NC0001384_Engineering Report_19971201

ENGINEERING REPORT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
V
KA
C
KATE�?Q(4C, QED
' SECTIOIV
1991
�°n-Discharn., p9�lt�r
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
CASWELL COUNTY
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER 0001384
December 1, 1997
WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, P.A.
P.O. BOX 8847
GREENSBORO, NC 27419-0847
[phone]
r
V1
�
14 -2-
lb -
Z16 - 14 -S

O TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Summary and Conclusions
II. Objective
III. General
IV. Evaluation of Alternative Disposal
Figures:
1. General Location
2. NPDES Permit Discharge Locations
3. Adjacent Properties
4. Five Mile Radius
5. Haw River Discharge
6. LPP System
7. Drip Irrigation
O 8. Spray Irrigation
Attachments:
A. Detailed Wastewater Analysis
B. Discharge Monitoring Report Summary
C. Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
D. LPP System
E. Drip Irrigation
F. Spray Irrigation
G. Existing WWTP Upgrade
Exhibits:
1. Preliminary Soil and Site Evaluation for Subsurface Disposal of Wastewater.
2. Preliminary Soil and Site Evaluation for Irrigation of Domestic Wastewater.

O ENGINEERING REPORT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
A comparison of the costs and value of various alternative disposal methods is
presented in the following table:
SUMMARY: COST &VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL METHODS
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL ANNUAL PRESENT
COST O/M COST VALUE
A. Discharge to NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
POTW
B. Discharge to
Private Owned NOT FEASIBLE
Treatment Works
C. Discharge to Non- $ 782,080 $ 30,993 $1,098,637
Zero Flow Stream
D. LLP System $1,876,581 $ 55,913 $2,447,667
E. Drip Irrigation $1,185,350 $110,676 $2,315,776
F. Spray Irrigation $1,142,740 $ 94,534 $2,108,295
G. Existing WWTP $ 216,710 $ 53,053 $ 758,585
With Upgrade
Present Value: n= 20 years; r=7.5%
0 -3-

Conclusions:
1. Based on an engineering analysis, an alternative disposal method is not economically
achievable for this facility and discharge at outfall 001 should be continued.
2. The existing wastewater treatment plant is well operated and maintained and produces an
effluent which meets current permit limits with few excursions of effluent limitations. No
additional treatment should be required if the current limits are maintained.
3. Prior to discharge at outfall 001, tertiary filtration and dechlorination will be required if
effluent limits are made more stringent for BODS and chlorine. No additional treatment will
be needed to meet revised limits for ammonia and dissolved oxygen.
II. OBJECTIVE:
The Burlington Industries Williamsburg Plant discharges wastewater to two waterways.
These waterways both have 7Q10/30Q2 of 0 cfs. The Williamsburg Plant NPDES permit,
which expired on January 1996, required the permit renewal include an engineering
evaluation of:
► Alternatives to direct wastewater discharge, and
QIf there are no alternatives to surface water discharge, the cost of constructing a
treatment facility to meet the limits of 5 mg/l BOD5 2 mg/l NH3N, 6 mg/1 dissolved
oxygen and 17 ug/1 chlorine.
An engineering report was submitted with the permit renewal application during July, 1995.
This report is an amended engineering evaluation prepared to meet additional North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)requirements.
III. GENERAL:
The Burlington Industries Williamsburg Plant is located in Matkins, North Carolina (Figure
1). Woven fabric is manufactured at this facility. There are no manufacturing processes at
the plant which generate wastewater. An on-site well system is used for water supply. The
plant has three wastewater discharges permitted by NPDES Permit No. NC0001384 (Figure
2).
Discharge 001 consists of treated sanitary wastewater from a domestic wastewater treatment
facility. The wastewater treatment facility is an on-site package type extended aeration
activated sludge treatment plant. The effluent from this plant is generally in compliance with
-4-

O permit limits. Waste activated sludge is disposed of on-site by land application in
accordance with land application of residuals permit number WQ0005045. (Figure 2).
A summary of selected parameters from discharge monitoring reports is contained in
Attachment B. An analysis of an effluent grab sample for a list of State required parameters
is contained in Attachment A.
Figure 3 is compiled from U.S.G.S. charts and County tax maps. Williamsburg Plant
property and surrounding adjacent properties are shown. This Figure 3 is to scale and
indicates relative size,direction and distance to potential additional land. The potential need
for additional land is presented hereinafter under sections discussing subsurface and spray
irrigation disposal.
Discharge 002 consists of air washer blowdown,compressor condensate,compressor cooling
tower blowdown and water softener backwash. Discharge 003 consists of cooling tower
blowdown. Wastewater generated from floor mopping and battery washing are disposed of
off-site.
Receiving waters are located in the Cape Fear River basin. Discharges 001 and 002
discharge to an unnamed tributary to Buttermilk Creek. Discharge 003 discharges to an
unnamed tributary to Grays Branch. Grays Branch discharges to Stony Creek, the
headwaters of the City of Burlington, Lake Burlington reservoir. Buttermilk Creek
discharges to Grays Branch downstream of the City of Burlington,Lake Burlington reservoir.
The following general information is submitted as required by the alternative evaluation report
guidance document:
Facility Name: Burlington Industries Williamsburg Plant
County: Caswell
Facility Location: Intersection of NC Highway 87 and NCSR 1100, Matkins,
NC.
Mailing Address: Terry Fripp, Director of Corporate Engineering
Burlington Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 21207
Greensboro, NC 27420
Report Preparer: Donald M. Wojek, P.E.
Wojek Engineering Associates, PA
Post Office Box 8847
Greensboro, NC 27419-0847
O Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
-5-

Plant Contact: Miriam S. White, P.E.
Burlington House Group Division Environmental Engineer
Post Office Box 691
Burlington, N.C. 27215
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IV. VALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL:
A. Discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Work(POTW):
There are no POTW systems within a five-mile radius of the Williamsburg Plant. Figure 4
show the area within a five-mile radius of the plant.
The following County personnel were contacted. All stated that there are no plans to extend
or provide public sewer services within a five-mile radius of the Williamsburg Plant.
Rockingham County:
Mike McDaniel
O Environmental and Engineering Services
Wentworth, North Carolina
[phone]
Caswell County:
Donnie K. Powell
Environmental Health Division
Yanceyville,North Carolina
[phone]
Alamance County:
Scott Elliott
Assistant County Manager/Operations
Graham, North Carolina
[phone]
DISCHARGE TO POTW IS NOT A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE.
O -6-

