to realize that much of the
information upon which this report is based had been collected and digested
in a community -wide process before the wastewater treatment alternatives were
explored.
Thanks to the Coastal Area Management Act, many communities in North Carolina
have sustained planning efforts over time and, therefore, will be better
prepared to replicate this demonstration. Others may wish to emphasize the
public involvement mechanisms used in the Bath project (such as active
networking among private developers to stimulate commercial demand for the
49

wastewater treatment system, open worksessions with the Planning Board, and
interim.presentations to the Town Board) to prepare the community for this
type of study.
Cbapter II —Legal Constraints
The consideration of legal constraints is always important where innovation
is required. For this reason, a detailed collection and analysis of the
North Carolina General Statutes and regulations regarding septic systems was
undertaken at the outset.
The objective of putting this researcb "up —front" was to determine to what
extent the scope of work, planning techniques, and wastewater treatment
alternatives would be shaped by law. This procedure exposed communication
channels tbrougb which the planners and engineers later moved, and identified
strategies tbrougb wbich to meet (or cballenge) the constraints presented by
the regulations.
This assessment exposed that, while gains have recently been made in amending
state laws and rules to accommodate alternative wastewater treatment systems,
continued work needs to be done on 15 NCAC 2H (Section .0400) wbich restricts
septic systems in "high density areas." Apparently, this provision is more
suited to urban settings and is in great need of performance criteria vs.
prescriptive standards. A variance may be required for the coast to use
alternative systems.
This method of examining legal constraints early can help otber communities
avoid the pitfall of focusing too'beavily upon technical aspects while
leaving the political or financial aspects until later. (More on the
financial pitfall later in this chapter).
Chapter III --Target Area Selection
The metbod in which data -was collected and analyzed, and criteria established
for target area selection presented in Cbapter III is replicable in otber
communities.
The Batb Land Use Plan (CAMA) was a fundamental source of that data, as was
personal contact with the local county bealtb department sanitarians.
Through using an overlay technique of maps prepared for the land use plan
(bazards, unsuitable soils, land classification map, etc.) the areas suitable
for application of land intensive wastewater treatment systems were
identified.
Establisbment of criteria belped.narrow the field to a few sites wbich, after
preliminary workups, were presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board
selected a target area wbich became the focal point of the demonstration
project.
Chapter IV —Need and Demand Analysis
Many communities can learn from the manner in which the Bath project was
undertaken with attention to both public need and private demand for solution
of the community's problem.
50

Need, as defined in Chapter IV, revolves around public issues such as
adequacy (capacity and performance) of existing conventional septic tanks,
areas of known malfunction, etc. Much of this information was collected by a
house -to -house survey of 61 structures in the Target Area, a step which
removed the project from a paper -work study to a serious attempt to implement
a program. The consultant devised methods of classifying this information
and later rating the suitability of the existing systems with regard to the
future.
It was important to compare the results of the questionnaire with those of
the on -site surveys. This disclosed a low correlation, leaving discernment
of severity and interest on the part of the residents to other mechanisms,
such as the Planning Board meetings and follow-up phone calls and interviews.
In contrast to need, demand was characterized by the economic forces in the
marketplace that result in the willingness to spend money to obtain better
wastewater treatment facilities. Demand in Bath, as expected, is constrained
by fixed incomes (as reflected in a low median family income of $10,000 per
year). Thus, the Planning Board and the consultant began to search for
pockets of demand (opportunity projects) which could, through being
commercial users, finance a larger share of the system and thereby make it
more financially feasible for residential users. This produced three types
of demand: restaurant, housing and light industry, at five sites.
This initial concern for demand (as well as need) became of paramount
importance in later considerations of financial responsibility (See Chapter
VIII, in the document).
Chapter V—Nitrification Field Analysis and Selection
Having defined need and demand, the analysis shifted to the supply side of
wastewater treatment. Chapter V presents the method applied to ten
alternative sites for the nutrient field in Batb, ranking those sites as
"suitable," "provisionally suitable," or "unsuitable," based upon soil boring
tests.
From this information, the nitrification field acreage requirements for
treating domestic wastewater was calculated as the basis for system design.
Any communities preparing to undertake a similar project should plan on a
considerable amount of on -site soils testing and related engineering work at
this stage (see document, Chapter V). Development of a good working
relationship with the county sanitarian is also fundamental to any such
effort.
Chapter VI —Systems Design and Cost Estimates
Four detailed alternatives showing the collection system, stabilization and
pumping systems, distribution systems, fees and permits, and contingency
costs were designed and evaluated.
51

