NC0024228_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20090611

NPDES DOCUHENT :;CANNING: COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024228
High Point Westside WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA) )`
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 11, 2009
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezzerse side

TAv 6,4 /o9 /o-ij T ei--ei 336-777-Y95D
4 Po 0.) /Vita
girtGc (1a4,7Wr, ti.ttg
EPA - ram-,
*dK,a if► K jaee. - re$u,.., J-- A' e1J. cC s hy/r renemmoe
(wild) of Rich Fp1C CreeK-
i 'd3ori COIIgOar, M1$,1toflerS
f'c14 &K a€2 > 4,z( > f'tecic e.
Jow 60 - dell lot ,, 7r✓�»��,�
bi) ,11 -Sowee k P• al
war Pis 39 (}16-070
'ate,q'wJ
14(104 •mM q-- 6;2.11 _21,16= 932)
�y3 -
erv).eli �
�-
60.0
4043
2
0.0bfew
0141)
P r
413
K 3"
[o s
� wcrn i specs
—
�rO�uG}�.r► � H � 0-Dk f��/«�
nivCkea -Pyj ilitn f eool ffjbrgl3 -I- der44
Cf1/43P) 141 o0G(,i ,' ,( tio PK t`44141

lb) it to I 4 tii, /-.) vie 6/01
Belnick, Tom
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:18 PM
To: Stecker, Kathy
Cc: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff
Subject: High Point Westside Model
Kathy- I took one more look at the 2008 model report. One scenario (improved effluent quality) uses BOD= 2 mg/I and
NH3-N= 0.06 mg/I, which the report states is what the WWTP generally achieves. But looking at 2008 data for summer
season (April -Oct.), they would have popped such a Monthly Average BOD limit for 3 months during summer, and
popped the NH3 limit for 2 months in summer. They also used a model scenario of BOD = 3 mg/I and NH3 = 0.5 mg/I,
and likewise would have popped such a Monthly Average BOD limit for 3 months in summer, and popped the ammonia
limit for 1 month in summer. Bottom Line- I think any remodel should use BOD/NH3 limits that the facility would be
willing to accept, and that we would have a comfort level with them consistently complying with. Otherwise whats the
sense of running such a scenario.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

/jL A I -J Or 431,6 /VC 7oZY ZZ45
I4, m4
�O,�10143IV,�I�
1/0e6
'1
.74
•3S-
2
7
3
7
/•
Y
ID
1-24
4-)
G 2,
- 0Z, 443 B. 06
7
2
6-.01
NH1 o.. sr--
q40
!t
0
.03
0-
3
_11

R'
Belnick, Tom
From: Wakild, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:15 PM
To: Matthews, Matt; Stecker, Kathy; Clark, Alan; Poupart, Jeff; Belnick, Tom; Tedder, Steve
Subject: High Point
I talked with Chris Thompson of High Point (Public Works Director, I think) about our meeting
earlier. I told him that we concurred in their alternatives analysis but remained uncertain that
High Point's proposed stream remediation proposal would achieve the results they claim. He
agreed to have their modeling consultant contack Kathy to determine what additional
analysis/modeling/demonstration would provide DWQ greater certainty that compliance with
WQ standards would be achieved in the receiving stream. Kathy - expect a call next week.
Please note my new email address: chuck.wakildai ncdenr.gov
E-mail is a public record and e-mail messages are subject to public review and may be disclosed to third parties. E- mail is subject to the Public Records Law and
applicable records retention schedule.
1

Belnick, Tom
From: Tedder, Steve
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:15 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: RE: High Point Westside EAA
Thanks Tom,
Next week will be fine. If you want to discuss any before your pow wow with Matt and Jeff, just give me a buzz. High
Point has been waiting four years for an answer from us. They have spent millions on upgrading their collection system
and big time bucks to do the monitoring, model parameter verification and modeling on Rich Fork. They are doing what
we wish everyone would do as far as putting money into the existing infrastructure and looking out 15-20 years to
handle the wastewater needs for this consolidated area. They are having to fight the budget battles every day to have
funds appropriated by their council for WW needs and the sooner we can give them a positive nod on this expansion the
better for us, them and Rich Fork.
Tedder
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:59 AM
To: Tedder, Steve
Cc: Wakild, Chuck; Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff
Subject: High Point Westside EAA
,-2.
Steve- due to staff shortages I've retained the Highpoint EAA, and have already reviewed it. I'm completing
performance reviews and responding to requests for public hearings for Thur/Fri, so I'll get together with Matt and Jeff
next week to discuss High Point. If you have an immediate need on this project, let me know.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

CO014%4 g
0100 /m 1 fin t V i
S7Q10 = 0.0 c-1)
®A,214'1(rd
5/7/0 No ,si i w/ (f,1,J renitIArr« 4 / 6) 2- PIO
rt CP r") i 04 ow .1-,0%174 / Pled/fJ, ae f r, 10 tor,
!# couzY2 Zf5 7 &/kid(
Friends of Rich Fork Creek
A Chapter of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defen ea ue
3632 W. Lexington Ave. Ext.
High Point, NC 27265
[phone] or cridiebaugh@northstate. t
Water Quality Section Chief
Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
CE1VED
MAY - 6 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
RE: RENEWAL OF THE NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT FOR NC 0024228,
High Point Westside Waste Water Treatment Plant
Dear Sirs:
We commented in 2005 when this license was last up for renewal. Since that time there
has been a remarkable improvement in the collection system which supplies this
treatment plant. The outfalls along Payne Creek which were constantly leaking or
overflowing have been almost completely rebuilt. This construction should be completed
within a year.
The Westside Waste Water Treatment Plant itself is undergoing reconstruction but is
incomplete; being somewhere in the Phase I of construction. We note that there are still
spills and other problems there. We look forward to better removal of phosphorus upon
completion of a structure for that purpose. We hope that bad odors from the plant will be
contained.
We have no objection to the re -issuance of the current permit to treat 6.2 MGD at the
Westside Plant
HOWEVER, we note that the City of High Point appears to be angling for a permitted
capacity of 10 MGD.
.,ex/VA Ssort 1-o tOM6.0"
We oppose the addition of wastewater capacity, permitted or not, at the Westside Plant
for several reasons:
(1) During drought years-2002, 2007, 2008—the streams upstream from the
Westside Plant have, except for Rich Fork Creek, gone completely dry for months at a
time. Last year Rich Fork did not flow and was reduced to puddles for a day or two. For
weeks on end, it was about a foot wide and a quarter of an inch deep. Its main tributary
upstream from Westside, Payne Creek, was totally dry for the better part of three months
with breaks for rain flow from upstream two days during the drought.

This situation on Rich Fork Creek and on the tributaries below the Westside Plant
means that almost all of the liquid visible in the creek bed below the plant is sewer
effluent.
In a stream- flow of less than 20 miles there are three sewer plants: High Point
Westside, Thomasville Hamby Creek and Lexington Regional. All of this effluent flows
through Davidson County, down the Abbotts Creek Ann and into High Rock Lake.
If the effluent were pure water, it would be one thing, but we know that is not the
case.
(2) We support efforts to improve the water quality in Rich Fork Creek, its
receiving stream, Abbotts Creek, and High Rock Lake on the Yadkin River. We have
been told that after the Jordan Lake Rules and the Falls of the Neuse Rules, there will be
the High Rock/Yadkin Rules. A TMDL for turbidity is one of the proposals. We
understand that everyone in the watershed, and not just NPDES dischargers, will be
subject to stringent restrictions and perhaps urban post- building remediation. Nan-�O1134
At the present time sediment is the largest pollutant in Rich Fork Creek. During
storms and floods from the impervious areas of High Point, this sediment scours the
stream beds and certainly contributes to turbidity downstream. We recognize that the
Westside Treatment Plant has no control over the turbidity and sediments in the stream
passing by the plant. However, there is a connection.
(3) High Point has encouraged voluntary annexation and rezoning of properties at
the origins of the Rich Fork Creek Watershed. The city refused to adopt NPDES Phase II
ordinances until the DWQ forced it to adopt a set of recommended buffer widths,
floodplain protections and so forth. The city encouraged dense housing and the paving of
many surfaces. Clear cutting of forests plus the inability to establish ground cover on the
flattened terrain plus the piling of fill dirt in the floodplains has caused the creek beds to
be engorged with sand from the sand rock soil. If no more sediment entered the creeks, it
would still be decades before it all made its way to the bottom of High Rock Lake.
Now High Point is studying a plan of involuntary annexation in the Rich Fork
Creek Upper Watershed. High Point says that its goal is to increase its population so that
it will qualify for federal grants to cities over 100,000.
If you allow an increased permitted capacity at Westside of 10 MGD, the city can
annex properties against their owners' wills, cause the breaking up of larger farms and
the subsequent rezoning for dense housing with increased sewer tap-ons.
Because of massive developments of inexpensive houses such as Grover
Shugart's Laurel Oak Ranch in the annexed areas of High Point, Davidson County has
found that the annual property tax upon one of the dwellings does not equal the amount
needed for the annual per pupil expenses in the public schools. School children have

flooded into the Ledford area schools which serve the new areas of High Point in
Davidson County and the authorities have been unable build classrooms fast enough
despite giving it a valiant effort.
The county commissioners dare not raise the tax rate because of the long term
high numbers of unemployed and under -employed persons here following the failure of
apparel, textile, tobacco and furniture industries. So, they have ordered frequent re-
evaluations of property all over the county, in Thomasville, Lexington and other
municipalities. Unless a person's property is a shambles, the property tax bill has gone
up.
Many people in other parts of the county are growing weary of paying more taxes and
seeing many of the facilities being built in the Ledford schools area of the county for new
High Point residents. High Point is spending nothing on public facilities in Davidson
County where the Westside Plant is, except for the sewer system which they need to take
over.
The whole thing has gotten extremely political. There is a 79—year history of animosity
between Davidson County and the City of High Point over the location of the Westside
Plant deep in Davidson County in the first place. The Commissioners have
unsuccessfully gone to court several times to try to stop High Point's intrusion into the
county. Present day annexation law will allow the city to gobble up large swaths of the
county. Enlarged permitted capacity at Westside would encourage that.
We realize that your job is to make decisions based on what will be good for the water
quality of the state. Keeping the Westside permit to 6.2 MGD would encourage better
water quality in Rich Fork Creek which is presently impaired chiefly because of the
deadly and destabilizing effects of sedimentation and violent flooding, caused in turn by
too much rapid building/ paving upstream and the use of too few best management
practices. Any improvement of Rich Fork Creek will lead to an improvement of High
Rock Lake which some day may be necessary for drinking water for the Piedmont Triad.
Sincerely,
e
Mary C. Cridlebaugh and the attached list of members of Friends of Rich Fork Creek
meeting on May 5, 2009.
zi (n (i U ` `Z S 7
Please see the postscript on the next page.