OB. Discharge to Privately Owned Treatment Works (PrOTW):
As shown on the Figure 4"FIVE MILE RADIUS"map,there is an industrial PrOTW located
at Altamahaw, North Carolina. Altamahaw is about five miles south of the Williamsburg
Plant on State Highway 87.
The Haw River crosses State Highway 87 at Altamahaw,North Carolina. Discharge to the
Haw River at Altamahaw would be easier to construct and less costly than connecting to the
PrOTW. Also, a direct discharge by the Williamsburg Plant to the Haw River would
eliminate potential management problems between the Williamsburg Plant and the PrOTW
owner.
DISCHARGE TO A PRIVATELY OWNED TREATMENT WORK IS NOT A REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVE
C. Discharge to a Flowing Stream:
The Haw River is the largest stream within five miles of the Williamsburg Plant.
Waterways to the north of the Williamsburg Plant generally flow northeasterly to the Dan
River. It is more than five miles to any of these waterways at a location where stream flow
O is always greater than zero. Also, any Williamsburg Plant discharge to these waterways
would constitute an unacceptable interbasin water transfer.
Waterways directly east of the Williamsburg Plant flow into Lake Burlington. lake
Burlington is the potable water supply for the City of Burlington. Waterways with a
consistent flow to the southeast of the Williamsburg Plant are farther away from the
Williamsburg Plant than the Haw River.
Figure 5 shows the shortest routing along public roads to the Haw River. Attachment C
shows the conceptual design,capital cost estimate and operations/maintenance cost estimate
for the discharge of effluent from the Williamsburg Plant to the haw River.
Discharge to the Haw River is a technically possible alternative with the following estimated
costs:
Estimated Capital Cost $ 782,080
Estimated O/M Cost $ 30,993
Present Value $1,098,637
O
-7-

D. Subsurface Disposal (LPP System):
A potential subsurface disposal method for the site wastewater treatment plant effluent would
be an LPP System. A schematic of the potential LPP System is shown in Figure 6. The
system design was based on the results of a soil investigation conducted by Michael D.
Eaker, Licensed Soil Scientist, Reg. No. 1030. A description of the soil investigation and
recommendations are documented in a report contained in Exhibit I.
Based on the soil investigation, the recommended hydraulic loading rate for a site LPP
system is 0.1 gallons per day per square foot(gpd per sq. ft.). The soil investigation further
identified areas of the plant property as provisionally suitable or unsuitable for a subsurface
system. As shown on a Figure contained in Exhibit I, essentially all of the Williamsburg
Plant is unsuitable for an LPP system with the exception of the areas currently used for
sludge disposal. An off-site location will be necessary for an LPP system. It has been
assumed that it will be possible to purchase suitable property within 1,500 feet of the plant.
based on a review of a Soil Conservation Service survey, it is assumed an off-site location
will have soil characteristics similar to the plant property.
Attachment D contains the conceptual design and capital and operating cost estimates for
subsurface LPP disposal of effluent from the Williamsburg Plant.
Subsurface LPP is a technically possible alternative with the following estimated costs:
O Estimated Capital Cost $1,876,581
Estimated O & M Costs $ 55,913
Present Value $2,447,667
E. Subsurface Disposal (Drip Irrigation):
Drip irrigation is a potential disposal method for the effluent from the site wastewater
treatment plant. Based on the increased operation and maintenance activities associated with
surface drip irrigation lines, this evaluation assesses only subsurface drip irrigation. A
schematic of the drip irrigation system is shown in Figure 7.
The soil surface investigation referred to in Section D recommended a hydraulic loading rate
for a subsurface drip irrigation system of 0.1 gpd per sq.ft. (Exhibit I). As with the LPP
system, no suitable areas for drip irrigation system are presently available on-site. The
conceptual design and cost estimates for a drip irrigation system have been prepared
assuming any off-site location used for drip irrigation will be in the vicinity of the plant and
have similar soil characteristics.
O -8-

Attachment E contains the conceptual design and capital and operating cost estimates for drip
irrigation of effluent from the Williamsburg Plant.
Subsurface drip irrigation is a technically possible alternative with the following estimated
costs:
Estimated Capital Cost $1,185,350
Estimated O & M Costs $ 110,676
Present Value $2,315,776
F. Spray Irrigation:
Spray irrigation is a potential disposal method for wastewater generated at this site. The soil
scientist site investigation resulted in a recommended spray irrigation rate of 1.5 inches per
cycle with a 3.5 day cycle(Exhibit II). As with subsurface disposal, essentially all the site
property suitable for spray irrigation is presently in use for sludge disposal.
The conceptual design and cost estimates for a spray irrigation system have been prepared
assuming any off-site location used for spray irrigation will be in the vicinity of the plant and
have similar soil characteristics.
O Attachment F contains the conceptual design and capital operating cost estimates for spray
irrigation of effluent from the Williamsburg Plant.
Spray irrigation is a technically possible alternative to discharge with the following estimated
costs:
Estimated Capital Cost $1,142,740
Estimated O & M Costs $ 94,534
Present Value $2,108,295
G. Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP):
The existing WWTP is an extended aeration activated sludge package plant with effluent
chlorination using a table calcium hypochlorite system. The effluent from the existing
wastewater treatment plant is in compliance with current permit conditions with the
exception of infrequent random excursions of the ammonia limit. It is not technically
practical or economically reasonable to design and install equipment to address these
infrequent excursions. No additional treatment should be required if the current limits are
maintained.
O -9-

• An evaluation of the additional treatment required to meet the following more stringent
limits was conducted:
'�+aPaSEfl r o>.�
BODS 5 mg/1 3 a
NH3 2 mg/1 2
Dissolved Oxygen 6 mg/l
Chlorine 17 mg/1 00L
As shown in the monitoring data contained in Attachments A and B,no additional treatment
will be needed to meet the dissolved oxygen and ammonia limits. Tertiary filtration would
likely be an effective method to ensure consistent compliance with the more stringent BODS
limit. Compliance with the more stringent chlorine limitation could be accomplished using
a tablet type feeder with sodium sulfite tablets.
Attachment G contains the conceptual design and capital and operating cost estimates for
upgrade of the WWTP.
Upgrade of the WWTP will have the following estimated costs:
Estimated Capital Cost $ 216,710
Estimated O & M Cost $ 53 053
Present Value $ 758,585
0
0 -10-

I
f
•
+fr
i

�m
S
r
S
-.' ,.- 1.-.- ... .• � ! --. ..".�'-.,_ f W
UP
-
_ ao SA 1444 —
I_�<•„ � iss3 _
-Ti
SR 110(T'
D Z ^f
Zrm � � -
z C7 c 4
m D � � Z
D m _
Z (n Z
'ro
En
O f fqv °

�-1
4 ( r y n r a
i 1
lz
l `•
t
11391
fq
/ •' f fir /� . -
J`
� ) 1
73� rt
.t'I1D2�r�':
LA x-11 V 4'~xy� _/'�~ r r.►\ ''
8 / (` i i/-�V•fltl
wr
i ..
sV. in,
A�
4RD " C max . BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
FIGURE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
'97 NOV. WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOC.

r
I
m
.4^ U
U
O 4
i
1
ca
m5R 1144 � '.
!f y UU_
'3 3DIK
.
.g
�f
4 yr�m�Ai
V
r- Z 1
r L7 !
^� D O
V J EnZ •�
xrnC � z F K
4 m
O p N $
M Dm
C Ztn
N _
Fn
O
n 1 fhb

N !
Ol
I , l7
'` \ r, \ i.' •, if
BURLINGTON •
EXISTING
WWAMSBRLANT ,WTTPCROSSING
$ubStdttoRaY
789,x,,
ROAD
CROSSING
AMSBUR t 2658 % e
172 r-i
6'15
f
IA
_H -
i J! S ". _�1iy � �Y' ~\�y~=��� .... � '`� •f�Nb l
Jib
�pj
i iar t i ti.- -
_ L _
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC.
ROAD CR , ! t`"_ �._ T I,t
y, WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
TFAtL AT l FIGURE 5
„ DISCHARGE TO HAW RIVER
97 NOV. WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOC.