A comparison of these schematics indicated an obvious cost savings in of
developing a single system to serve the entire target area, rather than serve
a sub -target area..
Communities desiring to conduct this type study should carefully review the
level of detail required at this stage. See scbematics in the document.
Cbapter VII--System Management and Maintenance
Having selected the system wbicb best served the target area, efforts were
undertaken to determine need to amend local ordinances and to determine the
most appropriate operation and maintenance arrangement.
Assessment of the local zoning ordinance indicated that the Town is prepared
to handle the densities, etc. which the wastewater system will bring. A
sewer ordinance will be considered to regulate types of waste, etc. No other
ordinance changes are necessary.
Additionally, easements will be required to install the system. These are
to be drawn by the local attorney.
Contacts at the state, regional and local governmental levels, and
contractors witbin the private sector, exposed the types of operators
required and identified persons licenses as operators. Opportunities for
training local people and for use of contracting engineers became apparent
and were later adopted into the recommended organizational arrangement.
Chapter VII goes to considerable detail to articulate the actual management
and maintenance tasks required and to derive a budget for this aspect of the
system. This level of effort again exemplifies the concern for the system
actually being developed in the Town of Bath. '
As the project evolved, it was discovered that the major funding source
(FmHA) is interested in community -wide (not target area size) systems. This
awareness was incorporated into Chapter VII.
At this point, the consultant adjusted the management and maintenance
requirements for the target area to derive that for a larger system and
confirmed those estimates with the consulting engineer. Hence, the $10,380
estimate presented in Chapter VII and the budget in Chapter VIII.
52

One of the major learnings for other communities was discovered in the late
stages of the Bath project development. Within Chapter II above, we
cautioned other communities to follow suite and explore, early on, possible
legal constraints which may be placed upon the project. Even political
constraints were mentioned as part of the pre -planning homework requirement.
The same overview (scan) of funding sources should have been undertaken at
the beginning of the project, at which time it would have been discovered
that FmHA was interested only in community -wide systems and the scope of work
could have been adjusted. As it turned out, about 80% of the information
needed for the whole town was collected for the demonstration project,
requiring some remedial work in order to write the last chapters for a
community -wide system and to collect additional information for funding
applications.
With this word of caution, other demonstration value in Chapter VIII is found
in the surveying of alternative funding sources (such as, developer
incentives). From this search came one budget based upon a project cost of
$350,000 and another based upon a larger system totalling $451,000. This
provided a range within which to talk with FmHA and DEM officials regarding
feasibility and availability of funds.
Variations in funding timelines and eligible expenses were discovered, as
expected, during the financial design phase of this project. One item of
demonstration value in this section is a financial design which seeks'to
leverage as much and as diverse financing as possible.
Other communities are encouraged to enhance the feasibility of their systems
by increasing the number of units to be served, and to creatively seek
diverse funding sources from the public and private sectors.
C0NCLUSION
As outlined in this final chapter, the Bath project on Alternative Wastewater
Treatment Systems exposed several points which other communities should
emphasize in planning for alternative wastewater systems.
The Planning Board Chairman and the consultant will be happy to answer any
questions regarding the text or the outlined demonstration value articulated
here.
Hopefully, the wastewater treatment system will soon become a reality in the
Town of Bath. We hope that reality itself will serve as a "demonstration by
example" for other alternative wastewater treatment studies in Coastal North
Carolina.
53

APPMMIX A
The following examples of alternative waste treatment systems are publisbed
in a pamphlet printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
titled, "Small Wastewater Systems,.Alternative Systems for Small Communities
and Rural Areas," January, 1980.
54