/
PS
The Davidson County Board of Commissioners has written several members of
the Division of Water Quality asking that the Board be informed in event of serious
consideration of granting increased permitted capacity at High Point Westside
(NC 0024228).
In such an event, please address correspondence to
Mr. Robert Hyatt
County Manager of Davidson County, NC
Davidson County Government Center
913 Greensboro Street
Lexington, NC 27295

.11
1 • 0. C ei,
//Attu /6 9 tet/ K;Nty.h.4 ht-e. tq5tiodoil.4-
(il- 1,0 i 104) A )C._ ..) 7 26,--.
J
e2.674... l 4 171- 0 44)1 • A i-x,..4 t-11/?/te 27zz.z.,
/(g 9e) e v , I, a , i i )21.61, ive fl", /VC- .2 7-6(z)
11 (IP-At, ,r4--e-- ("79g Gii # ki51.J%/1-eA77771.,ag, ea„eida2441-icia.14‘;„
32-a .4644,d-a...ei )(4t /44-0
2.:c
1,i,",..ki 3a72 .146.1,-.1.,--)41,46162/V-P-P•e- 72.4 4-
i
44/e/AeCte-/) /
T-.
-ic
ei 7 0 Jo .8 1-1-"-"?...-c. kce TA; 7 ;4..„
gn9tevae, ))/C.- k
Z-C).+IA •Pi1/41/.5 E 1944 C4ETuT ST 11 G1+31AT 'MCA. _
)9 00 W.s,o4ov-€4, lit .
•--7. A --ki--/-)c alacc6---
C. /26 co,
.2.7z6 5-
c-J 94,4-a. Z.L..
Pcge-A-- INI-c- )---pta5
Je, raticaides4 I-;j:A idf,7
17 ictiri cf.ct c /to , -rA.eywoork plc 27 wi
218 iv, old 6-re2„iih-u 4,144 A r 6 , hc- 27.245-
M lievo U kg /7/7-174 I , Wee - al:4—V
71 eAl 7), ed
,27,/,2., y-6 (

, 4
fe_.. /0? 512V/Z-Air,r iff4D ofm-kt: z77‹,
° ;e 4-)
?l2E
/ (37 ar 71e )- }- f d 1)6 ' Poi%)
/I etr61-ifieell
Cet-1/4-no A-14 ep-zz-4,)_

Alcoo2vZL
Public Services Department
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
DIRECTOR
April 17, 2009
Mr. Chuck Wakild
Deputy Director
Division of Water of Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINA'S INTERNATIONAL CITY`
IVolc- Com Ide En4 Fri
Totm di (e
Re: City of High Point
Expansion of the Westside WWTP
Dear Mr. Wakild:
The City of High Point is pleased to submit three (3) copies of the updated Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for your
review. As you are aware, the City of High Point has been actively pursuing an expansion of the Westside WWTP from 6.2
mgd to 10 mgd to meet the projected wastewater flows in the Westside service area over the next 20 years. The City has
requested but not received speculative limits for expansion to 10 mgd.
The EAA included five potential wastewater disposal alternatives other than expanding the Westside WWTP. Two of the
altematives, wastewater reuse and no action were deemed not feasible as they are not capable of meeting the projected
capacity needs. The other three options were evaluated and include the following;
1. Alternate Discharge Location — This altemative pumped all flow in excess of 6.2 mgd downstream of Rich
Fork Creek to Abbots Creek.
2. Alternate Treatment Facility — This altemative will transfer all flow in excess of 6.2 mgd to the Eastside
WWTP for treatment.
3. Land Application — This alternate will require approximately 1,000 acres to land apply the flow in excess
of 6.2 mgd.
All three of these options would increase the overall project cost by a minimum of 28 percent (approximately $22 million).
Also, these alternatives would involve construction of conveyance facilities across wetlands and streams, impact private
landowners and disrupt traffic flows during construction.
Rick Fork Creek was listed as an impaired stream due to low dissolved oxygen levels measured at various points in the creek.
The City hired Tetra -Tech to perform an extensive evaluation of Rich Fork Creek. This evaluation included stream
reconnaissance and an updated calibrated model of Rich Fork Creek. This work also included the impacts of stream
restoration for Rich Fork Creek.
City of High Point, P.O. 230, 21 1 South Hamilton Street, High Point, NC 27261 USA
Fax: [phone] TDD 336.883.8517
EAA

The work performed by Tetra -Tech included the extensive field work and recommendations for improvements necessary to
restore the stream and improve water quality. The work by Tetra -Tech included sediment oxygen demand (SOD), a
reaeration study and time of travel study for stream velocities. The results of this work determined the following:
The SOD values measured in the field were lower than the values assumed for the original water quality model;
The reaeration rates measured in the field were higher than the values assumed for the original water quality
model;
Velocities measured in the field were higher than the model predicted;
Stream water quality could be improved by removing debris, elimination existing sand mining pools and the
stabilization of the stream banks.
The results of the updated calibrated model demonstrated that increases in flow from the Westside plant actually improved
dissolved oxygen and stream quality.
The City of High Point will have to obtain easements along the creek and expend significant capital for a construction project
to restore Rich Fork Creek and has little to gain by improving Rich Fork Creek if the Westside WWTP is not allowed to
expand. The City understands there may be skepticism as to whether the improvements to Rich Fork Creek will actually
provide the water quality predicted by the water quality model. Consequently, if the City is allowed to expand the Westside
plant to 10 mgd, the City will agree to construct the improvements to Rich Fork Creek, maintain those improvements, and
monitor the water quality to confirm the results of the improvements were as predicted.
There are several additional advantages to allowing the expansion at the Westside WWTP. This expansion provides the
economic driver for western High Point and Davidson County which will allow for domestic growth and attract new industries.
This is a regional facility which will allow High Point to continue to consolidate waste -water dischargers as done in the past
with Jamestown, Sedgefield, Archdale and the Ledford Schools. Also, any new development that will be connected to the
Westside system will be required to meet the City of High Point's stringent growth rules that were developed as a part of the
Randleman Lake rules.
We look forward to discussing the EAA and the proposed expansion with you and your staff in the near future. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Public Services Director
cc: Jeffery Poupart, NCDENR
Steve Tedder, NCDENR
Hannah Stallings, NCDENR
Terry Houk, CHP
Alan Stone, H&S
Ed Powell, DMP

•
Ncn vdt-grio b.:010
Ac,4 �✓K e✓IC- ��tPa,.u'� - 5%fit io = 0.6� cA
M d�/
tott Lam- i � u( CITY OF HIGH POINT,
eeceiv-e4
to9
NORTH CAROLINA f•yo.,.!„vt--�
WESTSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
Olitotif P1't" (AENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3?, DfrrliAiiM
STATE PROJECT AGENCY:
FACILITY INFORMATION:
APPLICANT CONTACT:
•
•
PREPARED BY:
APRIL 2009
��✓rNiltd 62fl1(1Jt/
gevext polo
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
1044 West Burton Road
Thomasville, North Carolina 27360
[phone]
Mr. W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services,
City of High Point
P.O. Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261
[phone]
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 West Chase Blvd. Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Alan Stone, P.E.
[phone]
HAZENANDS&\WER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
V,:11A.

•
•
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Hazen and Sawyer and Davis -Martin -Powell and Associates were retained by the City of
High Point, NC to prepare an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) to address
wastewater treatment system improvements at the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) to meet immediate capacity and treatment needs, as well as treatment and
capacity needs for a 20-year planning period. Preparation of this document was
recommended in a June 13, 2008 letter from the Division of Water Quality in response to
the City of High Points request for speculative limits for expansion of the Westside WWTP
from 6.2 mgd to 10 mgd.
1.2 Background
The Westside WWTP serves the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin portion of the City of High
Point and is located in Davidson County, North Carolina. The Westside WWTP is
currently permitted to discharge a monthly average wastewater flow rate of up to 6.2
million gallons per day (mgd) into Rich Fork Creek. The City of High Point has requested
speculative limits for an expansion up to 10 mgd. An expansion is required to meet
projected wastewater flows in the Westside service area, which includes parts of Guilford,
Davidson, and Forsyth Counties, over the next 20 years.
The purpose of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is to evaluate the various
alternatives available for handling the increased wastewater flow, and is required with any
NPDES application for expansion in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). The City
of High Point has proposed upgrading and expanding the Westside WWTP from 6.2 mgd
to 10.0 mgd and discharging at the current NPDES permitted location on Rich Fork Creek.
Rich Fork Creek is currently listed on the North Carolina 303(d) List -2008 for impaired
ecological/biological integrity (Note: The 2008 303(d) List is currently pending approval by
the EPA). Rich Fork Creek had been previously listed due to low dissolved oxygen as well
as impaired biological integrity and a fecal coliform violation (see North Carolina 303(d) list
— 2006). Citing concerns about low dissolved oxygen concentrations in Rich Fork Creek,
speculative limits for the proposed expansion were not issued. High Rock Lake, which is
located downstream of Rich Fork Creek, is designated impaired (chlorophyll a), thus,
nutrient loading rates are being monitored closely by the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
Rid, 6)Yr GIA>Ahto16G >h)L6LL'
C
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-1
0:1346013460-0011Engineering Alternatives AnalysislEAA Repor High Point Westside EAA _ Final.docx
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

The City of High Point contracted with Hazen and Sawyer and Davis -Martin -Powell and
Associates to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to evaluate the facilities
required for the expansion of the Westside WWTP to 10 mgd. The PER was completed in
2006. Recommended facilities for the proposed plant expansion are briefly discussed
herein, along with cost estimates for those facilities.
Tetra Tech, Inc has also conducted a detailed water quality model and sampling program
analyzing the anticipated effects of various discharge scenarios on the downstream water
quality. The results of this Study have been supportive of the City's desire to expand the
Westside WWTP without degrading Rich Fork Creek. These results were published in
"Water Quality Modeling Scoping Analysis of Rich Fork Creek" (2006) and "Results of
Phase l Field Monitoring and Model Updates for the High Point Westside Discharge to
Rich Fork Creek" (2008) which are included in Appendices D and E, respectively. Both
reports have been presented to the Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit and Winston-
Salem Regional Office.
Alternatives to the proposed expansion, including land application and wastewater reuse,
are also evaluated in this EAA. This report was prepared using the guidelines established
in the "Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality/ NPDES (June 23, 2005)" and the Construction Grants & Loans
Division's "Guidance For The Preparation Of Engineering Reports", (April 2005)
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-2
0:1346013460.0011Engineering Aitematives AnalysislEAA ReporMigh Point Westside EAA _ Final.docx
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
o
•
•

•
•
2.7 Alternative 5: "No Action"
The "no action" alternative is not considered feasible because it would not meet
immediate and projected needs for additional flow capacity and would require future
development to be served by private wastewater treatment facilities or septic tanks. Use
of private wastewater treatment facilities is not considered acceptable because such
facilities historically have resulted in poor quality effluent being discharged to receiving
streams. Streams with sufficient assimilative capacity for new wastewater discharges are
also unlikely to be available. Septic tanks are also not acceptable on an extensive scale
because many of the soils in Davidson County have moderate to severe restrictions for
septic tanks due to low soil permeability. In addition, projected development is expected
to be at or near urban densities throughout the portion of the service area within the City
growth areas and the County residential and commercial service areas.
The lack of available wastewater capacity will also limit industrial development potential
which in tum could have a negative economic impact on the City of High Point's growth
and development. Economic development is currently down but is anticipated to rebound
within the 20-year planning period. Competition for industry and the jobs industries
provide is likely to be high as cities and the State try to recover from the current economic
dow - . - - icient wastewater capacity could certainly result in an economic
evelopment opportunity to
2.8 Alternatives Summary
Expansion of the Westside WWT
were evaluated as discussed a •
ction" were deemed no
and five potential wastewater disposal alternatives
e. Two of the alternatives, Wastewater Reuse and "No-
asible as they are not capable of meeting the projected
cap - • - - - present worth costs for the proposed project and the remaining three
alternatives are summarized in Table 2-6 below. A review of the costs shows the
proposed expansion of the Westside W1NTP to 10 mgd with a wastewater discharge into
Rich Fork Creek to be the most economically attractive alternative. The remaining three
alternatives were all technologically feasible, however, they all increase the overall project
cost by a minimum of 28%. In addition, all three alternatives involve the construction of
wastewater conveyance facilities that will cross wetlands and streams, impact private
property owners, and temporarily disrupt traffic flows during construction.
All of the potential alternatives as well as the proposed project involve discharging (or land
applying) to impaired waters or the headwaters of water supply reservoirs. While Rich
Fork Creek is currently impaired, the studies by Tetra -Tech show stream restoration
efforts such as channel improvements in select locations and removal of downed trees will
significantly improve the stream quality. The study also shows discharging the current and
projected treated effluent flows actually improve the health of Rich Fork Creek.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-17
O:1346013460-0011Enginewing Alternatives AnalysislEM Reporal gh Pont Westside EM _ Flnal.docx
HAzENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Based on all the available data, expansion of the existing facilities to 10 mgd (to include
improvements for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal) to meet the estimated
capacity needs and discharging at the currently permitted location on Rich Fork Creek,
when combined with proposed stream restoration efforts, appears to be the most
economical and environmentally appropriate alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-18
O:1346013460.0011Engineering Ntemadves MalysislEAA Reportlf&gh Point Westside EAA _ FinaIdoac
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