BACKWASH LPP LPP LPP LPP
FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD
NEW #1 #2 #3 #4
TERTIARY
-------------- FILTER
i 1
EXISTING
-�1 WASTE WATER I
TREATMENT PLANT LPP LPP LPP LPP
I 1 FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD
-- ----------J #5 #6 #7L #8
LPP LPP LPP LPP
FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD
NEW #9 #10 #11 #12
FILTRATE
SUMP
LPP LPP LPP LPP
FIELD FIELD FIELD FIELD
#13 #14 #15 #16
NEW
NEW NEW PUMP BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
DIRTY TRANSFER TANK WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
WATER PUMP FIGURE 6 SCHEMATIC
SUMP STATION POTENTIAL LPP SYSTEM
'97 NOV. WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOC.

BACKWASH
BACKWASH
NEW rF4
NEW DRIP
TERTIARY IRRIGATION
r-------------I FILTER SYSTEM
I I
EXISTING
-�I WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
I I
L-- ----------
NEW DRIP
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
NEW NEW
FILTRATE IRRIGATION
SUMP SUMP
NEW NEW BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
DIRTY TRANSFER WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
WATER PUMP FIGURE 7 SCHEMATIC
SUMP STATION POTENTIAL DRIP IRRIGATION
'97 NOV. WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOC.

-------------
EXISTING
-� WASTE WATER i
TREATMENT PLANT
L-------------J
SPRAY FIELD #1
NEW NEW
TRANSFER STORAGE
PUMP TANK
STATION C40
SPRAY FIELD #2
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
FIGURE 8 SCHEMATIC
POTENTIAL SPRAY IRRIGATION
'97 NOV. WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOC.

s
•
•
[�2�it;i':��? 12'i,:'•:;;as•.�;�t,'r9a7i��.£;7=�:;:.. .. k ...... ......... > ... ......,....... ....:,�•.�.,. ... .. ..,. ... ._.......

ATTACHMENT A
DETAILED WASTEWATER ANALYSES
Pg. 1/2
ESEARCh lit ANAIyTiCA[ :c*
• = NG#34 z
U bORATORIES�INC.
AnaktcaWracm Cor>pau= _ ��i���ED ANP �`♦
Chemical Analysis for Selected Patametm and Sampling Locations Identified as Alternate gton
t
Industries, Mliamsburg(A Wojek Engineering&Associates Project,27 August 1997)
L Volatile Method 620 4anics
� Exist.Treat. 7
Parameter L-0EI�A1
Methylene Chktrida .....................:.... 0.010 .
Triehiarotluoromathsne........................ 0.010 .........................BDL
1.1 Oidtloroettkrte....................... 0.010 .........................
1,1-Di libroethow.......................... BOL
. 0.010 .........
Chk�rotorm ................................ 0.010 .. ................SOL
L
............... ....
Carbon Tetrachloride ..................
1.2.Oichloropropane .... .... 0. 10 .......................
.... .................. 0.010 ...
Trichloroethene ............................. 0.010 . ......................SOL
OL
DibromoeNorornettune........................ 0.010 ........ .............
1.1.2-Trichloroethane......................... 0.010 .........................
TetraeWoroethens ........................... 0.010 ........ ..............
SOL
.BDL
thlorobenzene ..... BDL
0.010 .........................BOL
Tr ans•1,2toethiroe.... ...................... 0.010 ...... ..................BOL
1.2 OiGloroathane........................... 0.010 . .................•.BOL
1.1.1-Trichloroethane......................... 0.010 ... K.L
Bromodichleromethene ........................ 0.010 ........................ BDL
Ci:•1.3.Oichloropropens ....................... 0.010 . ..... ............
Benzene ............................ 0.010 ................. BDL
Trans•1,3•Dichloropropene ......................BDL
0.010 .Or- _BOL
1.1.2-2-Te :...ockha •'..................... 0.010 .........................BDL
1,1,2.2-Tetrahllwoe!lune 0.010 . .BOL
Takxne ............................... 0.010 ..........................BOL
EthylBenzene ...............................0.010 . BDL
CNoram-them 0.010 . .....................
&omorn"hane ............................. 0.010 .............. ..........BOL
Y.nylChloride .............................. 0.010 . .....................BOL
Chlorodhane............................... 0.010 .........................BDL
Acetone .. 0.100 . .......BOL
Carbon Oisullide ..... .......... BDL
Valyl Acetate 0.010 ................. .......BDL
.......... 0.010 .........................BOL
2•Butartorte ................................ 0.100 .....
4-Methyl-24Pentsncn. ..................BOL
0.010 .........................BOL
2-Hexanone ............ 0.010 .........................BOL
St: sne ........:......................... 0.010 .........................BOL
Total Xylenes .............................. 0.010 .........................BDL
If. Miscellaneous
Parameter
Total Solids................................ 5.00 ..........................528
Dissolved Solids....................... ...........................465
Total KjeWsN Nitrogen ropen ........................ 1.00 .......................BDL
Ammonia-Nitrogen..........................
1.00 ....................... BDL
Nitrate-Nitrogen...................... 0.050 ...
........42.5
..............
Nitrite-Nitrogen ............................ O.O10 ......
.........
......... BDL
Total Organic Carbon ......................... 0.50 ............ .6.94
...
uochemi.0 Oxygen Demand.................... 1.00 ..,........ ...Sol
...........
Chemical Oxygen Demand ..................... 5.00 ..1....................... 73.0
Chloride .................................. 1.00 ..........................60.3
Toth Sodium.................. ............. 1.00 ..........................55.5
Total Phosphoru............................. 0.050 .........................9.79
Sulfide ................................... 0.20 ..........................0.38
Total Cald .......... 0.200 ..............45.0
r
total Magnesium ............................ 0.200 .........................9.45
Phenols 0.005 BOL
Total Cordorm IMPN/100 misl. .............. 2 .. .... ............................... 16.000
TotalTAhakrmathanes ........................ 0.020 .......... SOL
Alkalinity.Bicarbonate ........................ 1.00 ......... 5.06
pH(Std Unilsl .............................................................5.3
• Sample
Sample Date Date 909949/50
Sample Time 8/27,97
0840]
mgA M4ggrams Per Ulu.Parts Per Million M /100 most us•MProbable Number per 100 millilitersBOL Below Detection Limits PN
Std Units -Standard Units
P Q Bax 473.106 Stolt Street•KemerwAkL NOM Chtulm 27284.91GSW 2841