4Septic Tank with Alternating
Absorption Fields
One field rests while other is in use. Allows field to renew
itself. Extends life of field. Provides standby if one field fails.
Valve directs sewage liquid to proper field. Fields usually
switched every 6-12 months.
Septic Tank Valve Box Distribution
Bnx Tn>nches
711-
Distribution Sox
8 Septic Tank & Leaching
Chambers
Open -bottom concrete chambers create underground cavern
over absorption field. Liquid is piped into cavern & spread over
field by troughs, splashplates, or dams, Liquid filters through
soil. Chambers replace perforated pipe, trenches, & rocks of
conventional absorption field. Access holes at top allow main-
tenance & soil inspection.
Vent
Pit„
Leaching Chambers
Septic Tank
1 Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
Field (Trench)
Sewage bacteria break up some solids in tank. Heavy solids
sink to bottom as sludge. Grease & light panicles float to top
as scum. Liquid flows from tank through closed pipe and
distribution box to perforated pipes in trenches; flows through
surrounding crushed rocks or gravel and soil to groundwater
(underground water). Bacteria & oxygen in soil help purify
liquid. Tank sludge & scum are pumped out periodically. Most
common onsite system. Level ground or moderate slope.
ScuRY
Absorption Field ITrenchl
Distribution Box - e
Septic Tank \ _
Gravel or Crushed Rock
Unexcavaled
5 Septic System Refinements:
(A). Dosing (B) Closed Loop
W Pump or siphon forces liquid to perforated pipes in con-
trolled doses so all pipes discharge liquid almost at same time
(dosing). Spreads liquid more evenly £r gives field chance to
dry out between Closings. (8) Variation of Sketch 1 absorption
field. Can be used for dosing Fr where ground is level or nearly
level. Distribution
Bo. Absorption Field
Septic Tank Purrp or
Siphon
(A)
Closed Loop Absorption Field
(B)
9 Mound System .
(Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank)
Liquid is pumped from storage tank (as in Sketch 21) to per-
forated plastic pipe in sand mound that covers plowed ground.
Liquid flows through rocks or gravel, sand, a natural soil.
Mound vegetation helps evaporate liquid. Rocky or tight soil or
high water table.
V,., p.tanon
Petforahnl Pier I lbsnrphun G. •,•.t
Cross -
S,•ctinn .Trip Sod +
D,.,yra J
Sud Fat
rnlrtl1q.- F w- Sept,, ur Avn Nc \ Proard Surf.., a Or-gnad Gr.l,h,
Link it Siphon W Pump
Rn,'kt ,ir T,ght 1,1:1 or K,jh (iro„n.t Vi
W

2 Aerobic System & Soil
i Absorption Field
Air and wastewater are mixed in tank. Oxygen -using (aerobic)
bacteria grow, digest sewage, liquefy most solids. Liquid
discharges to absorption field where treatment continues. Can
use same treatment & disposal methods as septic tank.
Maintenance essential. Uses energy.
Absorption Field (Trench)
Aeration Tank � •t .: •s"s-�a�
6 Septic Tank with Sloping Field —
Serial Distribution
Pump forces liquid to perforated pipes in contoured absorption
field. Drop boxes regulate liquid flow so highest trench fills up
first, second fills up next, & lowest fills up last. Plastic fittings
can be used instead of drop boxes to regulate flow. Used on
slopes. .
Absorption Field
on Slope
10 Evapotranspiration Bed
(Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank)
Similar to Sketch 9 but sand bed is lined with plastic or other
waterproof material. Bed could be mound or level. Liquid
evaporates because liner prevents it from filtering through
natural soil. Plants speed evaporation by drawing moisture
from soil & breathing it into the air. Used where conventional
absorption field not possible.
PertOrated Pipe,
C'Oss
secimn I I
Oragram
I
Inlet Pioe From Septic Fill $ud
or Aorobic Tank
' '. �WatierprtKrl Lirn�r
Ewing Soil
56
3 Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
Field (Bed)
Similar to Sketch 1 but smaller field. Total field excavated.
Used where space limited,. Nearly level ground.
Absorption Field (Bed)
'Distribution Box
Septic lank A.
-ter D `
Gravel or Crushed Pock
7 Septic Tank with Seepage Pit
Liquid flows to pit that has open -jointed brick or stone walls
surrounded by rocks. Precast tanks with sidewall holes can
also be used. Liquid seeps through walls & rocks to surround-
ing soil. Pit sides are cleaned periodically to prevent clogging.
Septic Tank seepage Pit
0000
\ 0 0 0 0
Gravel pr AnCk Fill ° o O 0
'0 u
Septic Tank, Sand Filter,
Disinfection & Discharge
Filter is ground -level or buried sand pit. Liquid enters per-
forated pipe at top $ filters through sand & gravel to bottom
pipe. Bottom pipe conducts liquid to disinfection tank. Liquid
discharges to stream or ditch. Variations are intermittent sand
filter & recirculating sand filter. Used where soil absorption
field not possible.
$ann Gr.:•rr
Septic Tank _---