•
•
i
Table 2-6 1
Westside WWTP - Present Worth Cost Summary (2009 dollars)
Action
Capital Cost
Salvage Value
O&M Cost'
6.2 MGD
Upgrade
10 MGD
Expansion
Rich Fork
Creek
Restoration
Capacity
p y
Replacement
Total Present
Worth
Proposed Project
Expand WWTP to
10 MGD
$42,859,800
($2,726,100)
$35,409,900
—
—
$1,500,000
—
$77,043,600
Alt. 1 — Alternate
Discharge
Location
$22,469,900
($5,073,200)
$6,191,500
—
$75,543,600
---
---
$99,131,800
Alt. 2 — Alternate
Treatment Facility
$57,180,700
($12,910,300)
$6,510,200
$48,702,400
—
—
$26,600,000
$126,083,000
AIt.3 Land
Application
$35,483,400
($9,011,700)
$4,153,900$75,543,600$106,169,100
—
—
---
Alt. 4 —
Wastewater
Reuse
—
---
---
---
--
---
---
NTF
Alt. 5 — No Action
—
—
—
—
—
---
---
NTF
Note:
1) Assumes 20-year planning period and a discount rate of 4.875%
2) NTF - Not Technically Feasible for this Project
3) Bold value indicates most economically attractive option
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
0:13460L348O-0011Engineering Alternatives MatysiME A ReportHIgh Point Westside EAA _ Final.docn
2-19
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

CITY OF HIGH POINT,
NORTH CAROLINA
WESTSIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
STATE PROJECT AGENCY:
FACILITY INFORMATION:
APPLICANT CONTACT:
PREPARED BY:
March 2009
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
1044 West Burton Road
Thomasville, North Carolina 27360
[phone]
Mr. W. Chris Thompson, P.E.
Director of Public Services,
City of High Point
P.O. Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261
[phone]
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd. Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Alan Stone, P.E.
[phone]
IIAzENANDSk\WER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Section
Table of Contents
Page
Project Summary 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Background 1-1
1.0 Population Projections, Design Flows and
Wastewater Characteristics 1-1
1.1 Population Projections 1-1
1.2 Wastewater Flow Projections 1-4
1.3 Influent Wastewater Characteristics 1-6
2.0 Evaluation of Alternatives 2-1
2.1 General 2-1
2.2 Expansion of Westside WWTP to 10 mgd 2-2
2.3 Alternative 1: Alternate Discharge Location 2-9
2.4 Alternative 2: Alternate Treatment Facility 2-11
2.5 Alternative 3: Land Application 2-14
2.6 Alternative 4: Wastewater Reuse 2-16
2.7 Alternative 5: "No Action" 2-17
2.8 Alternatives Summary 2-17
3.0 References 3-1
APPENDICES
NPDES Permit Appendix A
Correspondence with Division of Water Quality Appendix B
Vendor Quotes and Supplemental Cost Data Appendix C
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
O:'3460ti460.001t[ngineering Alternatives Analysis'EAA Report\liigh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 County Growth Projections 1-1
1-2 Population Growth by Census Blocks in the
Westside WWTP Service Area 1-2
1-3 Projected Future Land Use for Undeveloped Areas
of the Westside WWTP Service Area 1-3
1-4 Westside WWTP Service Area Growth Projections 1-4
1-5 Westside Inflow & Infiltration Evaluation 1-5
1-6 Projected Wastewater Flows 1-6
1-7 Westside WWTP — Design Influent Wastewater Characteristics 1-7
2-1 Westside WWTP — Expansion and Upgrade
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 2-8
2-2 Alternative 1 — Alternate Discharge Location
Pump Treated Wastewater to Abbotts Creek
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 2-10
2-3 Alternative 2 — Alternate Treatment Facility
Pump Raw Wastewater to Eastside WWTP
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 2-13
2-4 Potential Environmental Impacts from Pipeline Construction 2-13
2-5 Alternative 3 — Land Application
Land Application of Flows in Excess of Permitted 6.2 mgd
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) 2-15
2-6 Westside WWTP — Present Worth Cost Summary (2009 dollars) 2-18
City of high Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
0:3460,3460-001'\Engineering Alternatives Analysis\F,AA Repon'High Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Figure Page
1-1 Westside Planning and Service Area 1-1
2-1 Westside WWTP Existing and Proposed Facilities Site Plan 2-2
2-2 Westside WWTP Process Flow Schematic 2-2
2-3 Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternate NPDES Discharge Location
on Abbotts Creek 2-9
2-4 Proposed Abbotts Creek Route Pipe Profile 2-9
2-5 Proposed Pipeline Route to Eastside WWTP 2-12
2-6 Proposed Eastside WWTP Route Pipe Profile 2-12
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant iii
O:'3460'i3460-00I'Enginccring Alternatives Analysis'EAA Report High Point Westsidc EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

1. PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Hazen and Sawyer and Davis -Martin -Powell and Associates were retained by the City of
High Point, NC to prepare an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) to address
wastewater treatment system improvements at the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) to meet immediate capacity and treatment needs, as well as treatment and
capacity needs for a 20-year planning period. Preparation of this document was
recommended in a June 13, 2008 letter from the Division of Water Quality in response to
the City of High Points request for speculative limits for expansion of the Westside WWTP
from 6.2 mgd to 10 mgd.
1.2 Background
The Westside WWTP serves the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin portion of the City of High
Point and is located in Davidson County, North Carolina. The Westside WWTP is
currently permitted to discharge a monthly average wastewater flow rate of up to 6.2
million gallons per day (mgd) into Rich Fork Creek. The City of High Point has requested
speculative limits for an expansion up to 10 mgd. An expansion is required to meet
projected wastewater flows in the Westside service area, which includes parts of Guilford,
Davidson, and Forsyth Counties, over the next 20 years.
The purpose of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is to evaluate the various
alternatives available for handling the increased wastewater flow, and is required with any
NPDES application for expansion in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). The City
of High Point has proposed upgrading and expanding the Westside WWTP from 6.2 mgd
to 10.0 mgd and discharging at the current NPDES permitted location on Rich Fork Creek.
Rich Fork Creek is currently listed on the North Carolina 303(d) List -2008 for impaired
ecological/biological integrity (Note: The 2008 303(d) List is currently pending approval by
the EPA). Rich Fork Creek had been previously listed due to low dissolved oxygen as well
as impaired biological integrity and a fecal coliform violation (see North Carolina 303(d) list
— 2006). Citing concerns about low dissolved oxygen concentrations in Rich Fork Creek,
speculative limits for the proposed expansion were not issued. High Rock Lake, which is
located downstream of Rich Fork Creek, is designated impaired (chlorophyll a), thus,
nutrient loading rates are being monitored closely by the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant I-1
0:',34603460-001\Engineering Alternatives Analysis\EAA Report\kligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

The City of High Point contracted with Hazen and Sawyer and Davis -Martin -Powell and
Associates to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to evaluate the facilities
required for the expansion of the Westside WWTP to 10 mgd. The PER was completed in
2006. Recommended facilities for the proposed plant expansion are briefly discussed
herein, along with cost estimates for those facilities.
Tetra Tech, Inc has also conducted a detailed water quality model and sampling program
analyzing the anticipated effects of various discharge scenarios on the downstream water
quality. The results of this Study have been supportive of the City's desire to expand the
Westside WWTP without degrading Rich Fork Creek. These results were published in
"Water Quality Modeling Scoping Analysis of Rich Fork Creek" (2006) and "Results of
Phase I Field Monitoring and Model Updates for the High Point Westside Discharge to
Rich Fork Creek" (2008). Both reports have been presented to the Division of Water
Quality NPDES Unit and Winston-Salem Regional Office.
Alternatives to the proposed expansion, including land application and wastewater reuse,
are also evaluated in this EAA. This report was prepared using the guidelines established
in the "Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality/ NPDES (June 23, 2005)" and the Construction Grants & Loans
Division's "Guidance For The Preparation Of Engineering Reports", (April 2005)
City of high Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant I-2
O:'34603460-00 I nEngineecing Alternatives Analssin EAA Reporviligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

SECTION 1.0
POPULATION PROJECTIONS, DESIGN FLOWS
AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 Population Projections
In order to evaluate wastewater facilities needs for a 20-year planning period, projections
of population and wastewater flows were prepared. Historical population trends and
projections from North Carolina State Demographics were reviewed. The North East
Davidson Area Plan was also reviewed and used to project future population and
wastewater flows.
The Westside WWTP service area (24.5 square miles) currently includes the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin portions of the City of High Point as shown on Figure 1-1. The future
planning area is anticipated to include unincorporated portions of northeastern Davidson
County, southeastern Forsyth County, and western areas of the City of High Point and is
also shown on Figure 1-1. The planning area includes the eastern portion of Davidson
County following Highway 109 and includes both the Rich Fork Creek and Upper Abbotts
Creek basins. The overall planning area includes 47.7 square miles and is basically
unchanged from the area set forth in the 1988 Sewer System Study, with elimination of
the Forsyth County areas already served by Winston-Salem / Forsyth County and
Kernersville.
Existing and future population data from the NC State Demographics for Davidson and
Guilford Counties is shown in Table 1-1 below. Annual average growth rates are also
shown. As shown in Table 1-1, the growth rate for Davidson and Guilford Counties for the
remainder of this decade is anticipated to average approximately 2.0%, and then decline
over the next 20 years to approximately 1.0%.
Table 1-1
County Growth Projections
Year
Davidson
Annual
Growth
Rate (%)
Guilford
Annual
Growth
Rate (%)
Combined
Population
Combined
Annual
Growth Rate
(%)
1990
126,688
347,431
474,119
2000
147,250
1.6%
421,048
2.1%
568,298
2.0%
2010
159,805
0.9%
480,028
1.4%
639,833
1.3%
2020
172,372
0.8%
539,335
1.2%
711,707
1.1%
2030
184,755
0.7%
600,192
1.1%
784,947
1.0%
City of Iligh Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-1
0:,34603460.001 •Enginccring Alternatives Analysis EAA Rcpon High Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Kernersville
Winston-Salem
MidW,,ay
FIGURE 1-1
Westside Planning
and Service Area
Wallburq
Westside
WWTP
City of High Point, North Carolina
Trinity
LEGEND
Jamestown
High Point
Archdale --ice ,
High Point Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
low Current Westside Service Area
111111 Future Westside Service Area
t- Railroad
- Secondary Road
0 0.451.9
Eastside
WWTP
GuildfortjCou
R. / dolph ou
1.8 2.7 3.6
Miles
Greensboro
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