ATTACHMENT A
DETAILED WASTEWATER ANALYSES
. Pg. 2/2
Effluent Toxicity Report Form- Chronic'Pass/Fail and Acute LC50 Date 08/29/97
Facility Burlington Industries NPDESONC per/ County
Laboratory Performing Research & Analytical Labs Inc
Cotnmenu__Z luent
Si Qf Responsible Charge
a
-
Sigma=of 660ratory SUPWAw
&wk mtental Sciences Branch
MAIL ORIGINAL Div.of 6n4ronmental Management
N:C.Dept.of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
North Carolina Ceriodaohnia Chronic Pass/Fail Reproduction Raleigh.North Carolina 27607-6445
CONTROL ORGANISMS '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
a Young Produced rnnic TeStRe4mIts
Calculated t
Adult(L)ive (D)ead Tabular t
Y.Raductios
=2 .r--.—
.
Effluent% —]
TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12
Z
1/Young Produced Carmol CV
PASS-. FAIL
Adult(L)ive (D)ead x0 a
Check Oae
lst 1st tad rAnwlete This For EitherLeg-1 Test Start Date
-� no/27/.97
Control o
PH IIeatioa VMA)Date
Treatment j _ Sample 1 08/27/97 Sample 2
! Semoie TpR, ;,
S E S E S E
t n t n t a Grab Comp. Duration %o a
i d r d= d Semple I .� .0.j
t X
t o
t t7
CA
C H
1st Ist 2nd Sample 2 0 0 4
O 0 v n
D.O.Control Herdness(mgM48
Treatment HI Ifl
Spec.Cond.(µmhos
171 1sus
LC50/Acute ToueitvTest
Orine<mgman <0.01
(Mortality expressed as e/q combining replicates) Semple temp.at receipt3,9 oC
0 5 10 20 40 j 70 j Igo Coneentration
% % % I t
% '%'*- Te K y` % % Notc:fgcase
0 0 0 50 55 1 75� 100' Mae/etity
Complete This
L 50- 30.71tt Section
95%Coofidenee Moving Average pmb�
14.41%
• 58.33% SpeamenKrbe [3 ctanend pW�
Corol836d T
[(__
rgariemTested
Ceriodaphnia debtsDuration) 48 6.8 .6 Caen 8.0 8.2
Copy of DEM foam AT•1047jrer.I D 3 ! PH D.O.
f
a...'.e..4 . .-- -..__. .__t.�..---............................ .._ ..... _ ..............,7C!+'r!r!r!ire'r'!•.fy'R!�xw7!r:-�r.......�.. ... .... .. ......"'^;.;:... ................ ,..

m
S
0
Ol N W M 01 0 V A W O� W tp V fh N M A V M N N W W W N V
y
N
A N N W -+ W J► UI !. ♦ (J1 V•N N N f,J� O N Q W A N W A W � W
7
oaaso89ooae aesoas 88oaa s �.
CA
D
N
r�
m _
0o
i
N N a Y t11 �p tom.► W W W -"+ -"+ A W N 01 th A A N A N 0� Cn or t0 Or � � n
H v r
C �
(p W Q a V Of �D Q t W N A W W W A N OI 0r A N U1 W N N N
O
v
"oo $ o c3B000ao rucoo " " 88oac'So
C
14
N
m
O
v
N N N W N N A W A W
N
N
03 (/1 10 N N OD 01 N A W A th Ql O O 01 W V L tp 4y
I� ^ 7
S O O O O O p O O C O O 8 O O
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

v
0
_o
0 3 a
a
♦ tl1 0 V w -^+ W N N N W N
0
N a a a 8 0 o a 8 8 o c o 0 0 o a ren
r r r r N r + + r r + m 'V ♦ + +
C
a
i

O ATTACHMENT C
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
This alternative consists of pumping treated effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant
to the Haw River. The proposed route is shown on the schematic "Potential Discharge to Haw
River"(Figure 5).
Treated effluent complies with current NPDES Permit limitations. It is assumed that no additional
treatment will be needed prior to discharge to the Haw River.
Basic Design Criteria:
Wastewater Flow, 25,000 GPD.
Estimated that about one half of daily wastewater flow discharged during first shift.
Design Flow = 25.000 GPD = 26 GPM
O 2x8x60
Pump Rate = 26 GPM x 3 = 78 GPM
Force Main To Haw River:
Pump Rate, 80 GPM
Force Main
Length = 16,800 LFT
Use 6"Diam. Sch. 40 PVC
h,f = 0.07 FT/100 FT
HL = 0.07 FT/100 FT x 16,800 FT
11.8 FT
Use, 12 FT
Static HD MAXIMUM MINIMUM
Water Elev. @ Pump Sta. 735 740
C/1

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Max Elev. 786 786
Static HD, 51 46
HL 12 12
Discharge HD 63 58
80 GPM x 8.34 x 63.0
Pump Power = 33,000 x 0.3
4.2
Use 5 HP
Force Main to Haw River- Estimated Cost:
Pump Station @ WWTP:
► 6 x 8 x 14'deep conc. well $ 35,000
► 2 Sub. Pumps- each 5 hp, 80 GPM @ 62 ft. tdh; rail syst. $ 13,000
► Control Panel $ 8,000
► Power, Transformer, Cable& Conduit $ 13,000
► Standby Power 12 kw; Auto Transfer; Housing $ 17,000
$ 86,000
Force Main:
► 6"Diam. Sch 40 pvc B/S; 16,800 Lft. $ 92,400
► Trenching- 15'wide; Gravel Bckfl; Haul cut mat.
3 ft. deep; 8.75 ft. $ 147,000
► Bore; Jack, Casing; 3 each $ 9,000
► Driveways - 15 each $ 3,000
O C/2

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Force Main To Haw River- Estimated Cost - Continued:
► Vac/Pres Relief Valves; Manholes; 7 each $ 10,500
► Disch. Structure at River; MH and Headwall $ 2,500
$ 264,000
Survey: $ 27,720
► Route Survey; Power; Cable; Phone; Driveways; Shrubs &
Trees; R-O-W; Property Lines; Individual Easement maps;
O Soils: $ 12,000
► Rock; Poor Soil; 15 boring
$ 39,720
Sub-Total: $ 390,120
Engineering: $ 44,860
► Prepare Plans & Specs; Direct Survey, Soils &Easement
Maps; Assist Legal.
Easements: $ 168,000
► 50% in State/County R-O-W; 20'wide; 155,000 sf
required; $1.00/sf.
C/3

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Force Main To Haw River-Estimated Cost- Continued:
Legal: $ 108,000
Permits; Easements; Recording; 60 Working Days
@ $1,800/day
Sub-Total
Est. Cap. Cost$ 710,980
Contingency: 10% $ 71,100
Total Estimated Capital Cost: $ 782,080
Q
o C/4

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Operating/Maintenance Cost:
ANNUAL
Power:
Pump: 25,000 GPD/80 GPM; 3.75 KW; $ 825
351D/YR; $0.12/KWH
Security: 2 KW; 365 D/Y; 8 H/D $ 700
Manpower:
Daily: Check Pump Station- 1 HR/D $ 14,700
7 D/W;50 W/YR; 350 MHR
Weekly: Clean Pump Station; Check Force; $ 8,736
1 DAV; 52 W/YR; 208 MHR
Monthly: Sampling; Data Logging; Reporting; $ 4,032
8 H/M; 12 M/YR 96 MHR
0 Misc: Consumable Spare Parts $ 2,000
Total Estimated O/M Costs $ 30,993
0 C/5

• WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Discharge to Non-Zero Flow Stream
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Present Value:
Co = Capital Cost $ 782,080
Ct = O/M Cost $ 30,993/Yr.
n = 20 Yrs.
r = 7.5%
PV — Co + Ct +rx-
r(1 +On
782,080+30,993 (1 +.075 20- 1
.075(1 +.075)'0
= 782,080+30,993 3.248
0.318
$1,098,637
• C/6