12 Low -Pressure Subsurface Pipe
Distribution
Network of small -diameter perforated plastic pipes are buried
6"- 18" in 4"- 6"-wide trenches. Pump forces liquid through
pipes in controlled doses so liquid discharges evenly. Site Et
soil determine pipe layout Er pipe -hole size Er number. Absorp-
tion field is same size as conventional field. Rocky or tight soil
or high water table.
Dosing Tank
Septic Tank with Pump Perforated Plastic Pipe
16 Dual Systems:
Blackwater & Graywater
Many systems. In this one: (A) toilet wastes (blackwater) are
handled by waterless or low-water toilet system ( Sketch 151.
(8) Other household wastewater from kitchen, bath, laundry
(graywater) needs separate treatment Er disposal.
(A) Blackwater (Toilet Wastes)
Waste
-• Disposal or Recycle
Treatment
Waterless or Low -Water Toilet System
IS ) Graywater (Other Household Wastewater)
Kitchen Laundry
Bath
To Septic or Other
Approved Treatment
8 Disposal
19 Land Application
Sewage liquid is applied to land to nourish vegetation Et purify
liquid. Methods:
1. Irrigation —Liquid is applied to crops or to forests (silviculture)
by sprinkling, flooding, or ridge £t furrow. Liquid is
sometimes disinfected before application.
2. Overland flow —Liquid flows through vegetation on graded
slope. Runoff is collected at bottom Er reused or discharged
to river or stream. Suitable for tight soils.
3. Rapid infiltration— Partly treated sewage is applied in con-
trolled doses to sandy soil. Solids break down. Liquid
purifies as it seeps to ground water (underground water) or
is collected Et may be reused.
Aquaculture:
Plants Er animals that grow in wastewater help purify water by
digesting pollutants. Harvest is used as food, fertilizer, etc.
13 Holding Tank
Sewage flows to large, underground, watertight storage tank.
Tank is pumped periodically Er sewage hauled away. Isolated or
remote areas where absorption field not possible. Sewage haul-
ing cost high.
Tank
17 Small -Diameter Gravity Sewers
(Collection System)
4"- 6" pipe is sloped so liquid from septic or aerobic tank flows
through pipe to treatment Er disposal. Treatment & disposal
system can be conventional or alternative. Small pipe costs less
than conventional 8" pipe.
—Sod Absorption Field of Other
Treatment & Disposal -
'ZOPressure Sewers, GP
(Grinder Pump)
Unit grinds sewage & pumps it through small -
diameter plastic pipe to central or alternative
treatment Er disposal. Doesn't use septic tank
but existing tank (B) may remain for emer-
gency storage. Used for one or several
homes (C).
(A I No Septic Tank
StnAWU rank
Pmsswo sewer Plastic P,tm
to tr!.,Ittl,t•nt h - O,sposj,
Pu-1,
(C ) Clusters
House.
Hous<!
0