Based on the NC State Demographics population estimates, the annual average growth
rate for the City of High Point from 2000 to 2007 was 2.2%.
Analysis of growth trends using Census Block data for the existing Westside Service Area
showed that for the densely developed areas of High Point, population was unchanged or
slightly decreased from 2000 to 2004. However, for the same four-year span, population
in the rural areas of Davidson County adjacent to High Point showed 3.3% annual growth.
This was not unexpected since much of the service area within the City limits is fully built
out, and a large portion of this area is in commercial and industrial usage. In addition,
development in the Westside Service Area has been restricted by the City of High Point
due to a Special Order of Consent (SOC S05-008) for the City's collection system. The
consent order was a result of sanitary sewer overflows from inflow/infiltration prior to 2004
and may be lifted by March 2010. Growth rates are anticipated to match those of the rural
areas of Davidson County once the consent order is lifted.
Table 1-2
Population Growth by Census Blocks
in the Westside WWTP Service Area
County
Census
Blocks
2000
Population
2004
Population
Growth
/°
Annual
Growth A
Guilford
13700(1-5)
4377
4515
3.2%
0.8%
14000(1-2)
2895
2847
-1.7%
-0.4%
14402(2)
746
744
-0.3%
-0.1%
14407(1-2)
5062
4662
-7.9%
-2.0%
14408(2)
1942
2038
4.9%
1.2%
14501(2)
617
566
-8.3%
-2.1
14600(1)
664
648
-2.4%
-0.6%
Davidson
60100(3-5)
4121
4757
15.4%
3.9%
60600(1,3,4)
3340
3680
10.2%
2.5%
Forsyth
03306(3)
1570
1643
4.6%
1.2%
034402
1196
1183
-1.1%
-0.3%
The City of High Point adopted the "North East Davidson Area Plan" in 2002. This Plan
addresses development in both the City of High Point's Davidson County annexation area
(approximate nine square miles), and another 21 square miles generally to the east of
Highway 109. The majority of the study area falls within the Westside Service Area, as
shown on Figure 1-1. The Plan reported a 2.3% annual growth rate in the study area, and
3.0% annual growth rate in the annexation area from 1990 to 2000. The review of the
Census Block data substantiated these growth estimates. The 2002 Plan found that
approximately 70% of the study area is currently agricultural or undeveloped. Future land
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-2
O:'3460'3460-0011Enginccring Alternatives Analysis\EAA Rcport\Bigh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

uses for these undeveloped areas were included in the Plan and are summarized in Table
1-3 below.
Table 1-3
Projected Future Land Use for Undeveloped Areas
of Westside WWTP Service Area
Classification
Area, acres
Low Density Residential
3,237
Moderate Density Residential
178
Medium Density Residential
46
Local/Convenience Commercial
25
Light Industrial
157
Recreation/Open Space
463
Future Growth Area
1,446
Total
5,551
The City of High Point Planning Department also prepared "A Study Of High Point's
Future Growth Areas " (2007) which reaffirmed the growth and development trends noted
in the 2002 Plan. This document also identified an area in southeastern Forsyth County,
generally bounded by High Point Road (Old Highway 311) on the west and Watkins Ford
Road on the north. The Forsyth County area is primary agricultural use at this time. High
Point will provide utilities within this area, and Winston-Salem / Forsyth County Utility
Commission has sewer infrastructure in the adjacent areas.
The majority of the undeveloped Westside WWTP Planning Area is in the rural
unincorporated areas of Davidson County. Substantial growth for Guilford and Davidson
Counties is anticipated to occur on the outskirts of the City of High Point, which includes
these undeveloped areas, and is substantiated by the continued rapid growth rate in the
undeveloped areas of Davidson County. Areas of Forsyth County north of the Planning
Area are sewered and have experienced growth of about 3.5% per year. Consequently,
the 3.0% annual growth rate observed in the 2002 Plan is anticipated to continue until
approximately 2015. As the area builds out, population growth is anticipated to slow and
approach the overall County growth rates predicted by NC State Demographics. The
existing and projected population data based on these growth rate percentages are shown
in Table 1-4 below. These population projections are used to project wastewater flows for
the Westside WWTP Planning Area for the planning period ending in 2030. The
wastewater flow projections are discussed in the following sections.
The 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan are both available for review in the "Publications"
section of the City of High Point Planning Department website (www.high-point.net/plan).
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-3
O:\34603460-001\Engineering Alternatives AnalysisEAA Rcport•Iligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers d Scientists

Table 1-4
Westside WWTP Service Area Growth Projections
Year
Planning Area Population
Annual Growth Rate (%)
2005
26,571
3.00
2010
30,557
3.00
2015
35,141
3.00
2020
40,412
2.00
2025
44,453
1.50
2030
47,787
1.00
1.2 Wastewater Flow Projections
The annual average effluent wastewater flow for the Westside WWTP is 3.67 mgd based
on 2007-2008 plant data. This flow includes infiltration and inflow, as well as residential,
commercial and industrial flows.
The infiltration/inflow (1/1) estimate was based on criteria setforth in the DWQ guidance
documents. However, I/1 flows vary during the year and from year to year depending on
rainfall and other conditions.
The infiltration rate was determined based on the wettest three-month period, which
occurred in February, March, and April of 2007. The infiltration rate is 2.57 mgd based on
subtraction of the billed wastewater flows from the wastewater treatment plant flows. Plant
effluent records were used to determine the total treatment plant flow, and billing data was
provided by the City of High Point. Estimated infiltration rates are summarized in Table 1-
5. Based on a maximum value of 3,000 gpd/in-mile for nonexcessive infiltration, infiltration
is not considered excessive in the Westside WWTP collection system.
Existing inflow rates were determined based on estimated instantaneous non -industrial
peak flows for five rain events of approximately 1" which occurred in 2007 and 2008. The
estimated inflows for a 1-inch rain event are summarized in Table 1-5. The nonexcessive
inflow amount based on the guidance criteria is 275 gpcd or less. Based on the inflow
estimates in Table 1-5, inflow is not considered excessive for the Westside WWTP
collection system.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-4
O:'d4G0 3460-00I Enginecring Alternatives Analysis\EAA Report\ I igh Point Westside I?AA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

Table 1-5
Westside Inflow & Infiltration Evaluation
Infiltration Calculations
Month
Rainfall
Billings, MG (1)
Expected (2)
WWTP Effluent
Infiltration
Feb 2007
2.65
58.50
1.75
4.08
2.33
Mar 2007
3.48
60.01
1.80
4.53
2.73
Apr 2007
5.33
66.96
2.01
4.67
2.66
3 month average
61.82
1.85
4.43
2.57
Inch -miles of sewer (3)
1,320
Infiltration
1,948 gpd/in-mile
1) Billing data provided by CHP Public Services
2) Expected flow is Billings minus 10% comsumptive losses
3) Sewer data based on data provided from CHP GIS
Inflow Calculations
Desired Event: 1" Rain Preceded by 5 dry days
Flow, MGD
GPCD
Feb 14, 2007
1.3" event
5.43
290
Feb 25, 2007
3 dry days 0.98" event
5.39
288
Mar 16, 2007
1.2" event
6.75
360
Jun 22, 2008
0.03" 3-days prior to 1.15"
3.31
177
Sep 6, 2008
0.03" 1-day prior to 1.18"
4.63
247
Average
5.10
272
1) Estimated population served in 2008
18,740
The City of High Point has an I/1 reduction program which includes items such as smoke
testing to identify sources of extraneous water and rehabilitation and replacement of
interceptors. At this time, the City has completed one outfall rehabilitation contract and
has two majr outfall sewer rehabilitation projects under construction'tivhich should reduce
the inflow into the Westside collection system. These rehabilitation projects are also
conditions of the previously mentioned SOC. co �vik^G..,
M
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-5
0:34603460-001Enginecring Alternatives Anal}sis'EAA Report 11 igh Point Westside HAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Population projections discussed above and summarized in Table 1-4, were used to
determine future residential and commercial wastewater flows based upon guidelines
prepared by the Construction Grants and Loans Section (CG&L). Table 1-6 presents
current wastewater flows for the existing service area and projected wastewater flows for
the future Westside Planning Area shown on Figure 1-1.
Table 1-6
Projected Wastewater Flows
Year
Residential2
Commercial3
Industrial4,5
1/16
Average
Annual
Maximum
Month'
2010
1.50
1.12
0.33
2.57
5.52
7.18
2015
1.84
1.20
0.38
2.57
5.99
7.78
2020
2.26
1.28
0.43
2.57
6.55
8.51
2025
2.80
1.40
0.49
2.57
7.26
9.44
2030
3.35
1.52
0.56
2.57
7.99
10.39
Notes:
1) All flows in mgd
2) Residential based on 70 gallons/day per capita (gpcd)
3) Commercial based on 15 gpcd
4) Current industrial based on billing data.
5) Industrial reserve based on 10% of industrial and commercial
6) Inflow and infiltration (I/1) assumed to be maintained at current level shown in Table 1-5.
7) Maximum Month : Average Annual = 1.30
Based on the above projections, the recommended design capacity of 10 mgd would be
adequate to meet treatment capacity needs for the 20-year planning period.
1.3 Influent Wastewater Characteristics
Influent data at the Westside WWTP for the period from January 2002 through November
2005 were reviewed in order to develop projected wastewater characteristics. These data,
summarized in Table 1-7, were initially presented in the Westside WWTP Preliminary
Engineering Report (2006) and serve as the basis of design for the facility alternatives
presented herein. Influent wastewater characteristics will be reviewed and updated based
on more recent data as part of the final design process and is beyond the scope of this
report.
City of Iligh Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-6
0:-34603460-001`Enginecring Alternatives Analysis',EAA Report High Point Westside EAA,doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

Table 1-7
Westside WWTP - Design Influent Wastewater Characteristics
A.
Parameter
6.2 mgd
Current
Capacity
10.0 mgd
Expanded
Capacity
Annual Average Conditions
Design Flow, mgd
5.0
8.1
BOD5, mg/L
261
261
COD, mg/L
645
642
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
211
210
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/L
15.8
15.7
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/L
34.1
33.9
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
7.0
7.0
B.
Maximum Month Conditions
Design Flow, mgd
6.2
10.0
BOD5, mg/L
296
295
COD, mg/L
729
729
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
238
239
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/L
16.6
16.5
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/L
35.8
35.7
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
7.3
7.3
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-7
O:'3460`3460-00lEnginccring Altcrnativcs Analysis\EAA Rcpondligh Point Westside EAA,doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

SECTION 2.0
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 General
The Westside WWTP is currently permitted to discharge up to 6.2 mgd of wastewater into
Rich Fork Creek located in the Yadkin River Basin. In order to meet the projected
wastewater flows of 10.0 mgd for the 20-year planning period the City of High Point has
proposed to expand the existing facility and maintain the current discharge location on
Rich Fork Creek. Potential alternatives to the proposed expansion of the Westside WWTP
to meet the projected wastewater capacity needs to the year 2030 include the following:
(1) Alternative 1 — Alternate Discharge Location: This alternative assumes the
Westside WWTP is expanded to 10 mgd with treated flow in excess of the
currently permitted 6.2 mgd (i.e. 3.8 mgd) is discharged at an alternate
discharge location on Abbotts Creek.
(2) Alternative 2 — Alternate Treatment Facility: This alternative assumes raw
wastewater flow in excess of 6.2 mgd (i.e. 3.8 mgd) is pumped to the City
of High Point's Eastside WWTP for treatment.
(3)
Alternative 3 — Land Application: This alternative assumes the Westside
WWTP is expanded to 10 mgd with flow in excess of the currently
permitted 6.2 mgd (i.e. 3.8 mgd) is land applied.
(4) Alternative 4 — Wastewater Reuse: This alternative assumes the Westside
WWTP is expanded to 10 mgd with flow in excess of the currently
permitted 6.2 mgd (i.e. 3.8 mgd) disposed via onsite irrigation and through
the supply of bulk reclaimed water.
(5) Alternative 5 — "No -Action": This alternative examines the effect of not
planning for future increases in flow past 6.2 mgd.
Details of the proposed expansion and each of the alternatives are discussed below. The
discussion for the proposed expansion to 10 mgd also includes a discussion of facilities
required to upgrade the facility to meet more stringent nutrient limit requirements at the
currently permitted flow of 6.2 mgd. Costs for both expansion to 10 mgd and
improvements to maintain 6.2 mgd are presented.
City of IIigh Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-1
OPO:34603460.001'Engineering Alternatives Anahsis,EAA Report High Point Watside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

