Regional Wastewater Study-1997

DCM COPY " "C'V /► ` DCM COPY
Please do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management Copy
REGIONAL WASTEWATER STUDY
prepared for
TOWN OF LONG BEACH
and STUDY PARTICIPANTS
September, 1997
WKD #97419.10
for
TOWN OF LONG BEACH
4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
Long Beach, NC 28465
by
W. K. Dickson & Company, Inc.
1924 Cleveland Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-334-5348
c\fe\97419\00001 cvr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I - Introduction...........................................................................1 to 2
Section II - Existing Facilities.................................................................3 to 5
Section III - Population/Flow Projections...............................................6 to 7
Section IV - Discussion of Alternatives................................................8 to 15
Section V - Cost Estimates................................................................16 to 19
Section VI - Alternative Analysis........................................................20 to 21
Section VII - Funding Alternatives.....................................................22 to 23
LIST OF TABLES
TableNo. 1..........................................................................
After Page No. 7
Table No. 2..........................................................................
After Page No. 7
TableNo. 3........................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 3A......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 4........................................................................After
Page No.
19
TableNo. 5........................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 6........................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 7........................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 8........................................................................After
Page No.
19
TableNo. 9........................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 10......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 11......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 12......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 13......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 14......................................................................
After Page No.
19
TableNo. 15......................................................................
After Page No.
21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1............................................................................... After Page No. 2
Figure2............................................................................... After Page No. 2

' SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Scope of Work
This study is being performed and funded under a grant from the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management, Local Planning and Management Grant Program.
' The purpose of the Study is to inventory the existing facilities in the study area, then
develop the projections, alternatives and cost analyses necessary to recommend a plan
of action to the participants in this study. As a side benefit, this study will, hopefully,
' bring about better cooperation among all the participants, at least in the critical area of
wastewater.
The bulk of the information presented on existing facilities and growth trends has been
taken from existing studies performed for the different study participants. These study
' participants are as follows:
• Boiling Spring Lakes
'
Brunswick County
• Town of Caswell Beach
• Town of Long Beach
• Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District
• City of Southport
'
Town of Sunset Beach
Beach
• Town of Yaupon
' While the planning, development, funding and design of wastewater collection and
treatment facilities is challenging and certainly a consideration in this study, the key
issue in this study area is disposal of the treated effluent. That is where much of the
' attention will be focused.
A great deal of the information used in this study was gleaned form the following
previously completed reports and studies.-
- Water and Sewer Study, Brunswick County, North Carolina by HDR
Engineering, Inc., May, 1996
- Water Quality Management Study, Town of Long Beach, North Carolina, by
McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A., July, 1995
- Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study for the Town of Long Beach,
' Brunswick County, North Carolina, by Rivers & Associates, Inc., November,
1996
' - Project Scoping Report, SBWASA EIS, Prepared for the SBWASA, by Greiner,
Inc., February, 1997
1

- Comprehensive Wastewater Study, Town of Sunset Beach, by Powell
Associates of NMB, Inc. and Piedmont Olsen Hensley, June, 1992
- Amendment to Southwest Brunswick, N.C., 201 Facilities Plan,
Calabash/Sunset Beach Planning Area, by Powell Associates of NMB, Inc. &
Piedmont Olsen Hensley, November, 1993
1.2 Description of the Study Area
The study participants generally comprise the municipalities along the Brunswick
County beaches along with the southeast corner of the County, as listed earlier. Figure
No. 1 shows a map of Brunswick County and figure No. 2 is a breakout of the various
participants.
In general, Brunswick County was established in 1764 and is situated in the southeast
corner of North Carolina as part of the Coastal Plain. While there are several key
industries in the county, tourism is the most important, especially within the study area
along the coast. This of course plays a major role in the economy and is due to the
area's large number of quality beaches, the very favorable climate, and numerous
recreational opportunities. These same factors inevitably lead to growth which just as
inevitably leads to demand for utilities, especially wastewater collection treatment and
disposal facilities.
1.3 Regional Approach
The regional approach for the purposes of this Study does not mean so much a single
close geographical region as it is a level of cooperation and a focusing of resources by
all parties involved to try and develop effluent disposal alternatives that are suitable for
the individual participants involved.
There is still a great deal of the geographically regional concept at work here since all
the participants involved, except Sunset Beach and Brunswick County, are located in
the southeastern region of the County. Brunswick County obviously has the potential to
' play a major role in the regional concept, regardless of geographical location within the
County. The Town of Sunset Beach is somewhat isolated geographically, but by virtue
of their involvement with the South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority, a regional
' authority, and their desire to open up discussion on some of the disposal alternatives,
they are considered part of this "regional" approach.

L.
................ — j
r7 I jL- r7 f v I J 4-
Br ,wswlcic COUN
N.T.S.
's —CYR, 1-2
133
ORTON POW
%
ZEKE
ISLAND
ff
5 DIRT
..fir B
ran p
=9&'
HALO
HrAD
SLANV
.LEQEN D
COUNTY LINE
RIVER, STREAMS, ETC.
ROAD, HIGHWAYS
----------------- APPROXIMATE S7JDY AREA
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE No. I
VVK
DICKSON
Formers
S.MYa

W
W.
Cai
1
� 87
K
ieBOILING SPRINA
LAKES �1 J 133
�F�� �� rr ♦♦'/� OR TON POND
LY j ��' i `' "♦
�p5 -• BOILING SPRING ♦♦
ocl0 \`�� •� LAKES
LENNON Two ,��•♦ ♦♦,
SROADS
o
SMITH ♦♦
o ...�
211 l
oP ZE
Q S.E. IS LA
BRUNSWIG�K
S. ( 87
So Ole PORT( %
v _
N INLET LO ��� CASWE J BARY
-:wBEACH Z.Stj4ND
BEACH YAUPON -�•
A TLANTIC BEACH` a
OCEAN STRIKING
ISLAN
THOMASBORO '
CROSSR
IREDEL
t
904
17 I
CALABAS c 00000
y4tA`SH
17
to
SHADY y�.sRJft
ORESt �.
�40 UNSET BEACH
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
WK LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY
£nglnae.a O1CKSON STUDY AREA BREAKOUT
Plan
FIGURE No. 2

IF I
' SECTION II
EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 General
Most of Brunswick County, and especially the study area, is served by a complete
centralized water system. The same cannot currently be said of the wastewater
facilities in the County. This goes back to the long standing trend towards lower cost
individual treatment facilities for each community versus potentially pumping the raw or
' treated wastewater long distances for regionalization.
The list of existing wastewater facilities within the study area has tended to reflect the
' same trend towards individual goals. This has all been fueled by the lack of significant
funding for any regional initiatives, and the wide variation in local conditions.
' 2.2 Inventory of Existing Facilities
' 2.2.1 Boiling Spring Lakes
There is no centralized wastewater system currently within the municipality. Only a
small portion of the town is currently developed and this area has had to be ditched and
drained to make it suitable for on -site wastewater systems, which is the only form of
' wastewater treatment available in the Town.
1 1 The Town has a Land Use Plan, set to be updated in late `97, that encourages
developers to build centralized sewer systems. There is also a golf course in town that
has the potential for reuse irrigation, although no commitment has yet been made.
' The Town has water service to a small portion and is planning an non -binding
referendum for support of expansion of the water system.
2.2.2 Brunswick County
The County operates a modular extended aeration package plant permitted for 250,000
' gpd with current capacity of 35,000 gpd. The plant serves the Leland Industrial Park.
The treated effluent is discharged to surface waters that form a segment of the Cape
Fear River.
The County is also a member of the South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority as
' well as having discussed taking over the Town of Belville's 400,000 gpd packaged
aeration with filtration wastewater plant.
' Belville's plant currently operates at about 13,000 gpd, but has 370,000 gpd committed
to other areas. The discharge is a surface discharge to the Brunswick River which is a
tributary to the Cape Fear River.
' 3
1