14 Cluster System
(Two or More Users on One Alternative
System)
Several houses are served by common treatment & disposal
system. Houses could also have onsite septic or aerobic tanks
with liquid conducted. to common absorption field. Clusters of
houses can also use other alternative systems, such as mounds
(Sketch 9), pressure & vacuum sewers (Sketches 18, 20, 21),
& sewage treatment lagoons.
18 Vacuum Sewers
(Collection System)
Vacuum pump creates vacuum in collector pipes. Valve opens
when sewage from dwelling presses against it. Sewage & plug
of air behind it enter pipe. Air forces sewage to collection tank.
Sewage pump forces sewage from tank to treatment system.
Needs standby electric power & failure alarm system. Can be
used with large cluster systems (Sketch 14).
Sewage From Dwelling
Central Vacuum Pump
1
Valve
Collection Tank
lSewage Pump
Street To Treatment &
Disposal
Central Collector Pipe
1 Old Septic Tank Left in Place
1 %' or larger
Plastic Pipe To Treatment
rGnncfnr Pump Old Seuuc Tank
for Emergency Storage
-- To Treatment
Waterless or Low -Water Toilet
15
Systems*
Composting: No water.
Large & small systems. Converts toilet wastes & most food
wastes to compost. Electric vent fan & heating element op-
tional on large systems; essential on small systems. Proper
care vital.
Incinerating: No water.
Electricity, gas, or oil burns solids & evaporates liquid. Small
amount of ash is removed weekly. Roof vent. Proper care
essential
Recycling Oil Flush: No water.
Similar to water -flush toilet but uses oil for flush. Oil &
wastes go to large storage tank where wastes settle at bot-
tom & oil rises to top. Filtered oil recycles -for flush. Storage
tank is pumped & oil replaced periodically. Uses electricity.
Proper care essential.
Recycling Chemical: Low water.
Water -chemical flush mixture is pumped into toilet bowl.
Mixture & wastes go to storage tank. Filtered liquid recircu-
lates for flush. Permanent or portable types. Permanent
needs water hookup. Storage tank is pumped & chemicals
added periodically. Uses electricity. Proper care essential.
Recycling Water: Low water.
Various systems. Some reduce wastes to water, gas, &
vapor. Treated wastewater recycles to flush toilet. System
vents to outside. Multiflush commercial units available. Most
systems use electricity. Professional maintenance essential.
'Treat toilet wastes fb/ackwater). Other household wastewater (graywater)
needs separate treatment & disposal system.
21 Pressure Sewers, STEP
(Septic Tank Effluent Pump)
(A) One dwelling. Pump forces liquid from septic
tank through plastic pipe to further treatment &
disposal. Sludge is pumped from septic tank
periodically.
(8) Cluster system. Liquid from several septic
tanks flows to one pumping tank. Pump forces
liquid through plastic pipe to treatment & disposal.
(e ) Cluster
(A ) One Dwelling
Septic Tank ,Sto,ago Tank
/ To Twatno nt
Pump
1'. orlartler i
Plast¢,pe P
58

A
err
APPENDIX B
STORIC' BATH
OTI)EST TO'%%'N IN TI1r. STATR
ItA•nr. SOUTH CAROLINA z 7 noy
October 6, 1982
Dear Property Owner on Main Street and portions of Highway 92:
INCORPOSATIO 170.1
You are specially invited to a public meeting on Monday, October 18, 1982 to
be held by the Bath Planning Board at 7:30 p.m.. in the Town Hall on Harding
Street. The general public is invited as well.
The Town has received a demonstration grant from the Office of Coastal Manage-
ment for the development of alternative wastewater treatment systems for the
Town, which are also appropriate for other.coastal communities.
Preliminary work on the project ranked areas in particular need of alternative
systems. At our September 29 meeting, the Planning Board selected a "target
area" running from the Outdoor Drama Ampitheatre down Main Street to Bonners
Point-, including properties fronting on Highway 92 and Main Street within that
area.
At the October 18 meeting, our consultants will present alternative projects
identified within the target area, collect your ideas on others you may want
considered, hold an informal discussion regarding different types of package
systems for groups of stores and houses, and other alternatives to individual
conventional septic tanks. At the end of this discussion, the Planning Board
intends to identify projects for detailed study by the consultant.
As you know, our last study showed that traditional community -wide wastewater
collection and treatment systems are too expensive for a small community like
Bath. This project provides us with a real opportunity to develop smaller scale
solutions to our long-standing wastewater treatment problem.
We look forward to seeing you and your neighbors at this important meeting.
Sincerely,
ames R. Edwards
Planning Board Chairman
JE/dkt
cc: .Terry W. Alford
John Crew
Bubbs Carson
Planning Board Members: Erma Tankard, Rachel Tankard, Guy Cutler, Helen Brooks,
Teeny Mason, Ed Swindel
59