2.2 Expansion of Westside WWTP to 10 mgd
A Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) prepared by Hazen and Sawyer in 2006
presented the infrastructure upgrades necessary to meet anticipated permit limits at the
current permitted flow of 6.2 mgd and expansion to 10 mgd. Figure 2-1 is an overall site
plan of the Westside WWTP showing the phased expansion of the facilities. A process
flow schematic for the Westside WWTP is shown on Figure 2-2.
Several treatment processes require modifications in order for the plant to meet
anticipated permit limits. The Westside WWTP's NPDES permit was recently revised to
include mass limits for total phosphorus which equate to approximately 0.58 mg/I in
summer and 0.83 mg/I in winter based on the current permitted flow of 6.2 mgd. The
current permit does not include a limit for total nitrogen. However, it is anticipated that in
the future, the NPDES permit may include total nitrogen limits for the Westside WWTP
due to the chlorophyll -a impairment of High Rock Lake downstream.
As previously noted, Rich Fork Creek is currently considered impaired, however the
modeling conducted by Tetra -Tech shows stream restoration efforts such as channel
improvements in select locations and removal of downed trees will significantly improve
the stream quality. The studies also show discharging the current and projected treated
effluent flows actually improve the health of Rich Fork Creek.
The following WWTP processes/facilities require modifications:
p.
Primary Clarification
Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Facilities
Carbon (Methanol) Feed Facilities
Final Clarification and Return Activated Sludge/Waste Activated Sludge
(RAS) Pump Station
Effluent Filtration
Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Facilities
Effluent Pump Station
Sludge Thickening Building
In addition, an influent pump station and preliminary treatment facility (PTF) with odor
control were recommended and are currently under construction. These facilities will
require minimal modifications (i.e. changing pump impellers) to reach a 10 mgd capacity.
The following sections briefly describe the proposed improvements.
Primary Clarification
There are currently two 70-foot diameter primary clarifiers at the plant. Both primary
clarifier drives and mechanisms are approximately 25 years old and have suffered
structural damage requiring repair in the past. Replacement of the mechanisms, weirs,
and scum baffles is required to provide future reliability.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-2
O:\Oi3460'3460-001\Engineering Alternatives Analysis FAA Repor1Vligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Caustic and
Chemical Feed
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Facilities
Preliminary
Treatment
Facility
Odor
Control —
re-
- Existing
Preliminary
Treatment /
Facility —� r
Proposed UV —
Proposed
Effluent
Pump Station
_..; 00(1.5r,..,32u.
Administration
Building
Proposed Blowers &
Nitrogen Recycle
Pumps
Proposal Supplemental
Carbon Feed Facilities
eiorin ratl�
(abandoned
in place) /1
Ir//
Blolillration
(abandoned
In place)
)
Proposed Biological
Nutrient Removal
Basins
t
1
•
•
•
♦
•
•
•
•
•
♦
♦
♦
•
•
•
•
•
•
1I i I l
/, ~
/. - _ 1
/ .-1~—'
/
/
/
/
Sludge Sludge
Holding Tank Holding Tank •
2
Solids
Handling
Blower 8uAd ng
DAF
Existing Filters"
Proposed Filters
RAS & WAS Pumps
Filler Lilt Pumps
Liquid Sludge
Loading
Alum Feed
Chemical
Facilities
Existing
[ 1 Under Construction
Facilities Required for 6.2 MGD
Proposed 10 MGD Expansion
Demolish for 10 MGD Expansion
New Road
Figure 2-1
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing and Proposed Facilities
Site Plan

Raw
Influent
Influent
Pump
Station
3460-000-SC-02.cdr
Grit
Bar Screen
Grit
Chamber
Primary
Clarifier
PS
BNR Tanks
I J-*
Secondary
Clarifiers
WAS
Rotary
Drum
► Solids Thickener
Blend Tank
v
► Sludge
Holding
Tank
Solids Handling Process
Effluent Filters
UV
Disinfection
► To Eastside
WWTP
To
► Rich Fork )
Creek
Figure 2-2
Westside WWTP
Process Flow Schematic

The existing primary clarifiers are hydraulically capable of treating wastewater flows up to
approximately 24 mgd. The peak flow for the 10 mgd expansion will be 30 mgd, therefore
approximately 6 mgd will be step fed directly to the BNR tanks, alleviating the need to
construct additional primary clarifiers.
Primary sludge is pumped from the primary clarifiers to the sludge holding tanks. The
Primary Sludge Pump Station is located between the two primary clarifiers and houses the
primary sludge pumps, grinders, scum pump and associated electrical gear. All the
pumps and grinders will be replaced and new variable frequency drives (VFDs) are
required for the sludge pumps.
Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Facilities
Currently, the Westside WWTP has alum chemical feed facilities for chemical
phosphorous removal. According to plant staff, approximately 13 mg/I of alum solution is
fed to meet an effluent permit of 2 mg/L. Use of biological Phosphorus (P) removal for the
purposes of meeting the revised summer and winter phosphorus limits at the plant was
evaluated as part of the aeration basin upgrade using BioWin simulation software. The
BioWin simulation showed that biological phosphorous removal with chemical trimming
was a more economical approach in the long-term in lieu of the current chemical
phosphorous removal program.
The proposed system will be a 5-stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) system, similar
to that used at the Eastside WWTP, and will be designed to remove total phosphorous
(TP) to a level of 1 mg/I, with chemical trimming used to achieve TP to a level of 0.3 mg/I.
The 5-stage process provides anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic stages for phosphorous,
nitrogen and BOD removal. A second anoxic stage is provided for additional
denitrification. The final aerobic stage is used to strip residual nitrogen gas from solution
and to minimize phosphorous release into the secondary clarifier.
In order to implement the proposed BNR process the existing tanks require new diffused
aeration equipment, jet mixing equipment including jet mixing pumps, nitrified recycle
(NRCY) pumps and associated piping and structural modifications. In addition the BNR
process will require additional treatment volume for wastewater treatment. In order to
meet anticipated permit limits for 6.2 mgd new tanks are proposed on the east side of the
existing aeration tanks to create three long treatment trains as shown on Figure 2-1. A
fourth long treatment train is proposed for the expansion to 10 mgd.
A NRCY pump station and blower building is proposed on the north side of the existing
aeration tanks. Additional blowers are required fora 10 mgd expansion.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-3
0:`0: 34603460.001 Engineering Altcmatives Analysis.EAA ReporlHigh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers d Scientists

Carbon (Methanol) Feed Facilities
There is currently no supplemental carbon feed facility at the site. A carbon storage and
feed facility is proposed to provide the capability of introducing a supplemental carbon
source (methanol) to both the first and second anoxic zones for the biological nutrient
removal processes, as necessary. This facility is required for either the 6.2 mgd
improvements or 10 mgd expansion project. The facility is sized to accept a full tanker
chemical delivery, consequently there is no additional cost for the expansion to 10 mgd.
Final Clarification and RAS/WAS Pump Station
Currently, the plant has two 90-foot diameter final clarifiers. The clarifiers are suction
header type clarifiers and sludge is removed using three return activated sludge (RAS)
pumps housed in the existing RAS pumping station. Each of the RAS pumps is rated for
approximately 3.1 MGD, providing a firm capacity of 100 percent of the influent flow. The
existing pumps are horizontal centrifugal pumps.
Similar to the primary clarifiers, the existing 90-foot clarifier mechanisms have suffered
structural damage and have required repair in the past. The drives and mechanisms are
approximately 25 years old and will require replacement in the near future. Due to their
age and past maintenance requirements, replacement of the mechanisms, weirs, and
scum baffles is required to provide for future reliability. These improvements are all that is
required for the 6.2 mgd improvements.
In addition to replacement of the secondary clarifier equipment modifications to the waste
activated sludge (WAS) operation and a new 120-foot diameter final clarifier are required
for expansion to 10 mgd. The new clarifier will have a sidewall depth of 15 feet and have
suction header type mechanisms consistent with current equipment at the Westside and
Eastside WWTPs. A weir will be constructed at the end of the BNR tanks to split flow
between the new and the existing clarifiers.
Currently WAS is removed from the system via a pipe and motorized plug valve
connected to the RAS pumps. Operations staff are unable to waste sludge continuously.
To resolve the sludge wasting issues two new WAS pumps are proposed. Waste sludge
will be sent to new rotary drum thickeners for thickening.
Two new RAS pumps are proposed for the new clarifier to provide a firm capacity of 5
MGD. In order to optimize facility footprint and to consolidate required electrical gear, it is
proposed that the RAS/WAS pumping station be constructed as part of the effluent filter
building. The effluent filter building will also house the filters and the filter influent pump
station.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-4
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers d Scientists
0: 0:',34603460-001`.Engineering Alternatives Analysis EAA Report Iiigh Point Westside IEAA.doc

Effluent Filtration
The Westside WWTP currently utilizes two traveling bridge type filters with a total of 1550
square feet of 19-inch depth filter media. The existing filters have been in service for
approximately 25 years, have a number of operational issues, and are undersized for the
proposed flow rates.
Deep bed filters are recommended because; they are generally more reliable, require less
maintenance than traveling bridge filters, and allow design for higher filtration rates. Deep
bed filters may also be converted to denitrification filters in the future, if necessary.
During the proposed plant upgrade and expansion, the filters will be designed for a
filtration rate of 4 gpm per square foot at the maximum month design flow rate and will
consist of three to five filter cells for the 6.2 mgd improvements and 10 mgd expansion,
respectively. Each filter cell will have 350 square feet of filtration area. As the plant
expands in the future, the requirements for effluent filtration will become more stringent. If
total nitrogen limits drop below 5 mg/I, the effluent filters may provide for denitrification
with a filtration rate of 2 gpm per square foot. The most significant change for
denitrification filters other than the low filtration rate is the ability to add methanol to the
filter influent to enhance nitrogen removal on the filter media. The facility can be
expanded in the future with additional filters enabling denitrification when the plant's
nitrogen limits become more stringent.
Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility
Currently disinfection is accomplished via an Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facility with
Trojan UV 4000 equipment. A number of modifications to the existing UV facility are
proposed for the 6.2 mgd improvements including new electric actuators for the influent
slide gates and a roof canopy to provide protection from weather. Additional UV
equipment is required for the expansion to 10 mgd. Since the overall dimensions of the
new UV 4000 Plus system are identical to the existing system, the new system can be
added to the existing open channel with minor structural modifications.
Effluent Pump Station
Currently, the plant discharges treated effluent from the UV disinfection process through a
gravity outfall into Rich Fork Creek. Although the FEMA flood level is listed as 706.5, the
worst recorded flood submerged the entire site to a flood elevation of 711.5 in the late
1990's. Because of the level onsite topography; the storm drainage system has become
submerged at elevated stream levels, causing localized flooding within the WWTP site.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-5
O:O:34603460.00I Engincering Alternatives Analysis'EAA Report'fligh Point Wcstsidc EAA.doc
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers d Scientists