ATTACHMENT D
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
The following LPP system design is based on our understanding of"current"requirements of Mr.
Steven Berkowitz,On-Site Sewage Program, Sanitation Branch Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Wastewater Flow QAVG = 25,000 GPD
LTAR = 0.1 GPD/SF
Area Required = 25,000 GPD = 250,000 SF
0.1 GPD/SF
Use 5 SF per LFT of Trench
Total Length Required = 250,000 SF = 50,000 LFT
O 5 SF/LFT
State suggested total lateral length of 3,000 LFT/Field
No. of Fields = 50.000 LFT = 16.6 Fields
3,000 LFT/FIELD
Use 16 Fields
Each Field = 50,000 LF = 3,125.LFT
16 Fields
Use 16 Fields; 4 Dosing Pumps, each pump dosing 4 fields
State suggested 70 FT to 100 FT Each lateral.
Try 70 LFT Laterals:
#Laterals = 3125 LFT = 44.6
70 LFT/EA
0 D/1

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
0 LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Try 44 Laterals:
Length = ,3 j�� = 71.02 LFT
44
Use: 44 laterals @ 72 LFT each; 22 on each side of one manifold
16 Manifolds
If each field were installed on flat property, each field would be:
110 FT x 160 FT = 17,600 SF
Area 16 Fields = 17,600 x 16 = 281,600 SF = 6.46 AC.
Required repair area equals area for operating LPP fields.
OArea Required:
16 LPP Field 6.46 AC.
Repair Area 6.46 AC.
Minimum Total 12.92 AC.
State suggested minimum orifice is 5/32-inch.
Flow per orifice:
qo = 11.79 dzho'
d = 5/32 = 0.156
h = 2ft.
qo = 11.79(.156)'(2)0.5 = 0.406 GPM
D/2

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Flow per Lateral
qL = 72 LFT x qo = 5.68 GPM/Lateral
5 FT/ORIF
Use 1'/4" Diam. Sch. 40 PVC Pipe Laterals
Flow per Manifold
qM = 44 x qL = 250 GPM/Manifold
Use 5" Diam. Sch. 40 PVC Pipe Manifolds
One force main serves 4 Manifolds
Flow per force main
qFM = 4 x qM = 1,000 GPM
Use 8" Diam. Sch. 40 PVC Pipe Force Mains
Dosing Pump Est. Head
Pump Tank, Pump on Elev. 735
Lateral Elev. 770
Static HD 35 FT.
Using 8"Diam. PVC Force Main at
qp = 1,000 GPM:
hLF = 1.55 FT/100 FT
HL = .,5 x 1,000 FT = 15.5 FT.
100
Pump Total Disch. HD = 50.5 FT.
O Use: Hydromatic Pumps; Model 4SL; 25 TDH HP, 1750 RPM; 1,000 GPM @ 50.5 FT.
D/3

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
LPP SYSTEM -COST ESTIMATE:
New Filtrate Sump and Pumps
6'x 8'x 10' Deep Conc. Sump $ 35,000
2 Submers. Pumps, ea. 40 GPM $ 7,250
30 FT TDH; 1 HP; Rail Syst.
Control Panel; NEMA 4; $ 4,500
Float Switches
Power Cable& Conduit $ 2,500
3"Diam. Galv. Stl. Force Main $ 5,000
to Filter; Above Grnd; insulated&
heat tape traced; 200 LFT
$ 54,250
Tertiary Filter
Parkson Dynasand Filter $ 20,500
Conc. Pad; Heat Tape Tracing; $ 30,750
Insulation; Disch. Piping; Frght;
Installation
Backwash Piping; Sand Trap; $ 8,500
Heat Tape Tracing&Insulation
Air Comp; 1 SCFM @ 25 PSIG; Air Dryer; $ 12,500
Air Piping; Insulated Housing; Blowdown to
WWTP; Installation
Power Cable &Conduit $ 3,000
O $ 75,250
D/4

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Dirty Water Sump
4'x 4'x 6' Stl Sump; At Grade; Insulated $ 6,000
2 Submers. Pumps; ea. 20 GPM; 10 FT TDH; $ 2,200
0.5 HP
Control Panel; NEMA 4; Float Switches $ 1,700
Power Cable& Conduit $ 2,300
Y $ 12,200
Transfer Pump Station
4'x 4'x 6'Precast Sump $ 6,000
O 2 Submers. Pumps: ea 20 GPM, $ 3,500
80'TDH; 2 HP, 230/460/3/60
2"Diam. Sch. 40 Stl Force Main; $ 11,625
1,500 LFT; One Rd. Crossing
Control Panel; NEMA 4; $ 3,700
Flt. Switches; 1-Air Release
Power Cable & Conduit $ 2,300
$ 27,125
Pump Tank
Current requirements specify that large system pump tanks
have a volume equal to daily flow
12'W x 10'D x 281 Conc. Tank $ 48,200
Poured in place; 22.2 Cy walls; 19 Cy Flr;
Pre-cast top
D/5

Q WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Alum. Hatches;4 ea @ 6 x 6 $ 12,500
Valve Vault; 8'W 4'D x 121 $ 6,750
Pre-cast with Alum. Hinged Covers
$ 67,450
Dosing Pumps: 4 each; 1000 GPM $ 40,962
50.5 TDH;25 HP;230/460/60/3;
1750 RPM;Installed
Rail System: 4 each; SS; Installed $ 14,840
Control panel; Floats Systs;Quadraplex; $ 16,750
Installed and Tested
$ 72,552
Discharge Valving
4-8"Fig. Chk. Val;CI; Installed $ 5,100
10-8"Slip True Union PVC Ball Val; Installed $ 10,000
Misc. 8"Diam PVC Piping&Fittings; Installed $ 6,500
Pipe Supports;8 each;Grinnell Fig. 264 $ 2,800
$ 24,400
Force Mains
4 Force Main: ea 8"Diam. Sch. 40 PVC; B/S; $ 76,856
2,600 LFT
Installation;30"W x 3'D Trench;Gravel $ 98,800
backfill; Backfill;Grade& Seed; 10,400 LFT.
4 ea. Air Release Valves; MHS With Lids;4'D $ 7,600
$ 183,256
D/6

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Manifolds and :Laterals
State Requirements: Lateral Inside 4"Diam Corr Slotted Pipe; Turn-
ups at end each lateral & manifold; 3' wide trench; gravel base &
cover; geotextile along sides and over top; backfill, grade and seed.
All manifolds and laterals installed at surveyed constant grade.
16 fields; ea 3168 LFT; $548,951
Manifolds& Lateral; Gravel; Installed
Y_ $548,951
Monitoring Wells
Monitoring Wells; 6 ea; max 40'Deep; $ 15,000
State Specs; $2,500 each.
Sampling Pmp &Accessories; Water level tape $ 7,500
$ 22,500
Power
Transformer; Power Dist. Panel; Cable& Conduit $ 42,250
100HP/22.5 KW; 230/460/3/60
Standby Generator; 37.5 KW; Auto Transfer $ 42,500
Switch; Housing; Propane Fuel Supply;
$ 84,750
Survey
Property Survey; Topographic Survey; 15,000 LFT; $ 16,250
40 AC; $0.15/LFT; $350/AC
Layout laterals & Force Main; 35,344 LFT; $0.50/LFT $ 17,672
D/7