TOWN OF BATH
SMALL AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEMS STUDY
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
As noted in our cover letter, the Town of Bath has received a state grant through
the Office of Coastal Management to develop an alternative wastewater treatment
system program.
We ask that you help us by answering the following questions:
1. How many bedrooms does your home have? (no. of bedrooms) OR if you
have a business in this area, what is the total number of square feet?
(no. of sq. ft.)
2. Do you use your home/business fronting on Main Street in this area year -around
or seasonal?
! 3. How many occupants/employees normally live/work in your home/place of business?
(no. occupants) (no. employees, including yourself)
4. If you know your building lot dimensions, please.specify below:
ft. (wide) x ft. (deep), OR total square feet.
5. Please indicate the number of plumbing facilities you have:
number of toilets number of tubs/showers garbage disposal
(if any)
6. Does your home/place of business have any special water conservation devices such
as low volume toilets, flow restriction devices for faucets or shower heads, etc.?
(yes) (no) If yes, please specify:
7. If you know when your septic tank system was installed, would you please indicate.
the year? (please estimate)
60

_2_
8. Has your on -site septic system shown any signs of failure such as plumbing back-
ups, clogged pipes, drainage field seepage, or any odor? (yes) (no).
If yes, please specify: the type of failures
annual number of occurrences OR total number of occurrences since the system
was installed
9. Would you please specify any maintenance (such as periodic inspection or pumping
of your septic tank) or repairs completed on your on -site septic system?
ate ordates) Maintenance or repair work)
10. Finally, would you like to add -on to your house or expand your place of business
but can't due to septic limitations? (yes) (no)
Since it's important to be able to match your comments with specific parts of the area,
would you please provide your name & address:
. Name Address
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY AND BRING IT TO OUR OCTOBER 18, 1982 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, EITHER DROP IT BY OR MAIL IT TO:
Jim Edwards, Chairman
Bath Planning Board
P. 0. Box 3
Bath, NC 27808
JE/dkt
61

C1+
N
F IL U)&A l.._
r
OPERTNO AND OPERADO
KEY o NAME
REN4
DATE
CENTO
GAD
TMP-DT ADDRESS
•009003ADANS, DANIEL G
2751
8401
749
2
AT 2 BOA 361
215303ADAMS, DANIEL G
2751
$401
746
2
HT 2 BOX 161
216305AMU3, LORIS B
7806
2818
1
C
604405AMURENS, TERRY 0
4662
7906
1998
4
AT 1 BOX 438
232303BRADSHAM, HANSEL 0
1492
8401
5733
2
P O BOX 165
650505BUNCH, DEBORAH
2663
0401
4308
2
221 GEORGE ST
628605CARRUM, RESTER L
2736
8401
2561
2
NT 1 801 573
201303CLAAK, RONNIE L
9559
8301
4580
1
RT I BOX 324
i
149903CLAHK, AUNNIE L
9559
9301
4560
1
AT 1 BUX 324
C
079103CUTLER, OOTTIE NAWLS
2b64
6401
3771
2
AT 1 BOX 601
111303CUTLER, JERKY D
1323
8401
900
4
AT 2 80X 452
(
189003DAV1S, MICHAEL LEE
1006
9301
3755
2
PO BOX 1219
(
887405DAV1S, TED N
3201
8401
4689
Y
RY 1 BOX 362
20060IFLEMING, GEUAGE A
2672
0401
1777
3
PO BOX 270
832905FUHSTEN, EDNARD E
1098
8401
706
1
PU BOX 1034
1
996507GAV1N, MAXIE
1570
6401
2925
1
111 HARDING DRIVE
I
695105HOLGAND JR, PETE T
9785
9301
696
3
AT 4 BOX 330-A
6916051POCK, 81LL1 E
131
2
AT • BOX 296
I
964105JONES JA, ALBENT M
279b
8401
6005
4
P 0 BOX 1175
'
098103MELVIN, JUNK S
2273
0401
5562
4
BOX 1095
lOb4U3MEHCER, UUUGLAS G
3202
9401
GC538
4
105 LANSON ROAD
l
106503MEACER, UUUGLAS G
J202
6401
GC538
4
105LANSON ROAD
10b303MENCEA, UUUGLAS G
3202
8401
GC538
4
105 LAW304 ROAD
t
72UI09010UHE JR, TROY LSE
0401
6149
1
AT 1 BOX JISA
632605HUNAI5, TUMMIL H
4001
4111
2
PO BOX 201
123505P1CKENS JR, HARRY E
2893
8401
RC1335
4
AT 2 BOA 1720-wtSTEAL1 PARK RU
l
741709HAY, DENNIS TNUV
2735
9401
3456
2
AT 4 SUA 626
(
005403ftLESE, kCbA
TC2189
1
12221JUT 1 BOA 14
919205HUbLOSON, N CLIUE
1975
6401
5729
1
P U BOX IBb7
l
CITT
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
CHOCOWINITY
AURORA
BELHAVEN
PINETONN
CHOCONINITT
CH000NINITT
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
AURORA
CHOCOMINITV
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
STATESVILLE
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
GREENVILLE
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
CHOCONINITY
CHOCONINITV
EDEN
WASHINGTON
AURORA
bASHINGTON
19-JAM-83
RG CO STLZIP
E 013 NC27889
C oil MC27689
E 013 NC27889
E 013 MC27917
E 014 NC27806
C 013 OC27410
E 013 NC27865
9.013 MC27617
E 013 MC27017
E 013 NC27889
E 013 NC27889
E 013 MC27699
E 013 NC27806
E 613 MC27811
E 013 NC27969
E 013 NC27869
E 013 NC26677
E 013 MC27869
E 013 MC27682
E 013 NC27934
c oil NC27889
E 013 NC27889
E 013 OC27969
E 013 MC27017
E 013 MC27017
E 013 MC27268
E 013 NC27889
E 013 NC27806
E 013 NC27869
t
C