2.2.3 Town of Caswell Beach
There is no centralized wastewater treatment system currently within the municipality.
' There are two privately owned package treatment facilities in the Town. The first is a
package plant serving the Caswell Dunes development. It has a permitted capacity of
65,000 gpd and uses subsurface disposal. The second package plant serves the
Ocean Greens and Arboretum developments. This facility has a permitted capacity of
100,000 gpd and uses a rapid infiltration basin for effluent disposal.
2.2.4 Town of Long Beach
There is no centralized wastewater treatment system currently within the municipality.
All of the Town of Lon Beach is served by on -site systems. Dutchman Villas and Oak
Beach Inn and Marina utilize low pressure pipe systems, on -site.
The vast majority of Long Beach is residential and seasonal with on -site septic systems.
The Town's Land Use Plan indicates that on the order of 100 septic system repairs
' occur per year.
A previous proposal to construct a tertiary treatment system with spray irrigation was
rejected by voters. However, there is YP Y still interest in some type of system especially in
I'
light of current and potential future environmental concerns over on sitesystems.
2.2.5 Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District (SBSD)
The SBSD was formed in 1989 to provide wastewater service for the area on and
around Highway 133, Long Beach Road. The District, at that time had no centralized
wastewater system. There was a 25,000 gpd package plant that treated waste from the
River Run Shopping Center and had a surface discharge to Jump and Run Creek, then
into the SA waters of Dutchmans Creek.
In the past two years, the District has aggressively pursued a centralized system and
currently has permits, bids and funding in place for a 0.5 MGD tertiary treatment facility.
The effluent from this facility will be used to spray irrigate a new golf course, set to open
in Fall, `97. The River Run package plant will be decommissioned and, through a 3
rparty agreement, the flow will be pumped to the City of Southport for treatment and
disposal.
2.2.6 City of Southport
The City of Southport has centralized collection, treatment and disposal system. The
treatment facility is currently permitted for 800,000 gpd and has a surface discharge to
the Intracoastal Waterway, classified SC waters. The treatment facility is actually two
different treatment processes that combine for one discharge. The plant is currently
operating at approximately 475,000 GPD and has had on -going problems with
Inflow/Infiltration. These problems are systematically being corrected.
4

' 2.2.7 Town of Sunset Beach
There is no centralized wastewater system currently within the Town. The Town is
completely served by individual on -site systems with only one small community on -site
' system serving approximately 100 units at The Colony at Oyster Bay.
The Town of Sunset Beach is part of the South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority
' (SBWASA), but has seen the same problems as the other participants in the study.
Problems such as failing septic systems brought on by higher density development,
' poor soils and high groundwater levels, along with the lack of a centralized treatment
facility.
' 2.2.8 Town of Yaupon Beach
The Town is currently served by a centralized wastewater system. The collection
system serves the entire Town plus the Oak Island Beach Villas in the Town of Caswell
' Beach. The flow is pumped across the Intracoastal Waterway to a tertiary treatment
facility, with filtration, located on Fish Factory Road off of Long Beach Road. The plant
has a design capacity of 400,000 gpd. The present disposal method is through rapid
' infiltration basins located adjacent to the plant. Due to problems with the basins, the
disposal capacity has been derated to approximately 180,000 gpd.
' The Town has pursued various other disposal options including spray irrigation on land
adjacent to the basins and spray irrigation on the Oak Island Golf Course. Both options
' have met with some opposition.
rl
L
5

SECTION III
POPULATION/FLOW PROJECTIONS
3.1 General
Due to the nature of this study, no attempt was made to recreate any population or flow
projections unless no other information existed for the particular study participant.
Therefore, there exists a wide range of projection methodologies and assumptions.
The planning period for this Study has been established at 20 years (1997-2017) with
benchmark dates set at 1999, 2001 and 2002.
Since the timing and actual impact of sewer availability throughout the study area is
unknown, no attempt was made to apply any increased growth rates to the projections.
However, the growth rates used by the various participants or for this report are
generally at least 2.0% per year with some on the order of 4.0% per year or more. The
determination of seasonal population is a difficult scenario to analyze. After review of
the various previous reports, it was apparent that there is a wide fluctuation in seasonal
population from one community to another. This study attempts to use the latest
seasonal information from other reports for each participant. For those that did not
have information available, it was assumed that they had little or no seasonal input.
This constituted primarily the mainland participants. Table Nos. 1 and 2 show the
various participants and their existing as well as projected flows and populations.
Along with the growth rates, assumptions were made for the average flow per capita,
i.e., gallons per day per person (gpdp). Where data exists, the average is 90 gpdp for
permanent residents. The seasonal flow per capita was again a difficult scenario, but a
figure of 50 gpdp was used. This figure was obtained from EPA studies and tables.
3.2 Population Projections
Table No. 1 shows the permanent and seasonal population figures used through the
20 year study period (2017). The population projections for Brunswick County are
shown, but for reference only, since the rest of the study participants are included in the
County numbers.
The permanent population for the study area is shown increasing from 17,540 in 1997
' to 31,032 in 2017, or an average of 3.8% growth per year for the study period. The
seasonal figures show approximately a 3.0% growth per year.
' 3.3 Flow Proiections
Table No. 2 shows the permanent and seasonal flow figures for the same population
' data described in Section 3.2. The Brunswick County numbers are not shown since,
again, they contain the flows for the other study participants. The 90 gallons per day
per person figure used to make these projections reflect an almost exclusively
' 6

domestic/commercial type of wastewater without "wet industries" or industrial process
flow.
The permanent flow is shown in order to establish the base level and for use during all
off season times. In order to get the Peak Seasonal Flow, the Total Seasonal Flow is
added to the Total Permanent Flow which yields the results at the bottom of Table 2.
7

PERMANENT POPULATION ONLY
MUNICIPALITY
1990
1997
1999
2001
2002
2017
Boiling Spring Lakes
1650
1956
2045
2137
2185
2732
Brunswick County
50985
63085
65981
68740
70050
87200
Town of Caswell Beach
175
225
243
262
272
477
Town of Long Beach
3816
4722
4965
5192
5305
9384
Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District
2700
3100
3350
3625
3770
6790
City of Southport
3600
4755
5085
5351
5451
6875
Town of Sunset Beach
311
1909
2647
2754
2809
3708
Town of Yaupon Beach
734
873
891
909
918
1066
TOTALS (W/O BRUNSWICK COUNTY)
12986
17540
19226
20230
20710
31032
SEASONAL POPULATION ONLY
MUNICIPALITY
1990
1997
1999
2001
2002
2017
Boiling Spring Lakes
?
?
?
?
?
?
Brunswick County
?
?
?
?
?
?
Town of Caswell Beach
1435
1900
2055
2222
2312
4164
Town of Long Beach
?
19085
19875
20695
21118
28245
Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District
?
1240
1340
1450
1508
2716
City of Southport
?
?
?
?
?
?
Town of Sunset Beach
311
15167
16722
17938
18375
25130
Town of Yaupon Beach
?
2700
2810
2930
2990
4060
TOTALS (W/O BRUNSWICK COUNTY) 1746
TABLE 1
40092 42802 45235 46303 64315
LNGBCH.XLS