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Soils Scientist
50'Grid Entire Prop ($12,000); $ 60,000
Detailed Soil Analysis ($9,000);
Mounding Studies ($25,000);
Preliminary Layout LPP Lines($14,000)
Soils
Bearing Capacity at WWTP; Y $ 7,500
Rock Probing Throughout
$ 101,422
Sub-Total $1,274,106
Engineering $ 127,400
Prepare Plans and Specs; Direct Surveys;
Equipment Purchase Orders; State Approvals
Revisions by State $ 19,100
Land $ 237,500
Additional land required; 25 acres @ $9,500/Acre
Legal and Real Estate $ 47,875
Permits; Contracts Review; Land Purchase;
20 Working Days; $225./14r.
$431,875
Sub-Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,705,981
Contingency: 10% $ 170,600
Total Estimated capital Cost $1,876,581
D/8

Q WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Operation and Maintenance- Cost Estimate:
Manpower
Daily Hose-down; Log Data& Service Reports; $ 26,208
4 mhr/d, 3d/wk, 52wk/yr; 624 mhr.
Quarterly: Clean Pump Tank; Adjust Lateral Press; $ 5,376
32mhr,4 x/yr; 128 mhr
Semi-Annually: Flush manifolds; flush laterals; $ 2,688
32 mhr, 2 x/yr; 64 mhr
Hauling: 12,000 gal., 2 x/yr; $900 3,000 gals. $ 7,200
Reports: 6 mhr/mth., 12 mth/yr., 72 mhr $ 3,024
$ 44,496
Power
Dosing: 25,000 GPD/500 GPM; 7.5 KW; 357 d/yr; $ 322
$0.12/kwh
Transfer Pump: 25,000 GPD; 1.5 KW; 357 d/yr. $ 675
$0.12/KWH
Air Compressor: 0.75 KW'6 H/D; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 193
Filter Feed: 0.75 KW; 12 H/D; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 386
Dirty Water: 0.375 KW; 12 H/D; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 193
Heat Tape: 30 KW; 8 H/D; 60 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 1,728
Security: 2 KW; 365 d/yr; 8 H/D; $0.12/KWH $ 700
$ 4,197
D/9

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
LPP System
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Miscellaneous
Filter Sand: 6 bags/month $ 720
12 mth/yr; 100#/bag
Mechanical Allowance: Equal 1-10 HP Pump $ 6,500
$ 7,220
Total Estimated O/M Cost $ 55,913
Present Value:
Co = Capital Cost
C, = O/M Cost
n = 20 Yrs.
r = 7.5%
PV = Co+Ct (1 +r)n_I
r(1 +r)2
$1,876,581 +$55,913 (1 + .075)20_1
.075(1 + .075)20
$1,876,581 +$55,913 3-248
0.318
$2,447,667
D/10

ATTACHMENT E
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
The following drip irrigation process design is based on proprietary drip irrigation equipment and
information furnished by one manufacturer/vendor.
The drip irrigation process includes:
1. Tertiary Filtration System, sump and filter feed pumps; dirty water sump and
pumps and air compressor(oil free dry air);
2. New transfer pump station;
3. New irrigation sump;
4. Drip irrigation system
Wastewater flow, QAvG = 25,000 GPD
4 LTAR = 0.1 GPD/SF
Irrigation area = As required by drip irrigation equipment manufacturer
6.74 acres
Repair area = 6.74 acres
Total Area = 13.44 acres
Tertiary Filter = Parkson Corporation; Dynasand; Upflow; Continuous Backwash and
Sand Replacement.
E/1

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Drip Irrigation Process - Cost Estimate
New Filtration Sump and Pumps:
6'x 8'x 10' Deep Conc. Sump; no cover; MH Rungs $ 35,000
2 Submersible Pumps; each 40 GPM @ 30 ft. TDH; 1 HP; $ 7,250
230/460/3/60; Rail System; Installed
Control Panel; NEMA 4; Dry transf, Float Switch Actuation; $ 4,500
Installed
Power Cable &Conduit; Installed $ 2,500
3"diam. galv. stl. Force Main to Filter; Above Grd; Heat Tape $ 5,000
Traced & Insulated; 200 Lft; Installed
$ 54,250
Tertiary Filter:
Parkson Corporation, Dynasand Filter; Upflow; Continuous $ 20,500
Backwash and Sand Replacement; Installed
Conc. Pad; Filtered Effluent Piping; Heat Tape Tracing; $ 30,750
Insulation; Installed
Backwash piping& and Trap; Heat Tape Tracing; Installed $ 8,500
Air Compressor; 1.0 SUM @ 25 PSIG; Air Dryer; Air Piping $ 12,500
Insulated Housing; Blowdown to dirty water sump; Installed
Power Cable& Conduit; Installed $ 3,000
$ 75,250
Dirty Water Sump:
4'x 4'x 8' Deep Precast Conc. Sump; No Cover; Installed $ 6,000
E/2

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
0 Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
2 Submersible Pumps; each 20 GPM @ 10 ft. TDH; 0.5 HP; $ 2,200
230/60/1; Installed
Control Panel; NEMA 4; Float Switches; Installed $ 1,700
Power Cable& Conduit; Installed $ 2,300
$ 12,200
Transfer Pump Station:
4'x 4' 6' Precast Sump $ 6,000
2 Submersible Pumps, each 20 GPM, 80'TDH, 2 HP $ 3,500
230/460/3/60
O2"Diam. Sch 40 stl Force Main; 1,500 Lft; One road crossing $ 11,625
Control Panel; NEMA 4; Flt Switches; 1-Air Release $ 3,200
Power Cable&Conduit $ 2,500
Y_ $ 27,125
Note: Returning drip irrigation flush water would use transfer force main with control valves.
Drip Irrigation System:
"Perc Rite"Control System; Bioline Tubing; Dosing Pumps; Adapters; $ 140,800
Valves; Appurtenances
Note: Biolines are direct bury using"stinger-type"plow.
Building 8 x 12 Wood Framed; Heated; Insulated; Fans & Louvers; $ 9,000
Conc. Slab; Lights; Installed
Supply and Return piping; Installed
$ 36,600
Field Zones Dripper Lines; Installed $ 125,000
E/3

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Miscellaneous Yard Piping; Installed $ 7,500
Contingencies $ 31,890
Power Cable; Control Wiring; Conduit $ 3,000
$ 353,800
Monitoring Wells:
Monitoring Wells; 6 ea; Max 40' Deep; State Specs; $2,500 ea $ 15,000
Sampling Pump &Accessories; Water Level Tape $ 7,500
$ 22,500
OPower:
Transformer; Power Distribution Panel; Cable & Conduit; $ 27,000
20 HP/15 KW; 230/460/60/3; Heaters @ 30 KW; Installed
Standby Generator; 20 KW; Auto Transfer Switch; Housing; $ 38,500
Propane Fuel; Installed
Y_ $ 65,500
Survey:
Property Survey; Topographic Survey; 15,000 Lft @ $0.15/Lft; $ 16,250
40 acres @ $350/acre
Layout dripper lines @ controlled constant elevations; $ 22,500
125,000 Lft @ $0.18/Lft.
Soils Scientist:
50' Grid Entire Property($12,000); Detailed Soil Analysis $ 46,000
($9,000); Mounding Studies ($25,000)
E/4

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Soils:
Rock Probing; Bearing Cap. $ 7,500
Y $ 92,250
Sub-Total Capital Costs $ 702,875
Engineering $ 70,200
Plans & Specs; Direct Surveys; Direct Layouts; Equipment
Purchase Orders; State Approvals
State Required Revisions $ 19,100
O Land: $ 237,500
Additional land Required; 25 acres @ $9,500/acre
Legal & Real Estate: $ 47,875
Land Purchase; Contracts Review; Permits;
20 Wrk Days @ $225/Hr.
$ 374,675
Sub-Total Estimated Capital Costs $1,077,550
Contingency: 10% $ 107,800
Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,185,350
0
E/5