W
(
OPERTMO AND OPERADD
19-JAN-83
KEY NAME
kEN1
DATE
CENT•
GRD
TAP-DT ADURCIS
CITY
RG CO
STLEIP
�( 746705ROSCOE, EONARD ODELL
0373
7106
2557
1
140b HARRINGTON
WASHINGTON
L
013
MC27889
753905SHEPPARO, ■ILBUN
929
2
RT 4 BOX 218
WASHINGTON
9
013
NC27889
215103TAYLOR, MICHAEL U
1027
9401
4072
2
E FLAUNT STREEI
BELHAVEN
E
013
MC27810
C 88570SIETTENTUN, EMORY L
4931
0201
CE75
1
RT S BOX 219
WASHINGTON
E
013
NC27099
(
772705THUMAS, ROBERT M
1763
2
PO BUX 191
WASHINGTON
E
013
MC27999
(
c
775505IOOLEY, JOHN G
2750
9401
1339
2
905 E NAIN
BELHAVEN
C
013
NC27810
i 819405wANU JR, BOBBY E
79U6
3774
2
117 N BONNEY
WASHINGTON
E
013
NC27899
786607olLEY, JOHN mAYNE
3149
8101
2559
1
PO BOX 414
CHOCONINITY
E
013
MC27017
156403wOULARO, JOSEPH L
1931
6401
CE50
1
HT 4 BOX 678
WASHINGTON
E
013
NC27999
792709muOLARD, MY MAYNE
2746
6401
5550
3
NT ♦ BOX 170
WASHINGTON
F.
013
HC27BB9
C
TOTAL 35
1
C
f
r
(
t
L
l
l
L
l
t

