NC0085481_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_19941220

DECEMBER 20, 1994
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM I
To: Dave Goodrich
(Permits & Engineering)
From: Jim Bushardt
Through: Dave Adki
Subject:Holt Hosi enderlea School Unpermitted
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
RE f-f r,-
IJEC 2 7 1994
Treatment Plant
I have enclosed a copy of an engineering alternatives
analysis for your consideration. As you may recall, this existing
system consists of septic tank, dual above ground laterals which
discharge onto splash plates with percolation into an
intermediate sand filter (approx 80 ft. by 100 ft.) with
underdrains and discharge to Crooked Run, a tributary of Sills
Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. Crooked Run exhibits a zero
7Q10 flow and a slight positive 30Q2 flow. The system has never
been permitted, but does show up on the Wallace West USGS Quad
Sheet.
I enjoyed our previous conversation concerning the accuracy
of the engineering alternatives analyses, and that is the reason
I am sending you a copy of this one. I think it is factual and
complete enough for Division representatives to evaluate. I
annotated the cost estimates with my questions or opinions and
then I contacted Mr. Criser. Please disregard my annotations
during your review. Mr. Criser agreed that the land may not be
worth the asking price, and the owner was not willing to
subdivide the acreage or reduce the asking price.
The consultant is waiting for the Division's next step,
which is to provide the proper permit application forms for the
submittal. The Region feels that an NPDES permit is the most cost
practical approach in this case. I think some costs could be
skimmed from the proposed LPP and spray irrigation systems.
However, I do not think these cost reductions would make these
systems economically competitive with the proposed
treatment/NPDES discharge option. I think that it is important at
this point to have consistency between the Central Office and the
Region in regard to accepting an NPDES permit application. It is
not necessary that you reply by memo to this request. A phone
call will be adequate. Once I have your reply, I can send out the
proper application form.
JB:HOLT.D94
cc: Wilmington Office Files, Central Files

DEC 0 91994 !J
...........................
December 8, 1994
Mr. Jim Bushardt, P. E.
Div. of Environmental Management
N. C. Dept. of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Re: Holt Hosiery Mill/Penderlea School
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Pender County
Dear Mr. Bushardt:
As previously discussed, we have been systematically evaluat-
ing several tracts of land within one mile of the existing was-
tewater treatment facility for disposal suitability.
One site was located that appears marginally suitable, but
requires a large amount of land due to a very low application
rate.
Enclosed is a copy of our November 23, 1994 letter to Mr.
Ralph Holt which reviews the alternatives for this project.
It is obvious that the most economical alternative is to con-
struct a new plant. The next alternate is more than double the
cost.
The Owner is in the process of trying to secure financing
for the proposed improvements. Please advise what the next step
is in the process of obtaining a permit.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Criser, 4PE.
DEC/GGB/4102
Enc.
cc: Mr. Ralph Holt
Mr. Tom Pappendick
Mr. John Bauer
805 N. THIRD STREET I P.O. DRAWER 2087 1 WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402 1 919 763-0141 FAX [phone]

November 23, 1994
Mr. Ralph Holt
Holt Hosiery Mills
P. 0. Box 1757
Burlington, NC 27216
Re: Site Evaluation
Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Alternatives
Holt Hosiery Mills, Penderlea School
Dear Mr. Holt:
Since our last meeting we have been evaluating several alter-
natives to help correct the existing situation at the referenced
site. Following is a brief description of each alternative along
with a detailed cost estimate attached.
Alternative No. 1: Subsurface Disposal
We have reviewed the site evaluation report with Larry
Baldwin and estimate that approximately 18 acres of the 35-acre
site will be needed for a subsurface disposal system. We propose
to use a low pressure pipe (LPP) system with 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 inch
diameter lines, 10 feet on center, throughout the site to dis-
tribute the wastewater.
The existing septic tank would remain in use and a new sand
filter unit would be added, along with the pumping tank and con-
trols, to pump the wastewater to the proposed disposal site.
The maintenance and operation measures necessary for this
alternative would include daily monitoring of the pump station
and the necessary mowing of the disposal site on a weekly or bi-
weekly period.
To optimize the site, construction should take place in the
summer (dry) months to prevent damage to the existing soil struc-
ture. The estimated project cost is $598,200, including land
cost.

Page 2
Alternative No. 2: Sprav Irrigation Disposal
This alternative includes the construction of a pump sta-
tion, a storage lagoon with 30 days' holding capacity, chlorine
contact chamber, irrigation pumps and structure, and the installa-
tion of the piping and spray heads necessary to distribute the
wastewater over 18 acres. The spray heads are spaced ap-
proximately 70 to 90 feet apart. The area will be divided into
seven zones of about 2.5 acres with each zone having ap-
proximately 9 spray heads. Each zone will receive wastewater
once per week.
During the dryer months the system can work automatically;
however, during rainy periods the operator must operate the sys-
tem manually, storing wastewater as needed.
This alternative requires more operational and maintenance
effort due to the chlorination system, the manual operation
aspects, and the repair of potentially damaged spray heads. The
system will need daily checks and weekly or bi-weekly mowing.
Construction should also take place in the summer months to
preserve the existing conditions as much as possible. The
project cost estimate is $443,350.
Alternative No. 3: New Treatment Plant
This alternative consists of a new treatment plant using the
same discharge location. A completely new tertiary treatment
plant would be constructed and once on line the old plant would
be abandoned.
The new system will include flow equalization aeration
units, clarifiers, filtration units, chlorination, dechlorination
and metering equipment, and standby power equipment.
This alternative requires the highest level of maintenance
and operational work, along with additional testing. We estimate
that a Grade III Operator may be necessary for this plant due to
the strict permit limits we would expect it to operate within. A
contract with a local sludge handler would be necessary to
facilitate proper plant operation. The estimated cost is
$217,300.