PERMANENT
FLOW ONLY
MUNICIPALITY
1990
1997
1999
2001
2002
2017
Boiling Spring Lakes
148,500
176,040
184,050
192,330
196,650
245,880
Brunswick County
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
Town of Caswell Beach
15,750
20,250
21,870
23,580
24,480
42,930
Town of Long Beach
343,440
424,980
446,850
467,280
477,450
844,560
Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District
243,000
279,000
301,500
326,250
339,300
611,100
City of Southport
324,000
427,950
457,650
481,590
490,590
618,750
Town of Sunset Beach
27,990
171,810
238,230
247,860
252,810
333,720
Town of Yaupon Beach
66,060
78,570
80,190
81,810
82,620
95,940
TOTAL PERMANENT FLOW
1,168,740
1,578,600
1,730,340
1,820,700
1,863,900
2,792,880
SEASONAL FLOW ONLY
MUNICIPALITY
1990
1997
1999
2001
2002
2017
Boiling Spring Lakes
?
?
?
?
?
?
Brunswick County
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
Town of Caswell Beach
71,750
95,000
102,750
111,100
115,600
208,200
Town of Long Beach
?
954,250
993,750
1,034,750
1,055,900
1,412,250
Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District
?
62,000
67,000
72,500
75,400
135,800
City of Southport
?
?
?
?
?
?
Town of Sunset Beach
15,550
758,350
836,100
896,900
918,750
1,256,500
Town of Yaupon Beach
?
135,000
140,500
146,500
149,500
203,000
TOTAL SEASONAL FLOW
87,300
2,004,600
2,140,100
2,261,750
2,315,150
3,215,750
TOTAL PERMANENT & SEASONAL FLOW
1,256,040
3,583,200
3,870,440
4,082,450
4,179,050
6,008,630
TABLE 2
LNGBCH.XLS

' SECTION IV
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
1
4.1 General
This listing will look at all possible wastewater/effluent disposal alternatives regardless
of any other factors. The discussion of each alternative will then present the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each and look at suitability of each alternative for the
Regional concept, as outlined in Section 1.3.
If certain alternatives are more or less appropriate for different participants, that
discussion will also be presented.
' 4.2 Discussion of Alternatives
' 4.2.1 Alternative No. 1 - Golf Course Reuse
Golf course reuse falls under the N.C. Division of Water Quality's recently adopted
reuse/reclamation rules. They require tertiary treatment, but allow irrigation of areas
subject to use by the general public.
The effluent is well suited for irrigation of a golf course and the required irrigation ponds
' can fit well with the landscaped nature of courses. (Generally speaking, a well sited
and maintained 18 hole golf course can accept at least 300,000 gpd, and there are
' currently about 23 golf courses in the study area.
Advantages:
• Availability of numerous existing and proposed courses throughout the
study area
• Fits well with reuse rules, especially because of the careful maintenance
associated with golf courses.
• Provides for a symbiotic relationship between the golf course owner and
POTW owner.
Disadvantages:
• Golf courses are land intensive, expensive and are limited to good soils if
they are to be effective for reuse.
• The reuse rules require a very high level of treatment, plus process duality
and a 5 day holding pond in addition to the irrigation ponds.
This altemative is potentially suitable for all participants.

4.2.2 Alternative No. 2 - Industrial Reuse
Certain types of industrial reuse are allowed in the new reuse regulations. The
category of Industrial Reuse, for this study, includes such things as industrial process
water, industrial cooling water and cleaning/washing operations.
There are only a few potential industries in the study area that have the water demand
and technical needs suitable for accepting reuse water. The primary candidate would
be Cogentrix, located near Southport/Boiling Spring Lakes. They currently use over 2.9
MGD of potable water, with 2.0 - 2.5 MGD of that being used as cooling water.
Previous negotiations were held with Cogentrix which indicated a high level of interest
in purchasing reuse water to use as cooling water. These negotiations were never
completed due to the contractual relationship between Cogentrix and CP&L, but the
potential for successfully completing those negotiations and disposal option for over 2
MGD of flow still exists.
Advantages:
• Provides an environmentally low impact disposal option that is very
marketable.
• The cost of disposal facilities is low
• The Cogentrix facility is centrally located in the SE corner of the county.
' Disadvantages:
• Limited ability to accept flow (2.5 MGD maximum)
• Requires contractual relationships that may be difficult or impossible to
' obtain.
• Requires tertiary treatment of wastewater with duality, etc.
This alternative, using Cogentrix, is potentially suitable for all but Brunswick County and
' the Town of Sunset Beach. No other viable industries currently exist near Sunset
Beach, or elsewhere in the County.
4.2.3 Alternative No. 3 - Spray Irrigation
Spray Irrigation , especially on forest lands, is an option in this area due to the large
number and size of tree farms in the region. Depending on soil types and wetland
locations, as much as 2,000-3,000 gallons per acre could be sprayed on either forest
lands or other areas.
Advantages:
• There is an abundance of large tracts of forest land in the area.
• Would only require treatment to secondary limits, to avoid clogging of
spray system.
Disadvantages:
• Would likely require high pumping costs and extensive spray facilities.
9

' Would necessitate a long term contractual relationship with the land
owner requiring that the land used be dedicated for the purpose of timber
' and spray irrigation.
• Extensive environmental studies may be needed over large areas to
determine feasibility.
' Would require that public access be restricted for the area sprayed.
This alternative is potentially suitable for all participants in the study.
4.2.4 Alternative No. 4 - Complete Reuse Systems
The systems proposed in this alternative would follow the State's new reuse rules.
However, instead of limiting the reuse to golf courses, complete reuse distribution
systems would be set up much like potable water systems. These systems would run
parallel with potable water and would have separate meters, storage facilities, pumping,
etc. The reuse water could be used for most exterior watering purposes such as car
washing, lawn sprinklers, and plant watering.
The methods required are currently in use, and have been for sometime, in California,
Nevada, Florida and other areas both in the U.S. and other countries. This method is
likely the future of reuse in this country.
Advantages:
• Perhaps the truest form of reuse, with the producer also being the end
' user.
• Allows for cost recovery by way of individual meters.
' Avoids any potential conflict due to intraregional transfer of reuse water.
Disadvantages:
The concept of reuse is new to North Carolina which may create problems
with public perception.
• These reuse systems are potentially very costly due to the need to
essentially duplicate the potable water distribution system.
• Would not realize the same cost benefits as using a regional disposal site.
IThis Alternative is potentially suitable for all participants.
4.2.5 Alternative No. 5 - Habitat Restoration
tReuse/reclaimed water has been used, in other parts of the country, to help recharge
and enhance wetlands. This recharge, enhancement or construction of wetlands is
' known as habitat restoration. Specific to North Carolina and Brunswick County is the
use of either constructed or existing wetlands as a non -discharge treatment alternative.
In the coastal areas of Brunswick County there are numerous opportunities to utilize
' existing wetlands areas. The South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority (SBWASA),
of which the Town of Sunset Beach is a member, has looked specifically at the use of
10