December 6, I li / /
Commercial Laboratories with
North Carolina Certification
Cert.
Name and Address
No.
Name and Address
Beacham Laboratory
14
Guilford Laboratories, Inc.
640 Wilmington Highway
P. 0. Box 9735
Jacksonville, N. C. 28540
Greensboro, N. C. 27408
Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
16
Law S Co. of Wilmington, Inc.
1308 Rainey St.
P. 0. Box 629
Burlington, N. C. 27215
Wilmington, N. C. 28401
Burlington Industries, Inc.
17
Dr. Fred Holtkamp, head
Chemical Division
Dept. of Chemistry
Analytical Testing Services
Mars Hill College
P. 0. Box 523
Mars Hill, N. C. 28754
Jamestown, N. C. 27282
18
Moore, Gardner 6 Associates, Inc.
Carolina Laboratories, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory
201 Pine Street
P. 0. Box 728
Greensboro, N. C. 27405
Asheboro, N. C. 27203
Charles T. rain, Inc.
19
Town of Morehead
Environmental Laboratory
Wastewater Treatment Laboratory
P. 0. Box 15236
Drawer M
Charlotte, N. C. 28210
Morehead City, N. C. 28557
Cross Creek Wastewater Plant
20
Par Laboratories, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1089
Box 15722
Fayetteville, N. C. 28302
Charlotte, N. C. 28210
Environmental Engineering Laboratory
21
Southern Testing S Research Labs, Inc.
P. 0. Box 8678
P. 0. Box 350
Durham, N. C. 27707
Wilson, N. C. 27893
Entropy Environmentalist, Inc.
22
Dann Laboratories
P. 0. Box 12291
P. 0. Box 668
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709
Wallace, N. C. 28466
Environment I, Inc.
24
Commonwealth Laboratory, Inc.
Box 7085
Nardin Division
Greenville, N. C. 27834
112 Greenacre Rd.
Greenville, S. C. 29607
Environmental Laboratories of
Fayetteville, N. C., Inc.
25
Davis & Floyd Engineers, Inc.
4634 Yadkin Road
P. 0. Drawer 428
Fayetteville, N. C. 28303
Greenwood, S. C. 29646
Environmental Testing, Inc.
26
R. S. Noonan, Inca of S. C-
P- 0. Box 17454
P. 0. Box 1388
Charlotte, N. C. 28209
Greenville, S. C. 29602
Grainger Laboratories, Inc.
27
J. L. Rogers 6 Callcott Engrs., Inc.
709 W. Johnson St.
718 Lowndes Hills Rd.
Raleigh, N. C. 27605
Greenville, S. C. 29607
64

Cart.
No.
28
29
30
31
kka
33
34
35
36
37
3:
40
December 6, 19
Commercial Laboratories with North Carolina Certification
Cart.
Name and Address
J. E. Sirrine Co., Engrs.,Architects
P. 0. Box 5456, Station B
Greenville, S. C. 29606
Stevens -Environmental Services Lab
P. 0. Box 6545
Greenville, S. C. 29606
Texidyne, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 932
Clemson, S. C. 29631
Commonwealth Laboratory, Inc.
P. 0. Box 8025
Richmond. Virginia .23225
Sharpley Laboratories, Inc.
P. 0. Box 846
Frederickbburg, Virginia 19380
Hayes, Seay, Mattern b Mattern
Laboratory & Testing Services
P. 0. Box 1490
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
Research S Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
106 Short St.. P. 0. Box 473
Rernersville, N. C. 27284
Chem-Bac Laboratories, Inc.
P. 0. Boa 3114
Cha:,lot: e, N. C. 28203
The Mogul Corporation
P. 0. Box 1267
Charlotte, X. C. 28231
Professional Environmental Lab
of Lumberton
2401 West 5th Street
Lumberton, N. C. 28358
Aaa11r Laboratories, Inc.
431 Foster Avenue
Charlotte. N. C. 28203
nrvirormenta'_ Testing, Inc.
766;: Biltmore
Asheville, 11. C. 28803
No.
Name and Address
41
En-Cas Analytical Laboratories
807 Brookstown Ave.
Winston-Salem, N. C. 27101
42
Jesse Jones, Div. GoodMark, Inc
Rt. 1, Box 187
Garner, N. C. 27529
43
City o! Lexington
Industrial Waste Laboratory
Rt. 12, Box 46
Lexington, N. C. 27292
47
Wastewater Services, Inc.
122 Stewart St.
Asheville, N. C. 28806
65

APPMWI% D
BATS SMALL AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems, EPA, Office.of Water
Program Operations, December, 1980.
Design Manual; On -site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, EPA,
Office of Water Program Operations, October, 1980.
Individual Wastewater Project, Final Report, Region J, North Carolina,
February, 1980.
Individual Wastewater Project, Task B Report, Summary of Alternative
On -site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Metbods, Region J, Nortb
Carolina, November, 1978.
Individual Wastewater Project, Task E and F Reports, Regulation and Manage-
ment of Septic Systems, Region J, Nortb Carolina, August, 1979.
Rural Lakes Projects, EIS, EPA, October, 1981.
Small Wastewater Systems; Alternative Systems for Small Communities and
Rural Areas, EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, January, 1 80.
66