To prevent future flooding a protective berm with an elevation of 713.0 will be constructed
around the perimeter of the site. Storm sewers will be routed to a single discharge point
where possible, or have check valves installed on their discharges to prevent the streams
from surcharging the pipes.
The new effluent pumping structure will be constructed adjacent to the UV facilities and
combine fully treated effluent and stormwater into a single outfall pipe. During normal
operation, both will be discharged by gravity to Rich Fork Creek, and both sources can be
independently sampled for permit compliance. Check valves will be installed to prevent
flood waters from backing up into this structure. Three vertical propeller pumps are
proposed to operate only during flood conditions, and to divert the site stormwater and
effluent over the berm and though a lined channel into the creek. The pumping structure
will be designed to accommodate treated effluent storage for onsite non -potable water,
and two backwash pumps for the new tertiary filters.
Sludge Thickening Facilities
Primary sludge will continue to be thickened in the clarifiers by maintaining a moderate
solids blanket depth. Typically the plant is able to waste primary sludge at 3-4% solids
directly to the sludge holding tanks.
The plant currently uses a single 55 foot diameter dissolved air floatation (DAF) thickener
to thicken the WAS prior to mixing with primary sludge in the solids blend tank. The
existing DAF generally thickens the sludge stream from 0.75% to approximately 3.5%
without using any flocculant aid. The thickened sludge is pumped to sludge holding tanks
where jet aeration will be available to prevent septic conditions and phosphorous release.
The liquid sludge can be hauled to Eastside WWTP or dewatered onsite and hauled as
cake. The jet aeration, truck loading, and odor control for both sludge holding tanks are
all currently under construction.
The existing DAF thickener was constructed in 1983 by modifying an existing final clarifier
basin. An aluminum dome was installed in 1996 to improve operation during the colder
months. The associated DAF equipment and sludge pumps are located in the adjacent
Blower Building. The recycle pumps, saturation tank, and controls are located on the
ground floor, and two thickened sludge pumps (TSP) are located in the lower level.
The existing DAF drive unit, TSPs, air compressors, and valves are all over 25 years old
and will be replaced with a Rotary Drum Thickener. The capital cost and operational cost
evaluation showed that the rotary drum thickener alternative is the most economical.
These modifications are required for both the 6.2 mgd improvements and the 10 mgd
expansion. At 10 mgd the run time for the rotary drum thickener will be increased.
City of Iligh Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-6
O: 0: 34603460-001,Engineering Alternatives Analysis•EAA Report liigh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Present Worth Cost Estimate
A preliminary engineering level cost estimate, Table 2-1, shows the construction costs and
contingencies for the improvements required for both 6.2 mgd, and 10 mgd. The
compound amount (F) in 2009 dollars was inflated from recent (2007) cost estimates for a
10 mgd plant upgrade utilizing Equation 1, where i = 3% and n = 2 years.
F=P(1+i)" (1)
It should be noted that, the construction cost for most of the items are approximately the
same regardless of the flow upgrade, with the exception of the sitework, yard piping, and
the BNR tanks. Increased flow requires additional tank volume, and thus increases both
the BNR tank cost as well as the sitework costs as seen below. A construction
contingency of 25% and an engineering and construction services contingency of 12% is
used to calculate the total construction cost. A present value cost estimate was calculated
over a 20-year period using a discount rate of 4.875%. The estimated 20-year present
worth cost for the design flows of 6.2 mgd and 10 mgd are approximately $48.7 million
and $75.5 million, respectively. All of the proposed work is on the existing WWTP site so
there are no wetlands or stream impacts associated with this alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-7
Or34603460-001\Engineering Alta -natives Analysis•EAA Rcport.High Point Wcstsidc EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Table 2-1
Westside WWTP - Expansion and Upgrade
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars)
Item 6.2 mgd Improvements 10.0 mgd Improvements
Sitework and Yard Piping
Primary Clarifiers Modifications
Methanol Feed Building
Secondary Clarifiers Modifications
Effluent Filters and RAS Pumping
Station
UV Disinfection Facilities
Effluent Pump Station
Sludge Thickening Building
BNR Tanks (Traditional Volume w/
NRCY Building)
Subtotal
25% Contingency
12% Engineering Design
12% Construction Admin., Startup
Services, O&M Manual
2% Closing Fee
$1,459,400 $2,088,700
$502,900 $502,900
$583,200 $583,200
$634,500 $2,010,100
$2,089,700 $3,439,500
$301,300 $1,522,900
$1,112,700 $1,252,300
$973,500 $1,102,200
$10,206,300 $14,607,500
$17,863,500 $27,109,300
$4,465,900 $6,777,300
$2,679,500 $4,066,400
$2,679,500 $4,066,400
$553,800 $840,400
Total Capital Cost $28,242,200 $42,859,800
Present Worth Salvage Value ($1,749,400) ($2,726,100)
Present Worth O&M Cost $22,209,600 $35,409,900
Total Present Worth Cost ($2009)
$48,702,400 $75,543,600
Note:
1) Contractor overhead and profit is included in the individual line item estimates for this alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-8
0:`:0:\3460'3460-001\Engineering Alternatives Analysis\EAA Rcpon\lligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

2.3 Alternative 1: Alternate Discharge Location
Rather than expand the discharge at Rich Fork Creek one potential alternative is to
discharge flow in excess of the currently permitted 6.2 mgd to an alternate location. A
desktop review of USGS and GIS data found that the only feasible alternative discharge
location appears to be the confluence of Rich Fork Creek and Abbotts Creek. The
confluence of these creeks may provide enough flow to sufficiently dilute the wastewater
stream and provide sufficient assimilative capacity to avoid having any negative impacts
on High Rock Lake. Analysis of the assimilative capacity of Abbott's Creek was beyond
the scope of this study. A potential discharge location on Abbott's Creek along Highway
109 upstream of Lake Thom-a-Lex was reviewed but eliminated from further consideration
due to the low flow rate in the stream at this location and because Lake Thom-A-Lex
serves as the water supply reservoir for Thomasville and Lexington.
This alternative assumes the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant will be expanded to
10 mgd with the same improvements described in Section 2.2. In addition, modifications
will be made to the effluent pump station to accommodate a flow split and discharge 3.8
mgd (or up to 11.4 mgd peak flow) to Abbotts Creek near its confluence with Rich Fork
Creek as shown on Figure 2-3.
USGS and available GIS data layers were used to help route the pipe and minimize
potential environmental impacts of this alternative. The pipe was routed along existing
cleared corridors (i.e. Old Greensboro Road) to the maximum extent possible in an effort
to minimize potential wetland, stream, and other impacts to the environment as well as
impacts to individual property owners. Based on the desktop review this alternative would
have three stream crossings, including Rich Fork Creek but would have no wetland
impacts.
The effluent pump station would be expanded to include three vertical turbine pumps,
(2 duty, 1 standby) each rated at 5.7 mgd and fitted with 200 HP motors operated on
variable frequency drives. Additional generator capacity would be necessary to operate
these pumps during power outages. Approximately 56,285 linear ft. of 30-inch diameter
force main will be installed. A profile of the pipe route is shown on Figure 2-4.
The present worth cost for this alternative is $99.1 million as presented in Table 2-2. This
alternative is inherently more expensive than the preferred alternative due to the need to
install effluent forcemain, effluent pump station, and additional operation & maintenance
costs.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-9
O:'O:34603460.00 I'Engineering Alternatives Analysis EAA Rcport ligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers b Scientists

Jima
c
FIGURE 2-3
Proposed Pipeline Route to
Alternate NPDES Discharge Location
on Abbotts Creek
January 2009
City of High Point, North Carolina
LEGEND
- Stream
—1Railroad
Secondary Road
— Major Road
Effluent Route
Wetland
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

850
800
750
c
0
as
a)
w
700
650
Figure 2-4
Proposed Abbotts Creek Route Pipe Profile
10000
20000
30000
Distance (ft)
—Grade —FM 1
40000 50000
Note: Force Main assumed to have a
minimum depth of 3 ft
60000

Table 2-2
Alternative 1 — Alternate Discharge Location
Pump Treated Wastewater to Abbotts Creek
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars)
Item Estimated Cost
30" Forcemain - 56,285 LF $10,089,500
Trenchless Sewer - 810 LF $1,620,000
Effluent Pump Station Modifications $959,000
Erosion Control and Seeding $475,400
Subtotal $13,143,900
15%Contractor OH&P, Bonds, Insurance $1,971,600
25% Contingency $3,286,000
12% Engineering Design $1,813,900
12% Constr. Admin., Start-up Services, O&M Manual $1,813,900
2% Closing Fee $440,600
Total Capital Cost
Present Worth Salvage Value
Present Worth O&M Cost - Pump 3.8 mgd to Abbotts Creek
$22,469,900
($5,073,200)
$6,191,500
Total Present Worth - Pump 3.8 mgd to Abbotts Creek
Westside WWTP Upgrade (10.0 mgd)
$23,588,200
$75,543,600
Total Present Worth Cost ($2009) $99,131,800
Note:
1) Contractor overhead and profit is included in the individual line item estimates for this alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-10
O:`.Or34603460-001'Engineering Alteratives Analysis EAA RcportHigh Point Wesiside EAA.doc
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

2.4 Alternative 2: Alternate Treatment Facility
Under this alternative the Westside WWTP would not be expanded to provide the
additional 3.8 mgd wastewater capacity needed. Flows exceeding the current permitted
capacity (6.2 mgd) would be conveyed to the Eastside WWTP via a new wastewater
pump station, a new forcemain, and existing gravity sewers (with some upgrades
required).
The City of High Point's Eastside WWTP was recently (2004) expanded to 26 mgd (65
mgd peak) and has current average flows of approximately 13 mgd. While the Eastside
WWTP now has the capacity to accept the wastewater flow from the Westside service
area; this alternative effectively shortens the lifespan of the Eastside WWTP by roughly
five years.
Because the Eastside WWTP discharges into Randleman Lake, a regional water supply
reservoir for Greensboro, High Point, and portions of Randolph County, expanding the
Eastside WWTP in the future is unlikely without relocating the discharge point below the
lake. Detailed analysis of the expansion of the Eastside WWTP is beyond the scope of
this report. For cost estimation purposes a capacity replacement cost of $7.00 per gallon
has been assumed for the Eastside WWTP. This cost estimate is likely an underestimate
of the actual capacity replacement cost given that treatment processes such as
membrane bioreactors (MBRs) may be necessary in order to meet more stringent
discharge limits which could easily increase cost to $10 per gallon.
The new infrastructure requirements for this alternative are as follows:
A raw wastewater transfer pump station would be constructed at the
Westside WWTP. This pump station would have a firm capacity of 11.4
mgd. The Westside PTF currently under construction, with some minor
modifications, will have a peak design capacity of 30 mgd so raw influent
could be processed through the fine screens and grit removal processes
prior to pumping. This transfer pump station was assumed to be located
adjacent to the proposed internal nitrified recycle (NRCY) pump station and
would include four horizontal split case pumps; each rated at 3.8 mgd and
fitted with 400 HP motors. Variable speed drives would be provided to
handle varying influent flows. Additional generator capacity would be
necessary to operate this pump station during power outages.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-11
O:O:'34603460-001',Enginccring Alternatives AnalysisdiAA Report 1101 Point Wcstside GAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
E nvironmental Engineers d Scientists

The selected forcemain route would parallel the existing Ensley and
Kennedy outfalls cross-country through the south side of High Point until it
reaches the Eastside WWTP drainage basin as shown on Figure 2-5.
Approximately 39,000 linear feet (LF) of 30-inch forcemain will be installed
and discharge to the Richland Creek outfall near South Main Street. As
shown on Figure 2-6 approximately 240 feet of static head must be
overcome to reach the Eastside drainage basin, so operating pressures
and horsepower requirements are significant.
The current Richland Creek outfall consists of 48-inch to 30-inch gravity
lines, installed in the 1970's. The 1988 High Point Sewer System Study
Report recommended replacement of this outfall with larger diameter
sewers ranging from 60-inches to 36-inches to convey future flows. To
accommodate the additional Westside WWTP flows, these lines would
need to be upsized to convey an additional 11.4 mgd. Approximately
24,000 LF of 66-inch and 11,000 LF of 48-inch gravity sewer replacement
will be required. Approximately 5,500 LF of the 35,000 LF total length will
be high -priority aerial (pier -supported) sewers.
The estimated 20-year present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $126 million
as shown in Table 2-3 below.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-12
Oa34603460-00PEnginecring Alternatives AnalysisEAA Report;High Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

FIGURE 2-5
Proposed Pipeline Route to
Eastside Wastewater
Treatment Plant
January 2009
City of High Point, North Carolina
- Stream 48" Gravity
+� Railroad - 66" Gravity
- Secondary Road Force Main
- Major Road Wetland
Eastside
WWTP
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

)
)
1000
950
900
850
c
0
m
a)
w 800
750
700
650
Figure 2-6
Proposed Eastside WWTP Route Pipe Profile
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000
Distance (ft) Note: The gravity sewer profile may be
different than depicted above
—Grade —FM
48-inch Gravity 66-inch Gravity]

Table 2-3
Alternative 2 — Alternate Treatment Facility
Pump Raw Wastewater to Eastside WWTP
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars)
Item
Estimated
Cost
66" Gravity Sewer - 17,700 LF
66" Gravity Sewer (Pier Supported) - 5,500 LF
48" Gravity Sewer - 10,700 LF
30" Forcemain - 38,100 LF
Trenchless Sewer - 2,000 LF
Temporary By -Pass Pumping
Transfer Pumping Station
Erosion Control and Seeding
$10,166,100
$3,660,000
$3,751,000
$6,940,700
$4,400,000
$400,000
$3,200,000
$930,500
Subtotal $33,448,300
15% Contractor OH&P, Bonds, Insurance $5,017,300
25% Contingency $8,362,100
12% Engineering Design $4,615,900
12% Constr. Admin., Start-up Services, O&M Manual $4,615,900
2% Closing Fee $1,121,200
Total Capital Cost $57,180,700
Present Worth Salvage Value ($12,910,300)
Present Worth O&M Cost $6,510,200
Eastside WWTP Capacity Replacement $26,600,000
Westside WWTP Upgrade (6.2 mgd) $48,702,400
Total Present Worth Cost ($2009) $126,083,000
The results of a desktop review of USGS and GIS environmental impacts from
construction of the pipelines are summarized in Table 2-4 below. Some of the impacts
may prove to be avoidable during final routing. Temporary wetland impacts are based
upon disturbance of a 40 foot wide corridor, and permanent impacts are based on a 15
foot wide maintained corridor (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4
Potential Environmental Impacts from Pipeline Construction
Temporary
Permanent
Perennial Stream Crossings
10
None
Intermittent Stream crossings
3
None
Wetland Impacts
2.2 acres
0.82 acres
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-13
O \O:34603460-001\Enginecring Alternatives Analysis +.EAA ncpon`iligh Point Westside E.AA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