' Carolina Bays for further treatment of secondary treated effluent. Other such areas
exist within close proximity of virtually all of the participants in this study.
Advantages:
• Utilizes existing and constructed wetlands which are abundant in the
' study area.
• Allows for secondary treatment levels rather than tertiary.
• Has a high degree of environmental acceptability.
Disadvantages:
• Not a common treatment method in North Carolina, leading to potential
' public perception problems.
• Potentially requires long pumping distances and therefore higher costs.
This Alternative is potentially suitable for all participants.
' 4.2.6 Alternative No. 6 - Ocean Outfall
As they exist now, ocean outfalls of any kind for treated effluent area not allowed by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
With that in mind, the discussion should still proceed from a technical feasibility
standpoint. There are two options available for ocean outfalls. First is the use of the
existing Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Brunswick Nuclear Facility's cooling water
canal and outfall. This outfall takes flow from the Lower Cape Fear River and draws it
into the facility for cooling purposes. It then pumps it from the facility, across the
Intracoastal Waterway, to Oak Island and through a 2000 LF +/- ocean outfall for
discharge. The flow through this outfall is approximately 1,000,000 gpm. The
discharge side of the canal runs from the Nuclear Facility, northwest of Southport, along
the eastern border of the Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District, across the waterway
and into the vicinity of Yaupon and Caswell Beaches.
The second option would involve construction of a new ocean outfall, exclusively for
effluent discharge. This option would have to be pursued as a true geographically
regional disposal alternative in order to be cost effective and to help with environmental
approval which will certainly require an Environmental Impact Statement.
Advantages Option 1, CP&L Canal:
• Allows use of an existing outfall facility which will greatly reduce costs.
• The existing facility is located geographically close to all participants in the
study except Sunset Beach.
• Negotiations have already taken place with CP&L and some state
regulators to determine viability.
• The existing canal flows at 1,000,000 gpm+, which would allow
tremendous dilution of the effluent flow.
11

Disadvantages Option 1 CP&L Canal:
• Would certainly require a major environmental effort with the public and
the State of North Carolina.
• Would require contractual agreements with CP&L.
fLikely will require tertiary treatment for any participant's effluent.
• Creates problems by virtue of the fact that the entire canal/outfall flow is
' pumped, not gravity.
• The existing outfall extends only 2,000 LF +/- into the ocean, which is
relatively short.
' Advantages Option 2 New Outfall:
• Provides a new custom designed facility that can handle the effluent
disposal needs for all participants for the future.
Disadvantages Option 2 New Outfall:
' The capital cost of a new ocean outfall will be extremely high.
• The State of North Carolina currently opposes any ocean outfall for
treated effluent.
• This concept does not promote beneficial use of effluent.
• Would likely require tertiary treatment levels for all participants.
• The environmental process for a new ocean outfall would be arduous,
' with no guarantee of success.
Both options may only be suitable for the SE corner participants.
4.2.7 Alternative No. 7 - Surface Discharge
' As with the ocean outfall alternative, there are two general options for a surface
discharge.
The first option would be a discharge to inland surface or fresh waters. This would
follow the Division of Water Quality's normal N.P.D.E.S. permitting format. The problem
to be solved would be to find a suitable creek or swamp with enough flow to
accommodate a regional discharge flow. This would also require a major
environmental effort with consideration given to virtually all other alternatives, especially
reuse alternatives, prior to consideration of an inland surface discharge.
The second option is also a surface discharge, but this would be to estuarine waters.
Currently, the City of Southport has such a discharge to SC waters of the Intracoastal
Waterway. Also included in the consideration of discharge locations would be the
Lower Cape Fear River as a new discharge.
Discussions have already been held with the Division of Water Quality concerning the
Lower Cape Fear River discharge. Preliminary limits were obtained in a letter (included
', ' 12

in Appendix) which called for tertiary requirements, with nutrient limits. This discharge
would be geographically favorable, as would a potential expansion of the Southport
plant (see 4.2.10) and discharge. Either point would also be able to handle the amount
of flow from all the participants because of the very large dilution. No discharge would
be allowed to SA waters or tributaries to SA waters.
Advantages Option One Inland Surface Discharge:
• Depending on pumping requirements, maybe one of the lowest capital
cost alternatives.
• Depending on discharge location, could be very geographically favorable.
Disadvantages Option One Inland Surface Discharge:
• Virtually no adequate location for discharge due to lack of dilution flow.
• Difficult environmental process, with other alternatives, especially reuse,
given consideration first.
• Pumping requirements would likely mean high capital and O&M costs for
all participants.
• Does not promote beneficial use of treated effluent.
• Will require tertiary treatment with nutrient limits.
Advantages Option Two Estuarine Discharge:
• The likely location is geographically close to all study participants except
Sunset Beach.
• Preliminary limits and discussions have already happened with the
Division of Water Quality.
• The City of Southport has a current discharge to the Intracoastal
Waterway (see 4.2.10).
• Relatively low cost alternative with direct surface disposal.
Disadvantages Option Two Estuarine Discharge:
• Difficult environmental process, with other alternatives, especially reuse,
given consideration first.
• Pumping requirements would likely mean high capital and O&M costs for
all participants.
• Does not promote beneficial use of treated effluent.
• Will require tertiary treatment with nutrient limits.
' 4.2.8 Alternative No. 8 - Land Application
For the purposes of this study, land application means subsurface application of treated
effluent in a restricted access area, dedicated to effluent disposal. The treatment level
1 1 is secondary, at a minimum, so as to prevent clogging of the soil structure, but in some
cases, tertiary treatment may be required.
13

This disposal method does not include injection of the treated effluent for the purposes
of groundwater recharge, which is currently not allowed in N.C.
Advantages:
• Relatively low capital and O&M cost disposal alternative.
• Depending on final application process, may only require secondary
treatment of effluent.
Disadvantages:
• Would require a relatively large amount of land, suitable for the disposal
purpose and in close proximity to the participants.
• The disposal site would have to be dedicated to disposal and off limits to
public access.
• Environmental approval may be difficult since this does not truly promote
beneficial use of the effluent.
This Alternative is potentially suitable for all participants.
4.2.9 Alternative No. 9 - Rapid infiltration
' Rapid infiltration involves the application of treated effluent over a deep permeable
sand bed at a high rate by rotary distributors. The effluent is treated further by several
processes as it travels through the soil filter matrix. Pre -application treatment levels
' can vary from primary treatment only, to help avoid premature soil clogging, to tertiary
levels to avoid nuisance conditions in populated areas.
The treated effluent is applied to the surface by flooding the shallow basin over a
variable period of time which helps drive air through the matrix.
As the soil matrix begins to clog and slow infiltration rates, tillage of the sand bed or
removal of the top few inches will generally restore full infiltration capability.
Storage/equalization basins area often included for periods between flooding periods.
Advantages:
• Relatively simple process of disposal.
• May only require primary or secondary treatment prior to flooding basin.
• Relatively low land requirements due to high application rates.
• Capital and O&M costs are relatively low.
Disadvantages:
• Recent technical and environmental concerns may create serious siting
and permitting problems.
• Does not promote beneficial use of the treated effluent.
14

Requires areas of land for the exclusive use of disposal with restricted
access.
This Alternative is potentially suitable for all participants.
4.2.10 Alternative No. 10 - City of Southport
This Alternative is very similar to Alternative No. 7 - Surface Discharge, but with some
specific refinements. In the past 2 years, and even more intensively in the past few
months, there have been numerous discussions concerning the use of the City of
Southport's POTW as a regional facility. In the Fall of 1995, the Southeast Brunswick
Sanitary District (SBSD) had brief discussions with City personnel concerning the City
accepting wastewater from SBSD for treatment and discharge to the Intracoastal
Waterway. Due to time constraints associated with the expansion and upgrade
necessary at the Southport POTW to accept all of the SBSD's flow, this idea was not
pursued any further.
Subsequent to those initial discussions, an agreement was reached for Southport to
treat and discharge up to 100,000 gpd from the SBSD as part of the solution to the
problems with the River Run Shopping Center Packaged Plant.
In the last few months, discussions have been held between several of the study
participants and the City of Southport towards having the Southport POTW become a
truly regional facility by treating and disposing of wastewater potentially from the Town
of Long Beach, the Town of Yaupon Beach, the Town of Caswell Beach at a minimum.
Pursuit of this Alternative would require construction of separate collection systems with
pumping to Southport. At the Southport end, an expansion and likely upgrade of their
existing POTW would have to occur. This might also mean a relocation of the plant site
and discharge point.
' Advantages:
• Provides a truly regional approach to treatment and disposal.
• Would likely be very cost effective with individual collection, but common
' treatment and a surface discharge
• Discussions have already taken place among several of the study
' participants.
• Will help promote cooperation among the study participants
' Disadvantages:
• Does not promote beneficial use of the effluent, as presented.
• Geographically, would not benefit the Town of Sunset Beach directly.
' Will likely require a relocation of Southport's POTW.
• Will require relatively large pumping costs by each participant.
1
15