Manpower:
Daily: Hose down as necessary; read &record data; $ 44,100
service filter sand and sand trap; check property
oper; service reports; maint. requests; 3 hr/d;
7 d/wk; 50 wk/yr. 1050 MHR
1/2 Weeks: Flush all fields; check all valve filters; 3 hr/d; 1 d/2wks $ 3,275
52 wks/yr; 78 MHR
1/6 Months: Clean"Perc Rite"Filters& Service; 3 hr/d; 1 d/6mnth; $ 252
12 months/yr; 6 MHR
Annually: Clean all sumps; Land apply sludge on site; 16 hr/d; $ 672
1 d/yr; 16 MHR
$ 48,300
Power:
Filter Feed: 40 GPM; 0.75 KW; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 335
O Filter Air Comp: 1.5 KW; 6 hr/d; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 385
Transfer Pump: 1.5 KW; 11 hr/d; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 710
Drip Feed Pump: 32 GPM; 3.75 KW; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 2,105
Dirty Water: 0.375KW; 12 h/d; 357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 193
Heat Tape: 30 KW; 8 h/d; 60 d/yr; $0.12/KW $ 1,728
Security: 2 KW; 8 h/d; 365 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 700
$ 6,156
Miscellaneous:
Filter Sand: 6 bags/month; 12 months/yr; 100#bag $ 720
Monitoring Well Sample Analysis; 12/yr., 6 wells - $550 each $ 39,600
Q Annual Monitoring Wells Scan; 1/yr; 6 wells @ $1,400 each $ 8,400
Mechanical Allowance: equal to replacing one 5 HP Pump & Motor; $ 6,500
including labor& equipment
E/6

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Consumables: Allow $ 1,000
56,220
Total Estimated O/M Cost: $ 110,676
PRESENT VALUE:
Co = Capital Cost
Ct = O/M Cost
n = 20 Yrs.
r = 7.5%
PV = Co+Ct + "-
r(1 +ry
_ $1,185,350+$110,676 (1 +0.75)20- 1
0.75(1 +0.75)'0
$1,185,350+$110,676 3.248
0.318
$2,315,776
E/7

IIII !
o"lol 111 i-'f :!�f (�1A1�1 I I I
rn
u�i�.t��l�.l
il l I� 1 IN ljl`"-! z
MPG I I
irn
jig 1. !:: a • t ! , �
11111 { i
11111. 1 ( 11
�» w F � vuw
fII�,1f1l1 ( ! # I ! j: I J-r
! ! . .,r• � . `='•� i ( I �I I�INI I I I 1 I l: I t �# .
II so 1 I III
i ;� ; !: : I I { I '1 ! I I I' } ! I I, I 1• I �
11 ! lllilill : li. l1
I I .1 11
8/3
aluwus3 puu uihsaa junudaauoD
uoijuginj du(]
1XVICIOWISS dITUM

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Drip Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
E/9
' PPJdJNG E"TV W rE FOkSurt n ton M111a4hpilid_ _
---
___ ' ELu,':Ez-
199713 Prking d lirkA> t=?' 25000 GFR — . ....
rr O�l�Crt�ISf____
I 20 zoo;d gat zone dos!LNM><tgtjt um flus;20 za:les �26 taut X Z&7'In
FU'-.LXX _— 8.7'4 MUM:
—
l.AT ST REVIVX4.
EST—
ITEM DE-SCRIPTIC►N ^�_ G.UpN•t— e�l.E5� —
SERC-Rl"E 14100E_4<?Af;QC.QF.R=32,CIPrt':fI
— .16,857:54
2. — •5 HP F.UMP64MVit FHASE r 2 :5 w5,i50,a0
3. _ 0.61 OP"SlOL11gE FUSING 4— — 36
4. —i/Z,RtkMCCNNECTORSF
V4''M1:"r KIT ADV,rEF;S —`—�-- — I:= :6_— 524.80
5. r '00 :S32.20
B. a .Y4''IPS FLEXT!B(NC—�--- ___fi--- 16 :6 —Z:76.OD
7. — 1"AR1 AIF: R;LEASE VALVE-- — ( —.`—!---20 :6 —2,136.24
8. 12":;01-EKOI1)VkOffi:;(NOF.M'I.Y(.L.Ci'SF:O) 21
88— 1 Z"801-EK Oil)VALVE,;(KOF.OX OPENIM) 0 :6
;t F'VC;-Bi1LLl:C,01*VAL\FE F,P'/C S'I12AINER' 2 :1• �48.fJ
10. I-LUAT SIRATCHES —� 3 .6 — 155.25
11_�hri M cro-Spray"-- .�-- .—.�..� p
12_12 HP PP1M NCi P()IQI) --- --- -- 0 --�—
13. 111Y'AtiTO FLU:;H 7AI_VES(;'PE_R S.F. CELL) 0 :b _
14. .AUr4-oVLER OP-10\1 --- `.b9.25
— 'S _ DE:R'RliS& CHECK VA.};VE80 $ �6D.3r1
16.. 3U STOM ZED::OFTV 1AF:E're?4P 3:>VIOI-§, _—~ p •� .�.—
1 17. 4U:{IL.Af:Y 1i1-1'VA TJ±II T4N{AIAIZM r— — --�— -----
____ SU3Tt)T/%L:
-�- — -------,-- -- --- — -- :� W7282.45
— 3%SALE:3T4X:
— TO'F'Ai_ESTIMATED EQUWAjEtJ7' i43,7tA�_
r FROGHT 8 t: WER#KiUFtAt1Cj'• fl04=
—_ TEf"HifiCAL ASSISTAWE,ISTARIAP,1,CXtVlAlUt TIZAMN1.
TarAt.PltQJECT EQUO HENT PRIC94G
.,_�t1Gi.rf lldii't]IYIw 4�~ �—
�. .�.. .._...._�....,._..... ---..... gm OF2N-4 i 7,319.40
• j '

ATTACHMENT F
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Site Characteristics:
Soils investigations and subsequent recommendations are attached to this report as Exhibit
II.
"Preliminary Soil and Site Investigation for Irrigation of Domestic Wastewater,
Burlington Industries, Williamsburg Plant, Caswell County, N.C.", by Michael
Decker, Licensed Soil Scientist,Number 1030.
Summary Recommendations:
A. Irrigation in 1 to 2 hours
B. 1.5 inches per cycle
C. 3.5 day cycle
D. Monthly rate is ratios of days per month and 3.5 day cycle multiplied by 1.5
Oinches.
Note: Most of the Williamsburg Plant property suitable for spray irrigation is already being
used for permitted waste activated sludge disposal by land application.
There is insufficient land available on Williamsburg property for spray irrigation. It
is estimated that adjacent and/or nearby property will have similar characteristics as
those presented in the soils report.
Climatological data was obtained from The National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina.
Wastewater Characteristics:
Effluent from and existing sludge package plant, raw sewage from sanitary facilities and
cafeteria; all domestic type wastewater.
No process wastewater. No cooling waste or storm water.
Floor mop water hauled away for treatment by permitted facilities.
0 Flow, QAvG = 25,000 GPD
F/1