2.5 Alternative 3: Land Application
The land application alternative involves upgrading the Westside WWTP to 10.0 mgd (as
described in Section 2.2) plus the construction of storage, disinfection and land application
facilities. These facilities would be located at a dedicated land application site. The land
application site would have a cover crop to take up the moisture and nutrients from the
wastewater effluent. The land area required for land application of a wastewater volume
equal to the 3.8-mgd new capacity is estimated at approximately 1,000 acres. This is
based on a land application rate of 1 inch per week (EPA 2006) through a spray irrigation
system. The spray fields would be cultivated with suitable annual crops.
Additional land would be required for buffers from property lines, residences, water, and
drainage features as well as for a 30 day effluent storage (114 million gallons) lagoon.
The additional land area required for ancillary facilities and buffers is estimated to be
approximately 250 acres, for a total area of approximately 1,250 acres. Table 2-5 is a
cost summary of the land application alternative. The estimated 20-year present worth
cost for this alternative will exceed $106.2 million.
Finding a suitable land application site within a reasonable distance of the Westside
WWTP service area is unlikely. This report has not identified a potential land application
site. Since no site has been identified the costs of pumping and transmission
infrastructure required to convey the flow from the Westside WWTP to the land application
site is not included in this cost estimate. For this same reason environmental impacts
were not estimated.
Use of nearby lands for land application of wastewater would also raise water quality
concerns because available land drains to High Rock Lake, or Lake Thom-a-Lex, the
water supply reservoir for Lexington and Thomasville. Purchasing the necessary land
may also prove problematic as the Westside WWTP is located in Davidson County and
NC GS 153A-15 would prohibit the City of High Point from purchasing the land without the
consent of the Davidson County Commissioners. The high cost of the land required, plus
the additional facilities for treatment and effluent transportation make this alternative more
costly than the proposed plant expansion. For these reasons, land application is not
considered a feasible alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-14
0:10:'3460'3460-001 \Enginecring Alternatives AnalysisEAA Reporlf ligh Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

Item
Table 2-5
Alternative 3 - Land Application
Land Application of Flows in Excess of Permitted 6.2 mgd
Present Worth Cost Estimate (2009 dollars)
Estimated Land
Application Cost
for 3.8 mgd
Storage Lagoon $3,274,700
Chlorination Facilities $231,700
Irrigation Pump Station $228,600
Spray Irrigation System $160,600
Electrical $5,460,400
Fence $270,300
Access Roads $350,600
Erosion Control and Seeding $607,100
Subtotal $10,584,000
25% Contingency $2,646,000
12% Engineering Design $1,587,600
12% Constr. Admin., Start-up Services, O&M Manual $1,587,600
2% Closing Fee $328,100
Land Cost (1,250acres @ $15,000/acre) $18,750,000
Total Capital Cost $35,483,300
Present Worth Salvage Value ($9,011,700)
Present Worth O&M Cost — Land Application Facility $4,153,900
Westside WWTP (10.0 mgd) $75,543,600
Total Present Worth Cost ($2009)* $106,169,100
Note:
1) This cost does not include an effluent pump station and the force main to convey effluent water from the
Westside WWTP to the land application site.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-15
O7.Or34603460.001 "Engineering Altemativcs Analysis'EAA Report I ligh Point W cstsidc EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

2.6 Alternative 4: Wastewater Reuse
This alternative would involve disposal of the entire amount (3.8 MGD) of the additional
capacity through a reclaimed water system. Because current reuse treatment
requirements are only a little Tess stringent than the permit requirements to discharge to
Rich Fork Creek, this option would require treatment process upgrades at the Westside
WWTP as described in Section 2.2.
Water reuse systems in the Piedmont region of North Carolina are generally landscape
irrigation -based systems that experience high demands during the hot, dry summer
season, and little to no demands during the cool, wet winter season. Data collected by
the Town of Cary in its Northeast Reclaimed Water Service Area indicated that reclaimed
water customers used the same amount of potable water in winter as non -reclaimed water
users, but used less in the summer. The Triad area is very similar to the Cary area;
however, it may have a slightly cooler climate and shorter growing season.
To effectively reduce the volume of NPDES discharge capacity on a year-round basis,
commercial and industrial users are a necessity. The Westside WWTP is located in a
rural agricultural and residential area, several miles from existing industrial areas. High
Point and Thomasville historically have not attracted high water consumption industries,
due to limitations on water supply and wastewater treatment options, and no potential
significant reclaimed water customers have been identified.
Because a reclaimed water system in this region of North Carolina offers limited disposal
capacity in the cool, wet winter season, water reuse is not considered a feasible option.
Under this alternative it would still be necessary to construct 10 mgd of wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity to accommodate the demands during the cool, wet winter
season.
It is important to note that while it is not deemed feasible to achieve year-round effluent
disposal via a reclaimed water program, the City is investing in reclaimed water programs.
The Westside WWTP will be planned and designed to eventually be able to provide
reclaimed water for non -potable uses to residents, businesses, and industries located in
close proximity to the facility, with future plant improvements. However, as a full
alternative to the proposed action, a reuse system was not considered a viable alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-16
O:O:34603460-001,Enginecring Alternatives Anal}sis.EAA Repon',High Point Westside EAA.doc
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers d Scientists

2.7 Alternative 5: "No Action"
The "no action" alternative is not considered feasible because it would not meet
immediate and projected needs for additional flow capacity and would require future
development to be served by private wastewater treatment facilities or septic tanks. Use
of private wastewater treatment facilities is not considered acceptable because such
facilities historically have resulted in poor quality effluent being discharged to receiving
streams. Streams with sufficient assimilative capacity for new wastewater discharges are
also unlikely to be available. Septic tanks are also not acceptable on an extensive scale
because many of the soils in Davidson County have moderate to severe restrictions for
septic tanks due to low soil permeability. In addition, projected development is expected
to be at or near urban densities throughout the portion of the service area within the City
growth areas and the County residential and commercial service areas.
2.8 Alternatives Summary
Expansion of the Westside WWTP and five potential wastewater disposal alternatives
were evaluated as discussed above. Two of the alternatives, Wastewater Reuse and "No -
Action" were deemed not feasible as they are not capable of meeting the projected
capacity needs. The present worth costs for the proposed project and the remaining three
alternatives are summarized in Table 2-6 below. A review of the costs shows the
proposed expansion of the Westside WWTP to 10 mgd with a wastewater discharge into
Rich Fork Creek to be the most economically attractive alternative. The remaining three
alternatives were all technologically feasible, however, they all increase the overall project
cost by a minimum of 30%. In addition, all three alternatives involve the construction of
wastewater conveyance facilities that will cross wetlands and streams, impact private
property owners, and temporarily disrupt traffic flows during construction.
All of the potential alternatives as well as the proposed project involve discharging (or land
applying) to impaired waters or the headwaters of water supply reservoirs. While Rich
Fork Creek is currently impaired, the studies by Tetra -Tech show stream restoration
efforts such as channel improvements in select locations and removal of downed trees will
significantly improve the stream quality. The study also shows discharging the current and
projected treated effluent flows actually improve the health of Rich Fork Creek.
Based on all the available data, expansion of the existing facilities to 10 mgd (to include
improvements for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal) to meet the estimated
capacity needs and discharging at the currently permitted location on Rich Fork Creek,
when combined with proposed stream restoration efforts, appears to be the most
economical and environmentally appropriate alternative.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-17
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
O:'�O:'34603460-00FEngineering Alternatives Analysis\EAA Rcp►o 1 High Point Westsidc EAA.doc

Table 2-6
Westside WWTP - Present Worth Cost Summary (2009 dollars)
Action
Capital Cost
Salvage
Value
O&M Cost'
6.2 MGD
Upgrade
10 MGD
Expansion
Capacity
Replacement
Total Present
Worth
Proposed Project
Expand WWTP to
10 MGD
$42,859,800
($2,726,100)
$35,409,900
---
---
---
$75,543,600
Alt. 1 — Alternate
Discharge
Location
$22,469,900
($5,073,200)
$6,191,500
--
$75,543,600
---
$99,131,800
Alt. 2 — Alternate
Treatment
Facility
$57,180,700
($12,910,300)
$6,510,200
$48,702,400
---
$26,600,000
$126,083,000
Alt. 3 Land
Application
$35,483,400
($9,011,700)
$4,153,900
--
$75,543,600
--
$106,169,100
Alt. 4 —
Wastewater
Reuse
---
---
---
---
--
---
NTF
Alt. 5 — No Action
---
---
---
---
--
NTF
Note:
1) Assumes 20-year planning period and a discount rate of 4.875%
2) NTF - Not Technically Feasible for this Project
3) Bold value indicates most economically attractive option
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
0 134G11134G11-11U11Cngmcenng Allemahces Anal) s,s EAA Report l hgh Point Westside EAA.doc
2-18
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists

SECTION 3.0
REFERENCES
1. City of High Point — Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant. Preliminary Engineering
Report. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. Draft April 25, 2006.
2. Northeast Davidson Area Plan. City of High Point Planning Department Website
(www.hiqh-point.net/plan). December 2002.
2. A Study Of High Point's Future Growth Areas. City of High Point Planning
Department Website (www.high-point.net/plan). September 2007.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Process Design Manual — Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents. EPA/625/R-06/016. September 2006.
4. Water Quality Modeling Scoping Analysis for the High Point Westside Discharge to
Rich Fork Creek. Tetra Tech, Inc., March 2006.
5. Results of Phase I Field Monitoring and Model Updates for the High Point
Westside Discharge to Rich Fork Creek. Tetra Tech, Inc., January 2008.
6. 1988 High Point Sewer System Study. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. March 1988.
City of High Point
Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-1
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
O:'34603460-OOI`Enginccring Alternatives Analysisl'AA Report Nigh Point Westside EAA.doc

APPENDIX C
VENDOR QUOTES AND
SUPPLEMENTAL COST DATA

ITT
May 15, 2007
Hazen and Sawyer
Raleigh, NC
Attn: Laurissa Cubbage
Ref: Westside WWTP
ITT Flygt Corporation
6705 Piedmont Place
Wilmington, NC
28411
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
PI YGT
We are pleased to provide budget pricing and preliminary designs for the window propeller pumps for the
Westside WWTP.
10,000 gpm @ 2.3 TDH
Flygt Model PP 4660.410, 15 HP, 3/60/460 volt with a 23 inch propeller, 575 rpm.
Outer housing and propeller 316S/S. Outer and Inner Mechanical seal tungsten carbide.
Wall or Flange mount 316S/S....with 316S/S lifting bail.
Budget price $ 35,180.00 each
7,130gpm @2.1 TDH
Flygt Model PP 4650.410, 8.3 HP, 3/60/460 volt with a 23 inch propeller, 575 rpm.
Outer housing and propeller 316S/S. Outer and Inner Mechanical seal tungsten carbide.
Wall or Flange mount 316S/S....with 316S/S lifting bail.
Budget pricc $ 31,104.00 each
Thank you for the opportunity to work on your project. Let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Pyle
ITT-Flygt Corp.
Carolinas Branch (Wilmington)
phn 910-686-8433
fax [phone]
cell 910-620-4961
thomas.pvle in. com