SECTION V
COST ESTIMATES
5.1 General
The basic cost information has been generated using actual data, as much as possible.
' We have attempted to use recent bid tabulation information for similar projects and
types of work.
These estimates cover a very broad range of types of work and potential cost items.
They are not meant to be an exhaustive and detailed construction cost estimate, but
rather a summary of the major elements of each alternative and approximate costs for
each, for comparison.
' 5.2 Methodology/Assumptions
Because the main purpose and scope of this study is to look at disposal alternatives
and the relative costs of each, no estimates are provided for individual municipal
collection or treatment systems. The following list shows a summary of specific
assumptions made for each Alternative.
5.2.1 Alternative No. 1
Assumptions:
• The municipality would participate in the construction of a new golf course,
specifically in the irrigation system costs.
• Pumping distance assumed to be 20,000 LF maximum for each participant to each
golf course.
• For an existing course the municipality would participate in the costs for irrigation
pond additions, piping modifications and signage.
• Each golf course is assumed to be able to irrigate up to 400,000 gpd.
• Costs shown represent the costs per each course
' See Table Nos. 3 and 3A for a breakdown of the anticipated costs for an existing
course and a new course, respectively. Only Table NO. 3A, Alternative 1A is used for
the present worth calculations and further comparison.
5.2.2 Alternative No. 2
' Assumptions:
• Because of the limited capacity of the Cogentrix facility, only those flows, not already
being treated/disposed, will be considered.
• Actual, scaled force main distances will be considered.
• No flow is considered from the Town of Sunset Beach.
�
16

• No effluent storage facilities are included; they are assumed to be part of the
individual treatment facilities.
• Engineering and administrative costs reflect one contract for all work.
See Table No. 4 for a breakdown of the anticipated costs for all Southeast county
' participants to go to Cogentrix.
' 5.2.3 Alternative No. 3
Assumptions:
• That suitable forest lands exist within 10 miles of the southeast corner of Brunswick
' County, making them accessible to all but the Town of Sunset Beach.
• That each acre of forest land can dispose of 3,500 gallons per day of treated
effluent.
• The forest land to be used will be purchased, assumed cost to be $2,000/acre.
• Common force mains will be used, as much as possible.
• All municipalities will use existing methods, with any new or expanded flow to go to
' the forest.
• Each sprinkler head will cover approximately 5,000 SF (0.11 acres).
' See Table No. 5 for a breakdown of the anticipated cost for all southeast county
participants going to a single forest tract. The Town of Sunset Beach could utilize their
own system, perhaps within closer proximity. They would need potentially several
' hundred acres in order to plan for 20-year flows (seasonal and permanent).
' 5.2.4 Alternative No. 4
It would be very difficult, and beyond the scope of this study, to do a detailed cost
estimate for each municipality for a complete reuse system. With the exception of the
actual treatment processes, there is virtually no difference between this type of system
' and a potable water system from an equipment standpoint.
What will be presented in the cost estimate is a basic type system with approximately
1000 connections. While a purely residential/commercial system may not be cost
effective at first, the idea of a small scale, trial system may be attractive in order to build
public confidence and secure more customers, both residential and industrial, for the
future.
• That there will be 1000 residential connections to the system, with meters.
• That each connection will use an average of 50 gpd.
• That there will be a large commercial, recreational or municipal use that can account
for at least 5,000 gpd.
• A minimum 50,000 gallons of enclosed ground storage will be provided.
• That there will be approximately 40,000 LF of 4" lines, 20,000 LF of 3" lines and
10,000 LF of 2" lines.
See Table No. 6 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
1
17

1
5.2.5 Alternative No. 5
' Assumptions:
• That the southeast county area will find suitable land within five miles of the
participants and to the greatest extent possible, use a common force main.
' • That the Sunset Beach area will have suitable land within five miles.
• That this will be a constructed wetlands area with conditions site adapted.
• Construction for both the southeast county area and the Sunset Beach area will
' occur under one contract.
See Table No. 7 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
5.2.6 Alternative No. 6
Assumptions:
• That this will be a viable alternative after negotiations with C.P.& L and the Division
of Water Quality.
• All effluent will be discharged to a single point in the canal.
• Each participant will already meet the minimum treatment levels required by the
regulatory authorities.
• Each participant will already have any storage, facilities, in place that may be
required.
• The discharge will be designed to take all the 20-year flow from each participant,
with the exception of any flows that are committed elsewhere.
• No estimate is provided for a new outfall due to the extremely high costs, especially
with such a small total flow, i.e., the economies of scale are not there.
See Table No. 8 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
5.2.7 Alternative No. 7
Assumptions:
• The discharge point will be to the class SC estuarine waters of the Cape Fear River
northeast of Southport.
• All participants will use a common force main, to the greatest extent possible.
• The discharge will be designed to take all the 20-year flow from all participants, with
the exception of any flows that are committed elsewhere.
Each participant will be responsible for their own treatment and any storage that
may be required.
See Table No. 9 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
5.2.8 Alternative No. 8
The assumptions for this Land Application Alternative are much the same as Altemative
No. 3 - Spray Irrigation of Forest Lands, for the purposes of cost estimating. This
Alternative uses the same estimate as for Alternative No. 3 due to the similarities in size
18

' and scope and the assumption that suitable land exists within 10 miles of the
participants.
See Table No. 10 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
' 5.2.9 Alternative No.9
The pumping and site location are assumed to be the same as for Alternative Nos. 3
' and 8. The only real difference is the size and nature of the site necessary to dispose
of the effluent. While the site size needed is smaller than Alternative Nos. 3 & 8, the
specific site requirements are more difficult and the rapid infiltration basin would need to
be specifically site built.
See Table No. 11 for a breakdown of anticipated costs.
■ 5.2.10 Alternative No. 10
For cost estimating purposes, the assumptions for this alternative are very similar to
' Alternative No. 7, with the exception of the location of the discharge point being near
the existing wastewater treatment plant and the plan to have regional treatment as well.
That means that each participant will collect its own wastewater, then pump it,
' untreated, to the new Southport facility. It is also assumed that the new Southport
facility will be relocated on a new site nearby. The final assumption is, similar to
Alternative No. 7, that Sunset Beach will not be a part of this approach.
See Table No. 12 for a breakdown of anticipted costs.
' 5.3 Net Present Worth
Table No. 13 shows a Net Present Worth Analysis summary based on actual capital
cost estimates, plus the annual operation and maintenance cost taken over a 20-year
period with an 8% discount rate and a 3% annual escalation rate.
Table No. 14 is a chart of the same information presented in Table No. 13.
19