Page 3
Alternative No. 4: PumA to Burqaw
The necessary pump stations and booster stations would be
constructed along with 9.1 miles of 6-inch force main that would
connect this system to the Town of Burgaw's wastewater collection
system.
If this alternative is selected we anticipate that the exist-
ing septic tank would continue to be used and the effluent pumped
to the Town. This means that the continued monitoring and oc-
casional cleaning of the existing septic system would be neces-
sary. Also, there would be five pump stations to monitor and
maintain.
It should be noted that the Town has not been contacted con-
cerning the alternative due to the estimated high cost. If this
alternative is pursued, then negotiations should begin with the
Town.
This alternative has the highest cost estimate of $799,800.
Due to the soil conditions in the area, the cost of Alterna-
tives 1 and 2 are high due to the very low application rates
which would be allowed on the site. From our analysis of the
area the site selected for evaluation is one of the better sites.
Other sites that may be suitable are farther away and probably
would cost more.
Alternative No. 4, pumping to the Town of Burgaw, has an ex-
tremely high cost associated with it and is probably not economi-
cally feasible at this time.
Building a new treatment plant is apparently the most cost
effective alternative at this time. We suggest the State be ap-
proached with this information and permission requested to con-
struct a new plant with the existing discharge.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Criser, P. E.
DEC/GGB/4102
Enc.
cc: Mr. Tom Pappendick

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COST ESTIMATE
Alternative No. 1
LPP SYSTEM (SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL)
Sand filter, controls, etc.
Pumping tank, pumps, controls, etc.
4" PVC pipe 8,100 if @
6" PVC distribution pipe 3,780 if
$34,700
35,000
$6.00 48,600
8.00 30,240
6" PVC main pipe 3,600 if 8.00 28,800
Steel casing, bored & jacked 40 if 120.00 4,800
6Oo
4" Valve 36 ea ) 400.00 1 ,44 -
8. 6" Valve 6 ea 500.00 3,000
z Z
9. Nitrification lines /fii �A.O,lf 5.00 -1 G
kv U s#c�
10. Clearing/grassing 20 ac 1200.00 24,000
Construction Subtotal $412,540
Technical Services 61,900
Contingency e- 41,260
Land Cost - Initial Site 55,000 J
Land Cost - Repair Site 27,500
Total Project Cost $598,200

COST ESTIMATE
Alternative No. 2
SPRAY IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SYSTEM
1. Pump station
2. Chlorine contact chamber
3. Lagoon earthwork
4. Lagoon clay liner
5. Spray heads with nozzles
6. 6" PVC main pipe
7. 6" PVC distribution pipe
8. 3" PVC pipe
9. Steel casing, bored & jacked
10. Air release valve
11. Control valves (s"V^
12. Meters
4,400 cy @
650 cy
65 ea
3,600 if
2,200 if
7,000 if
40 if
$35,000
10,000
$7.00
30,800
18.00
11,700
130.00
8,450
8.00
28,800
8.00 17,600
5.00
120.00
2000.00
-it Lw
13040_ 0 0
1500.00
13. Irrigation pump structure
14. Monitoring wells 5 ea 800.00
15. Clearing, grassinff 20 ac 1200.00
CpU �Ji1
16. Electrical 7e,411
o u�S�5 /m
Construction Subtotal T2
35,000
4,800
14,000
7-' ' -
I�� O
=oxzex�to�2
4,000
24,000
1�25,000
$310,650
Technical Services //,l` 46,600
4U)c 4
Contingency / (noy,1e� 31,100
Land Cost e ary hw 55,0 00
��B t�5fl
Total Project Cost /S Gflef'o $443,350
��J���•/Q�L-r/%Z�g//!Q/'I/�J//rvi C'A'�ti/�/��i��i�%��%�X�,xx

1
2
3.
4.
5.
COST ESTIMATE
Alternative No. 3
NEW TREATMENT PLANT
Treatment plant, dual path:
Material $83,000
Installation 15,000
Site work 3,600
Tertiary filter:
Material 28,000
Installation 5,000
Site work 1,700
Equipment storage building 2,500
Emergency power generation 25,000
Miscellaneous piping and site work 10,000
Construction Subtotal $173,800
Technical Services 26,100
Contingency 17.400
Total Project Cost $217,300

1
2
3
4.
5.
6.
s
COST ESTIMATE
Alternative No. 4
PUMP TO BURGAW
10,000-Gallon pumping tanks
Pumps, controls, hatch
Miscellaneous site work
6" PVC force main
Air release manhole
Driveway repairs
Construction Subtotal
Technical Services
Contingency
Total Project Cost
5 ea @ $15,000 $75,000
5 ea 20,000 100,000
5 ea 4,000 20,000
48,100 if 8.0 384,800
15 ea 2,000 / 30,000
30,000
$639,800
96,000
64,000
$799,800
SAµ.
lU� ��cL7rd(