Page 1 of 1
Cubbage, Laurissa
From: Greg Everhart [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:26 AM
To: Cubbage, Laurissa
Subject: High Point, NC - Westside WWTP - Sanitaire
Item #1 - Given: Fine Bubble Diffusers
Four (4) Zones — 25' W x 110' L x 15' D
Four (4) Zones - 25' W x 30' L x 15' D
Assu mcd: 15% floor coverage
This would require 4,888 diffusers...$253,000.00...$51.76 per diffuser...budget pricing.
Item #2 - Given: Single Drop Diffusers — Quantity 100
Assumed: Four (4) 80' — 100' long header sections each with 25 single drop diffusers.
$120,000.00...$1,200 per single drop...budget pricing.
Without the 80' — 100' header assumption, the quick budget price is $800 per single drop diffuser.
Please call with any questions.
Greg Everhart
Combs & Associates, Inc.
10191 Durhams Ferry Place
Mechanicsville, VA 23116-5185
804-559-4259 / Fax [phone]
Ce11 804-240-8785 / [e-mail]
ci^r1•1nn7

Page 1 of 1
a
Hoyle, Laurissa
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Hoyle, Laurissa
Cc: 'Derek Petersen'
Subject: Budget pricing for Cornell RediPrime
The each price for the BNNT Redi Prime with TEFC 1170 rpm Motors, base coupling guard is 29,500 ea. You
could probably delete the check valve for a credit of 1200 thereabouts. Have you thought about using 20 ea 4000
gpm pumps rather than 40 2000 gpm units ?
Thanks,
Max Foster
704-907-8866 (cell)
.i 4•A Nut: Road
CI skne. MC I:a:J9
PCB @ar 11416
Ch.vic2 20
?•3a.5:3.��4:
Oil 1/2(1(1 ,

Page 1 of 1
Cubbage, Laurissa
From: Greg Everhart [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:39 PM
To: Cubbage, Laurissa
Subject: High Point, NC - Westside WWTP - FRP
Pricing is below for one (1) clarifier. I priced all options for each size clarifier in order to avoid
revisiting the issue. These prices are not overly conservative. If the project is more than 6 months out
you may wish to bump slightly.
70' Diameter
Weirs and Baffles - $7,000
Odor Covers - $31,000
Algae Covers - $14,000
Density Current Baffles - $15,000
90' Diameter
Weirs and Baffles - $9,000
Odor Covers - $40,000
Algae Covers - $18,000
Density Current Baffles - $20,000
120' Diameter
Weirs and Baffles - $12,000
Odor Covers - $54,000
• Algae Covers - $18,000
Density Current Bafflcs - $26,000
Greg Everhart
Combs & Associates, Inc.
10191 Durhams Ferry Place
Mechanicsville, VA 23116-5185
804-559-4259 / Fax [phone]
Cell 804-240-8785 / [e-mail]
'I7/2nm

Page 1 of 2
a
Cubbage, Laurissa
From: Louis Eckley [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Cubbage, Laurissa
Subject: FW:
Laurissa, this is the pricing I received from EIMCO. Let me know if you need more information.
Hi Louis,.
We recommend the FTS skimming system for the 90' diameter tanks, but for the 120' diameter tank we
will need to go with our extended trough design. (At FTS lengths greater than 25-30 feet, the supports
for the FTS trough begin to get very heavy and expensive - so we switch to the ETS system.)
Preliminary budget pricing for this equipment based on today's prices is as follows (this does not
include FRP weirs and baffles)
- Two 70' C3 units: approximately $180,000
Two 90' C3D-FTS units: approximately $266,000
- One 120' C3D-ETS unit: approximately $174,000
-Todd
From: Cubbage, Laurissa[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:54 PM
To: Louis Eckley
Cc: Johnson, Charles Todd
Subject: RE:
See the attachments.
I.1.111ri.+:4a (:ttl)ha_..
llazen and Sawyer. I'.(:.
From: Cubbage, Laurissa
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:53 PM
To: 'Louis Eckley'
Cc: Johnson, Charles Todd
Subject:
Hey Louis,
We have now started on the next phase of design for the Westside WWTP. I am looking for a budget price to
rehab two existing primary clarifiers, rehab two existing 90-ft secondary clarifiers, as well as adding a new 120-ft
secondary clarifier. I knew that the client wants a Tow -Bros -style for the secondary clarifiers, and I don't know if
ci712nn7

A
P8QMEss
Division of McNish Corporation
Product Category -
BUDGETARY INFORMATION
BASE DATA SHEET
(Accessories may be offered on supplementary pages)
User/Plant Name:
Location:
Job Reference:
Number of Units:
Collector Diameter (FT):
Bridge
Gear (Size, Type):
Slimmer (Y or N):
Weir (Y or N):
Scum Baffle (Y or N):
Estimated Mileage from
fabrication point:
Service
Number of Trips:
Number of Days on Site
Estimated Air Fare:
6093 Type "RS" Pier Supported - Plow
Circular Collector
West side WWTP (Existing Primaries)
High Point, NC
Hazen & Sawyer, P.C.
70
Beam
42"SG
Y
N
N
500
$700
BUDGETARY PRICES AND ESTIMATED WEIGHTS...
Item
Collector Mechanism
Standard Skimmer
Weir Plate
Scum Baffle and Supports
Printed: 5/2/2007
File: CCBP.WK1
File Revised:1/19/ 2007
J. Thomas
Budgetary Estimated
Price Weight
(US $) (LBS)
Freight
Service
(Add "P" to model)
Totals
$224,900 29020
$9,850 2820
SO 0
$0 0
$4,675
$4,000
$243,425 31840
Freight based on mileage shown above,13,000 pounds per truck
Service allows 2 days per trip for travel, plus time on site
indicated, plus estimated air fare shown above for each trip.
Typical drawing: 90B-1
Typical specification: 6093-1 (July 2000)

Page 1 of 2
6
Cubbage, Laurissa
From: Hauser, Gregg [HDS] [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM
To: Cubbage, Laurissa
Cc: [e-mail]; Grose, David [HDS]; Hicks, James [HDS]; Keller, Judy [HDS]
Subject: RE: Pump Quotes
Laurissa
Thanks for resending this info on the Fairbanks Morse pumps for the High_ Point_Westsidc WWTP project. Alt
these pumps will need to be priced by the factory and I will send this to them. Following are a few items that I
think need to be mentioned arid evaluated by H&S regarding these pumps
1) I would like to see the NRCY pumps have about 15 TDH, especially considering the use of VFD's with
the pumps. The 20"5721 running at 440 RPM will be a good fit at the flow and 15 TDH. If the TDH is @
15' we would need a 50 HP motor. Not sure how much the VFD will help though. Since you need
something quick for budget prices, I would use $ 100,000 to 120,000 per pump for the 20" 5721. I bid this
pump two years ago with 100 HP 505 RPM motors and that was the selling price.
2) For the RAS pumps we have a great selection for the VTSH pump, could that type of pump be
considered for this part of the job? If we are to stick with the 14" 5721, that is a great pump for these
conditions. Motor would be 15 or 20 HP and the speed would be 585 RPM.
3) For the Backwash pumps I would recommend using the 16E single stage vertical turbine pump, which
will be about 80% efficient at the condition point using a 30 HP 1 180 RPM motor. On the backwash
service it is better to use a turbine pump because backwash pumps almost always are started and run
against a closed valve. Propeller pumps do not last long when run against closed valves arid we will riot
recommend they be used in that mariner.
4) I will look at the propeller pump service sometime with in the next week
Let me know if you need anything else, and thanks again for this info.
Gregg Hauser
HD Supply Waterworks
Engineered Products Division
PO Box 2504
315 Ninth Street SE
Hickoty NC 28603
email address: [e-mail]
telephone : [phone]
fax : [phone]
From: Cubbage, Lau rissa [mailio:ic_ubbaye@u hdzenandsdwyer.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:53 PM
To: Hauser, Gregg [HDS]
Cc: 3ohnson, Charles Todd
Subject: RE: Pump Quotes
Here is the list: I need the NRCY pumps ASAP.
"*NCRY Pumps
5/10/2007

it
Act
TOE TOE OF BERM
OP OF BERM
ABANDON
NPW PUM
STA110
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
3460-012 Figure 2.cdr
ODOR
CONTROL
FACIUTY
IMINANT
TMENT
FAd EFY
ABANDONL0
PRELIMINARY
TREATLENT
FAC':ITr
- Note 1
{ FINAL
•'CLARIFIER ,
SLUDGE HOLDING
TANK NO 1
BLUDGE
PROCESSING;
WILDIN,CG
BLOWER
BUILDING
ABA
CHLORI
CONTAC
TANK
Ex. GE"_
SLUDGE HOLDING
TANK NO
x— x— x— x— x— X— X— X—
FINAL
CLARIFIER
2
ELEVATED
TANK
I LIQUID SLUDGE
LOADING
NRCY PUMP AND
BLOWER BUILDING
- — —e
PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL
FACILITY
fl
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
8NR TANKS
'PRIMARY.
PRIMARY ;SLUDGE~,. PRIMARY
CLARIFIER - 'PUMP1A1 L CLARIFIER
�' j
J II
PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL
CARBON STORAGE
AND FEED FACIUTIES
ABANDONED
BIOFILTER
._ LIME
FACILITIES
• RECIR
PUMP STA
�.J
ABANDONED
CLARIFIER
FLOW
EOUAUZATION
LAGOON
Notes:
1. One influent pump will be added in Phase 3.
'1
SLUDGE
LAGOON
Legend
❑ New Structures
Existing Structures
I13 Phase 1 - Completed 2009
L Phase 2 - Completed 2012
Phase 3
- New Structure or Modifications to
Existing Structure
Figure 2
City of High Point, NC
Westside WWTP
NC0024228
B.2 of Form 2A

SCALE
moimimm Miles
0 0.15 0.3 0.6
1 in = 0.3 miles
Ertl?',
b:,W:i_e
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Effluent Discharge Location 001
Latitude: 35°56' 14"
Longitude: 80° 06' 42"
8R �--1✓i...
FIGURE 1
City of High Point, NC
Westside WWTP
NC0024228
B.2 of Form 2A

Legend:
FBW = Filter Backwash
FBWR = Filter Backwash Return
ML = Mixed Liquor
RAS = Return Activated Sludge
SCE = Secondary Clarifier Effluent
TWAS = Thickened Waste Activated Sludge
WAS = Waste Activated Sludge
Orange Text = Flows at 8.2 mgd Plant Design Capacity
Purple Text = Flows at 10 mgd Plant Design Capacity
Q=8.2mgd //////////
—1r Coarse Screening
Q=10mgd //////////
Rich
Fork
Creek
Influent
Pump Station
g
Fine
Screening
Waste
Q=0.66 mgd Backwash
Q=0.80 mgd Storage
FBWR
1E4
5
48"
Bypass via Splitter Box
Grit
Removal
Q=16.4 mgd
Q=20 mgd
Primary
Clarification
NZ 4
±i_
Effluent
Pump Station
and Post
Aeration
Centrifuge Centrifuge Feed
Pumps Sludge
Holding Tanks
/MIMI Jr Truck Hauling
IN' to Eastside WWTP
3460-012 Figure 3.cdr
UV Disinfection
FBW
48"
Grit
Tertiary
Filtration
TWAS Pumps
fQ=0.66 mgd
Q=0.80 mgd
Polymer
Q=0.042 mgd
Q=0.051 mgd
Primary Sludge
Pump Station
v
RAS
Q=16.4 mgd
5-Stage Q=20 mgd
BNR Tanks
Q=8.2 mgd 36"ML
Q=10 mgd
48" SCE
Filter Feed Pumps
RAS Pump Station
M
Q=0.14 mgd
Q=0.18 mgd
Rotary
Drum
Thickeners
Q=0.14 mgd
Q=0.18 mgd
WAS Pump Station
Secondary
Clarification
_ Q=8.2 mgd
Q=10 mgd
4
t--
-1
Q=8.2 mgd
Q=10 mgd
Figure 3
WWTP Process Flow Diagram
Includes Phase 1, 2, and 3 Modifications
City of High Point, NC
Westside WWTP
NC0024228
B.3 of Form 2A