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - GOLF COURSE REUSE, EXISTING COURSE
' LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' TABLE NO. 3
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.4 MGD Average) 1 LS 100,000 $/LS
'2 10" Force Main 20,000 LF 20 $/LF
3 Irrigation Pond Construction 1 LS 250,000 $/LS
4 Piping Modifications at Course 1 LS 50,000 $/LS
' 5 Signage , Miscellaneous Modifications 1 LS 20,000 $/LS
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
I' ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS vi"�'.� 1 Y S. EASEMENTS
' � '�
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
1
1
SUBTOTAL $
TOTAL
100,000
400,000
250,000
50,000
20,000
820,000
100,000
75,000
10,000
10,000
101,500
$ 1,116,500
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
TABLE NO. 3

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1A - GOLF COURSE REUSE, NEW COURSE
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' TABLE NO. 3A
' ITEM
1 Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.4 MGD Average )
2 10" Force Main
' 3 Irrigation Pond Construction
4 Spray Irrigation System , Complete
5 Seeding , Pond Piping & Misc. Modifications
'
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING &CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
1 LS
20,000 LF
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
UNIT PRICE
100,000 $/LS
25 $/LF
300,000 $/LS
800,000 $/LS
75,000 $/LS
SUBTOTAL
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1
Staff ( 1 Operator)
'
2
Utilities ( PIS Electrical )
3
Pump Station Maintenance
4
Line Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
II ,
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 1A
TABLE NO. 3A
TOTAL
$ 100,000
$ 500,000
$ 300,000
$ 800,000
$ 75,000
$ 1,775,000
$ 160,000
$ 75,000
$ 10,000
$ 20,000
$ 204,000
$ 2,244,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$
45,000
$
5,000
$
5,000
$
5,000
$
60,000

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
i ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - INDUSTRIAL REUSE @ COGENTRIX
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 4
i
'
1
ITEM
Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average )
2
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average )
'
3
4
12" Force Main from Long Beach
8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
5
8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
6
8" Force Main from S B S D
'
7
8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
8
Valving / Piping Modifications @ Cogentrix
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCT!nn!
ADMINISTRATION
' 1 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
i CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
45,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
1,350,000
20,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
400,000
45,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
900,000
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
100,000
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
100,000
1
LS
50,000
$/LS
$
50,000
SUBTOTAL
IANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
i ITEM
i 1 Staff ( 1 Operator , 1 Asst. )
2 Utilities ( P/S Electrical )
3 Pump Station Electrical
4 Line Maintenance
iTOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
$ 3,950,000
450,000
$ 250,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 475,000
$ 5,225,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$
70,000
$
55,000
$
25,000
$
25,000
$
175,000
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
TABLE NO. 4
--------------------

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - SPRAY IRRIGATION
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 5
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
i1
Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average)
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
2
Effluent Pumping Station ( 1.75 MGD Average)
1
EA
500,000
$/EA
$
500,000
3
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average)
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
4
20" Common Force Main
25,000
LF
40
$/LF
$
1,000,000
5
12" Force Main from Long Beach
15,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
450,000
6
8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
10,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
200,000
7
8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
25,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
500,000
100,000
8
8" Force Main from S B S D
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
9
8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
100,000
10
14 " Force Main ( Sunset Beach )
25,000
LF
35
$/LF
$
875,000
5,000,000
11
Spray / Sprinkler System , Per Head
10,000
HD
500
$/HD
$
12
Spray / Sprinkler System , Per Head
5,000
HD
500
$/HD
$
2,500,000
11
Spray Irrigation Site , Per Acre ( S.E. County)
1,100
AC
2,000
2,000
$/EA
$/EA
$
$
2,200,000
1,200,000
14
Spray Irrigation Site , her Acre ( Sunset Beach)
600
AC
.
14,925,000
SUBTOTAL
$
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
$
1,250,000
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
$
250,000
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
$
100,000
I' RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS 50,000
CONTINGENCY (10 %) 1,657,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 18,232,500
1
2
3
4
5
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
Staff ( 1 Operator , 2 Assts. )
Utilities ( P/S & Site Electrical )
Pump Station Electrical
Line Maintenance
Spray System Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 100,000
$ 80,000
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
$ 50,000
$ 300,000
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
TABLE NO. 5

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 - COMPLETE REUSE SYSTEMS
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' TABLE NO. 6
'
ITEM
1
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.15 M.G.D. w/ V.S.D.)
4" Reuse Main ( Includes Valving )
'2
3
3" Reuse Main ( Includes Valving )
4
2" Reuse Main ( Includes Valving )
5
Long Meter Service
'
6
Short Meter Service
7
0.05 MG Ground Storage Tank w/ Pumps
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
'
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
'
.LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS & LAND
CONTINGENCY ( 10 % )
'
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1
EA
200,000
$/EA
$
200,000
40,000
LF
15
$/LF
$
600,000
20.000
LF
12
$/LF
$
240,000
10,000
LF
10
$/LF
$
100,000
400
EA
750
$!EA
$
300,000
600
EA
450
$/EA
$
270,000
1
LS
175,000
$/LS
$
175,000
SUBTOTAL
$
1,885,000
$
225,000
$
150,00
$
30,000
$
30,000
$
232,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
1
ITEM
' q
Staff ( 1 Operator , 2 Assts. )
2
Utilities ( P/S Electrical )
3
Pump Station Electrical
'
4
Line / System Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
1
1
I
'I 1
1
$ 2,552,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$
100,000
$
4,000
$
5,000
$
20,000
$ 129,000
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
TABLE NO. 6

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
t ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 - HABITAT RESTORATION
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' TABLE NO. 7
ITEM
1
1
Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average )
2
Effluent Pumping Station ( 1.5 MGD Average )
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average )
'3
4
20" Common Force Main ( S.E. County )
5
12" Force Main ( Sunset Beach )
Misc. Site Work ( S.E. County )
'6
7
Misc. Site Work ( Sunset Beach )
8
Control Structures @ Wetland ( S.E. County )
9
Control Structures @ Wetland ( Sunset Beach )
'
10
Wetlands , Per Acre ( S. E. County )
11
Wetlands , Per Acre ( Sunset Beach )
I 1
'
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
'
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1
EA
500,000
$/EA
$
500,000
1
EA
250,000
$/EA
$
250,000
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
25,000
LF
40
$/LF
$
1,000,000
25,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
750,000
1
LS
175,000
$/LS
$
175,000
1
LS
75,000
$/LS
$
75,000
1
LS
175,000
$/LS
$
175,000
1
LS
75,000
$/LS
$
75,000
20
AC
5,000
S/AC
$
100,000
10
AC
5,000
$/AC
$
50,000
SUBTOTAL $ 3,450,000
IANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1
Staff ( 1 Operator , 2 Assts. )
2
Utilities ( P/S Electrical )
t
3
Pump Station Maintenance
4
Line Maintenance
'
5
Onsite System Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL 0 & M COST
1
1
' ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
TABLE NO. 7
$ 450,000
$ 150,000
$ 50,000
$ 50.000
$ 415,000
$ 4,565,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 100,000
$
80,000
$
35,000
$
35,000
$
50,000
$ 300,000

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. e - OCEAN OUTFALL , C. P. & L CANAL / OUTFALL
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 8
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1 Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average)
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
2 Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average)
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
3 12" Force Main from Long Beach
25,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
750,000
4 8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
10,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
200,000
5 8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
45,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
900,000
6 8" Force Main from S B S D
15,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
300,000
7 8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
100,000
8 Valving I Piping Modifications @ Cogentrix
1
LS
50,000
$/LS
$
50,000
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1 Staff ( 1 Operator , 1 Asst. )
2 Utilities ( PIS Electrical )
3 Pump Station Electrical
4 Line Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL 0 & M COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
TABLE NO. 8
$ 3,350,000
$ 450,000
� 50 nnn
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 405,000
$ 4,455,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 70,000
$ 55,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 175,000

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 - SURFACE DISCHARGE
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 9
ITEM
1 Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average )
2 Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average )
3 12" Force Main from Long Beach
4 8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
5 8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
6 8" Force Main from S B S D
7 8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
8 Valving / Piping Modifications @ Cogentrix
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
QUANTITY
1 EA
4 EA
35,000 LF
10,000 LF
55,000 LF
15,000 LF
5,000 LF
1 LS
UNIT PRICE
750,000 $/EA
75,000 $/EA
30 $/LF
20 $/LF
20 $/LF
20 $/LF
20 $/LF
50,000 $/LS
SUBTOTAL
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1 Staff ( 1 Operator , 1 Asst. )
2 Utilities ( PIS Electrical )
3 Pump Station Maintenance
4 Line Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
TOTAL
$ 750,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,050,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,100,000
$ 300,000
$ 100,000
$ 50,000
$ 3,850,000
$ 500,000
$ 200,000
$ 50,000
$ 75,000
$ 467,500
$ 5,142,500
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 70,000
$ 55,000
$ 30,000
Q IVJ,VVV
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
TABLE NO. 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A 3
14
1
2
3
4
5
ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 8 - LAND APPLICATION
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 10
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average)
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
Effluent Pumping Station ( 1.75 MGD Average)
1
EA
500,000
$/EA
$
500,000
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.3 MGD Average)
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
20" Common Force Main
25,000
LF
40
$ILF
$
1,000,000
12" Force Main from Long Beach
15,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
450,000
8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
10,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
200,000
8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
25,000
LF
20
$ILF
$
500,000
8" Force Main from S B S D
5,000
LF
20
$ILF
$
100,000
8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
5,000
LF
20
$ILF
$
100,000
14 " Force Main ( Sunset Beach )
25,000
LF
35
$ILF
$
875,000
Spray / Sprinkler System , Per Head
10,000
HD
500
$/HD
$
5,000,000
Spray / Sprinkler System , Per Head
5,000
HD
500
$/HD
$
2,500,000
Spray Irrigation Site , Per Acre ( S.E. County)
1.100
AC
5,000
$/EA
$
5,500,000
Spray Irrigation Site , Per Acre ( Sunset Beach)
600
AC
5,000
$/EA
$
3,000,000
SUBTOTAL $ 20,775,000
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION $ 1,400,000
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION $ 300,000
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $ 100,000
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS $ 100,000
CONTINGENCY ( 10 % ) $ 2,267,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 24,942,500
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
Staff ( 1 Operator , 2 Assts. )
Utilities ( P/S Electrical )
Pump Station Electrical
Line Maintenance
Onsite Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COST
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 100,000
$ 80,000
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
$ 70,000
$ 320,000
ALTERNATIVE NO. 8
TABLE NO. 10

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 9 - RAPID INFILTRATION
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
fTABLE NO. 11
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1
Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average)
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
2
Effluent Pumping Station ( 1.75 MGD Average)
1
EA
500,000
$/EA
$
500,000
3
Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.3 MGD Average)
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
4
20" Common Force Main
25,000
LF
40
$ILF
$
1,000,000
5
12" Force Main from Long Beach
15,000
LF
30
$ILF
$
450,000
6
6" Force Main from Caswell Beach
10,000
LF
18
$ILF
$
180,000
7
6" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
25,000
LF
18
$ILF
$
450,000
8
6" Force Main from S B S D
5,000
LF
18
$ILF
$
90,000
9
6" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
5,000
LF
18
$/LF
$
90,000
10
14 " Force Main ( Sunset Beach)
25,000
LF
35
$/LF
$
875,000
11
Site Preparation ( S.E. County )
1
LS
1,200:000
$/LS
$
1,200,000
12
Site Preparation ( Sunset Beach)
1
LS
500,000
$/LS
$
500,000
'is
Rapid Infiltration Site , Per Acre ( S.E. County)
6n
AC
5,000
$/AC
$
300,000
14
Rapid Infiltration Site , Per Acre ( Sunset Beach)
25
AC
5,000
$/AC
$
125,000
SUBTOTAL
$
6,810,000
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING& CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
CONTINGENCY (10 % )
TOTAL PROJECT COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1 Staff ( 1 Operator , 2 Assts. )
2 Utilities ( PIS Electrical )
3 Pump Station Maintenance
4 Line Maintenance
5 Onsite System Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL 0 & M COST
$ 575,000
$ 175,000
$ 50,000
$ 20,000
$ 763,000
$ 8,393,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$ 100,000
$ 80,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 100,000
$ 380,000
ALTERNATIVE NO. 9
TABLE NO. 11

ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED COST
ALTERNATIVE NO. 10 - CITY OF SOUTHPORT
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 12
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1 Effluent Pumping Station ( 2.25 MGD Average)
1
EA
750,000
$/EA
$
750,000
2 Effluent Pumping Station ( 0.25 MGD Average)
4
EA
75,000
$/EA
$
300,000
3 12" Force Main from Long Beach
25,000
LF
30
$/LF
$
750,000
4 8" Force Main from Caswell Beach
10,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
200,000
5 8" Force Main from Boiling Spring Lakes
40,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
800,000
6 8" Force Main from S B S D
15,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
300,000
7 8" Force Main from Yaupon Beach
5,000
LF
20
$/LF
$
100,000
SUBTOTAL
$
3,200,000
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
$
450,000
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
$
150,000
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
$
50,000
RIGHTS OF WAY & EASEMENTS
$
50,000
CONTINGENCY ( 10 % )
$
390,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
4,290,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
1 Staff ( 1 Operator , 1 Asst. )
2 Utilities ( P/S Electrical )
3 Pump Station Maintenance
4 Line Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL 0 & M COST
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
$
70,000
$
55,000
$
25,000
$
25,000
$ 175,000
ALTERNATIVE NO. 10
TABLE NO. 12

NET PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
LONG BEACH, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE NO. 13
ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
ITEM NO.1A NO.2 NO.3 NO.4 NO.5 NO.6 NO.7 NO.8 NO.9 NO.10
CAPITAL COST $ 2,244,000 $ 5,225,000 $ 18,232,500 $ 2,552,000 $ 4,565,000 $ 4,455,000 $ 5,142,500 $ 24,942,500 $ 8,393,000 $ 4,290,000
ANNUAL O & M COST $ 60,000 $ 175,000 $ 300,000 $ 129,000 $ 300,000 $ 175,000 $ 185,000 $ 320,000 $ 380,000 $ 175,000
NET PRESENT WORTH COSTS
N. P. W. OF O & M
$
757,080
$
2,208,150
$
3,785,400
$
1,627.722
$
3,785,400
$
2,208,150
$
2,334,330
$
4,037,760
$
4,794,840
$
2,208,150
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$
2,244,000
$
5,225,000
$
18,232,500
$
2,552,000
$
4,565,000
$
4,455,000
$
5,142,500
$
24,942,500
$
8,393,000
$
4,290,000
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
$
3,001,080
$
7,433,150
$
22,017,900
$
4,179,722
$
8,350,400
$
6.663,150
$
7,476,830
$
28,980,260
$
13,187,840
$
6,498,150
NET PRESENT WORTH
TABLE NO. 13

IM
$30, 000, 000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5, 000, 000
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS CHART
TABLE NO. 14
`--s ANNUAL 0 & M COST
-8 N.P.W.OFO&M j
A TOTAL CAPITAL COST
-TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
a
N
C 7
V
Lo
(D f-
00
0)
O
0
0 0
O
Z
Z
Z
z
z
O
Z
lU
W
Lu
W
W W
W
W
Z
W
�
>
>_
>_ >_
>_
i
w
>
F-
_>
F-
F-
F-
F- F-
F-
F-
>
Q
z
z
z
z
z z
z
z
Q
�
w
w
w
w
w
w w
w
w
J
J
J
J
J
J
jw-
-j
F-
a
a
a
a
Q a
a
a
a
Q
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS CHART
TABLE NO. 14

' SECTION VI
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
' 6.1 General
Table No. 15, Alternative Analysis Matrix shows a matrix comparing several basic
' factors that are important to the selection of a recommended alternative. Each
alternative is rated for each factor on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the least
' acceptable/favorable and 10 being the most acceptable/favorable.
Special notice should be taken of several items:
1. Each of the factors in this matrix is given equal importance. Any form of
"weighting" can be applied in order to more accurately reflect the goals of the
participants in this study.
2. The same logic applies to the individual ranking within each factor, i.e., it can be
p adjusted based on additional input from the study participants.
'
3. Several of these factors are self explanatory, such as "Capital Cost", "Total
' Present Worth", Promotion of Beneficial Use", "Promotion of Regionalization" and "Land
Requirements and Restrictions".
' 4. "Environmental Acceptability" involves the potential ease of receiving a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) through the State review process.
5. "Technical Feasibility" is a measure of the compatibility of each alternative with
existing, commonly used technologies.
' 6. "Future Expandability" deals with the ease of, or restrictions on, expandability to
handle any possible 20 year flows or even beyond.
' 7. "Public Acceptability" refers to the public that will be directly affected and served
by the particular alternative and their potential positive or negative reaction to any part
of it. This is partly related to "Environmental Acceptability", but this deals more with
individual responses vs. State and Federal agencies.
8. "Regulatory Acceptability" reflects the acceptability by the various State
permitting authorities for each alternative. This is partly related to virtually all the other
■ factors with the possible exception of cost issues.
9. -Other Issues" tries to account for any other forces at work in this discussion
' such as work already done on an alternative, past negative or positive reactions to
ideas and political sensitivity.
' 20
d

' 6.2 Recommendations
Overall, Alternative No. 10 - Regional treatment and discharge by the City of Southport
' ranks the highest and would therefore be the recommended alternative.
Some other issues that must be dealt with are as follows:
1. Virtually all of the participants are at different places in the development of
wastewater systems. This makes it very difficult to determine individual cost shares
' and timing. This study assumes that, at a minimum, each participant will develop its
own collection system, and in some cases, their own treatment facilities as well.
The recommended alternatives does assume that a regional treatment plant will be built
in Southport. Costs for this plant were not included in order to have a fair comparison
with the other alternatives.
2. Any future treatment facilities should be planned around tertiary treatment levels
' in order to be compatible with all possible disposal options, if individual treatment is
desired.
3. Those participants that currently have permits and facilities in place for effluent
disposal should continue with those facilities for now, but should look for the future
elimination of those facilities, when a regional alternative becomes a reality.
4. A regional authority or entity should be established that will look after and
promote regionalization throughout the County and not just among the study
' participants.
5. Discussions should be held early on with any affected environmental and
I' regulatory entities since virtually all of the Alternatives have some potential negative
impacts. This will allow an open dialogue and decision making process by partnering
1 all involved parties. It should also serve to make the permitting and environmental
approval processes go smoother.
6. All possible funding options should be pursued initially, until the most viable
sources are identified.
21

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS MATRIX
LONG BEACH REGIONAL SEWER STUDY
I CIVIC: RFAC`I-I RRI INCWIr-K r-0I INTV AICIRTN ('ARCH INA
ALTERNATIVES
Q
N
M Z
�
to
w
w�
~ !
00 Z
O
O lY
O
O
00
0(n
0
OJ
OQ
02
I-
OF-
00
Z
ww
Z
w 1,
z p
Wa
Z p
Ww
Z
w j
Z Q
w�-j
Z= j
w�
Z
wa
Z�
w
Z=
III
X
�
i I
>
>? I
� 0 I
J
> J
a0
Z V
a�
Z Z
a�
Z—
a�
Z J
Qp!
Z Z
Q
ate'
Z J i
aw!
Z U
as
Z Q
aZ
Z—
a�
Z u-
w
Ill W
W !
w W
w >-
W Q
w
IIIa-W
w
J
w i
W otS
w Q
W LL
w !
W p I
X p
LLJ
Ix 0
W >�-
F-
O
F-
O
F-
d
F- 2
JO
F- F-
F-
Ja'FACTORS
J�
FJ- Z
JQ
FJ-
n
aU
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
9!'
101
7 1
iJw
5 I
8
-
1 1
1
3
7
4;
3
CAPITAL COST
10
4
21
9j
6 i
7
5
11
3
8
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
10
6
2;
9
4
7
5
1
3
8
PROMOTION OF BENEFICIAL USE
8
9
I
71
10;
6
1
11
5
4'
1
PROMOTION OF REGIONALIZATION
1
3!
7:
1 j
7
9
81
7
7'
10
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
3
6
4i
71
1
10
101
5',
2
10
FUTURE EXPANDABILITY
3
1
6'
4
2:
10:
9'
6
7
9
PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY
8
10 !
4
1
6
21
7!
4
3
9
REGULATORY ACCEPTABILITY
9
10 i
8
5
61
1
1.
8
4
3
LAND REQUIREMENTS & RESTRICTIONS
5
9
I
1
I
6,
4!
-
10
8
1
3
7
OTHERISSUES
%
2;
5i
8;
6I
9I
4i
1
10
TOTALS
73
70
531
65
56
611
661
49 i
41;
78
ANALYSIS MATRIX
TABLE NO. 15

SECTION VII
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Fundinq
Currently, there are several different funding methods available. Among these are:
1. North Carolina Revolving Loan Fund
This fund has a very favorable interest that is half the market rate and requires no
Facilities Plan Amendment. However, funding is limited and the maximum loan amount
is 3 million dollars. Also, a high priority is given to POTW's that are under a JOC or an
SOC and have completed plans and specifications.
2. EPA/NC Revolving Loan Fund
This fund also has a very favorable interest rate, but requires a Facilities Plan, has a
limited budget and does require plans and specifications prior to priority ranking.
3. North Carolina Bond Program
This is the newest fund but it currently has no money available. When in existence, it
had the highest interest rate, required a facilities plan and plans and specifications.
This fund was a non -revolving loan program. Extra ranking points were given to areas
that had interjurisdictional agreements in place to achieve regionalization.
4. Various Grant Funds
These include EDA, CDBG-ED, Industrial Development and Supplemental Grants.
' They have varying maximum amounts that are relatively small and require some form of
justification of economic hardship.
' 5. General Obligation/Revenue Bonds
These are the traditional ways for local municipalities to fund large scale capital
' improvements. They require adequate financial resources for payback and a vote of
the citizens for General Obligation Bonds or approval by elected officials for revenue
bonds, among other requirements.
6. USD.A./Rural Development Administration (RDA) Grants and Loans
The Rural Development Administration still offers a small amount of grants-in-aid for
extremely low income communities.
' 22

A large majority of water and sewer projects in North Carolina are financed through the
Rural Development Administration loan program. Over the past several years
approximately 25 million dollars has been made available each year in North Carolina
under the loan program. Utilization of a RDA loan through General Obligation Bonds
can be a viable alternative for study participants in this area.
7. Local Lendinq Institutions
Many governmental bodies are looking to local banks and other lenders to provide
funding for capital projects. A local institution may see an advantage in helping to
develop the community. Loan policies, interest rates and maximum loan amounts will
vary.
23