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Quality:
Completed required laboratory analytical report is attached.
BOD = BDL
Total Solids = 528 Mg/L
Dissolved Solids = 488 Mg/L
TKN = BDL
Ammonia-N = BDL
Nitrate = 42.5 Mg/L
Nitrate = BDL
Conceptual Design:
The following table presents "Monthly Average, Maximum and Minimum
Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Data", 1992 to 1996.
This data is obtained from The National Climatic Data Center, Asheville,
North Carolina.
This data is for the Greensboro,North Carolina area. This is the area closest
to the Williamsburg Plant.
F/2

p o
b m C-Ayy
tz
x
> � z K M-3
CD
z x
FF
< p
z �
p Q N W W N A A N W A W W
P N W O Ch 00 N as W N "O ON "D b
O `G
'b < O
w O\ �A w !-A !-A co CD
w C \0 k-A 00 .A (�A C C Ol� PI R
Q1 U 00 N A W W N 00
yy Oo
cc z d
W O t1i W O\ W W �10 J A w .. 110 r.l
n 14O 1.0 A Z'
Cl. O a' O S7
O .- p
v
z
c� CD
O O ►- w A In A w �-. O O O
W 0o1 W N 00 00 v A 00
crCSD � N
c
0 ON to w N O O
A 00 A W 00 L, N A W
Z O O\ O\ 00 w O �o 00 A IC
O
� y
n
O O ►- N A to A N O O O O
N to N
O w w N w 00 ON c ON ON N �1
z
z
o
Q
A

3
w w w w w w w w w w N w z
N O �o O —
a �
� r
tN O O -- N � tr A N •_
vi lV 00 �D O, cN N
w N W 00 CK ,9
y R
ON U N N W W N W N O 00 00
ON CN ►� d
A W
01% 00 00 D\ 00 ,^
?7 N W � � GCJ (4. �
.. v > a a
00 p r7l
o °° N00z
> y
II a co
+ s >
41
r
0
O� W ON to w to t.A .o A ON v w w
J ON VA 00 N W w N 00 NO O1 ,A
.. ny
� S
03
z
00 O 00 �o A N >
A 10 N 00 i, a\ 00 -- N — LA w N
'7
II e >
-• zz

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Attached following table"Water Balance: Williamsburg Plant, Spray Irrigation"presents basic design data
and design.
Application Days: Calendar month less number of days at and below freezing.
Drainage: Amount of effluent that soil can sorb; based on ratio of application day divided by
3.5 day cycle,then multiplied by 1.5 inches per cycle.
Spray Area Required = Volume to be Applied
Effluent Application Rate
QAvG = 25,000 GPD = 3,333 CF/D and 365 D/YR.
Effluent Application Rate = 78.64" = 6.5 FT.
3.333 x 365 = 187,161 SF
6.5
4.3 Acres
Total Land Area Required:
Spray Area = 4.3 Ac x 43,560 = 187,308 SF
Assume Length = 4 x Width
L x W = 187,308 SF
W = (187,308) = 216 FT
4
L = 4W = 864 FT
Setback from property lines=200 FT
Minimum Total Land Required
(200+216+200)x(200+864+200)
778,624 SF = 17.87 Acres
Allow for storage, R-O-W Easements, Pumping, Power, Misc., 1.13 Acres
Estimated Total 19.00 Acres
F/5

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Storage volume calculations are summarized in attached table"Spray Irrigation Storage".
Daily Flow = 25,000 GPD = 3,333 DF/D
Waste Flow = Days/Month x Daily Flow
Waste Applied = Area X Effluent Applied
4.3 Acres X 43.560 X Inches Effluent Applied
12
CF
Wasteflow -Waste Applied=+/- Storage
+ = Waste to Storage
0 - = Waste from Storage
Cum. Storage = Volume of Storage required cannot be less than "0".
Storage Required = 387,557 Cu. Ft., Maximum Month.
Final design of storage volume would involve adjustments for seepage/leakage, evaporation
and/or rainfall.
Use Steel Tank, Slab on Grade
Vol. = 11 DZ x d= 387,557 CF
4
Use: D = 4d
D = 125 FT
d = 31 FT+ 3FT FRBRD = 34 FT.
F/6

oil
to to o
0
cP �
� o
.n O 0Oo 00 r 000
\ J L44 ... �'
J O 0000 �p OHO w J N A 00
J O ± J 00 110 J v, �D
In N O- r O W N +
-(-A J O
00 00 s 00 00 00 IA
N LA 00 -- 00 N Ch J W �
J (-A 00 LA N A
A
+ + N W W W W N± ++ C+
O J 00 O Do 00 N 00
O J ,
N W �O O� Cn O �- In p� DO O
W O Ltj
00 OLA
A7
OQ
M

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Distribution -July:
Maximum Waste flow = 103,323 CF/M
Cycles/M = 31 DIM = 8.8 Cycles/M
3.5 D/Cycle
Volume = 103.323 CF/M = 11,740 CF/Cycle
8.8 Cycles/M
Irrigation = 11.740 CF/Cycle = 0.063 Ft/Cycle
4.3 Ac x 43,560 SF/Ac
0.75"/Cycle
Soils report recommend 1 -Application per day, once per 3.5 days, not more than 1.5" per
application in about 1 to 2 hours.
O Use: 11,740 CF/Cycle = 88,100 Gal/Cycle
1 -Hour Application
Q = 88,100 Gal = 1,470 GPM
60 M
Use 2 Fields and 4 sprays per field
Area each spray = 187.308 = 23,414 SF
8
Diam = 4 x 23,414) 0.5 = 175'
TC
q, each spray = 1}4Q = 185 GPM
8
Length = 100 Lft.
Use: 4"Diam Stl., 17100'
qh, Each Header = 185 x 4 = 740 GPM
O Length = 800 Lft
F/8

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Use: 6"Diam. Stl., 3.57100'
gfin, Force Main = 1,480 GPM
Length = 1,000 Lft.
Use: 8"Diam., 3.3'/100'
Transfer Pump Station:
4'x 4'x 6' Precast Sump with Cover $ 6,000
2 Submers. Pumps ; ea. 20 GPM, 80'TDH; 2 HP, 230/460/60/3 $ 3,500
O 2" Diam. sch.40 PVC Force Main; 2,000 Lft., 1-road crossing; $ 11,625
1 air release
Control Panel; NEMA 4; Brkrs., Strtrs; Flt. Switch; Timers; Heater $ 3,700
Power Cable & Conduit $ 2,300
$ 27,125
Storage Tank:
125' Diameter, 34'High; 3/8"@ 8'; 5/16"@ 8'; ''/a" @ 18'; 129' Diam. $ 456,510
Reinf. Conc. Slab, 18"thick; Installed
Y $ 456,510
Spray Pump Station:
2 Pumps: Each 1470 GPM, 160'TDH; 100 HP, 230/460/60/3; $ 23,400
Goulds 3196, 6 x 8 - 15 Lt; Installed
14' x 14' Shed; Conc. Slab; Two Roll-Up Doors; Heat; Lights; $ 26,880
Security; Installed
F/9

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Discharge Piping&Valve Nest; 6"x 8"Diam. Piping&Valves; $ 9,200
Installed
Control Panel; Breakers; Starters; Start/Stop Alarm; Lighting Panel; $ 18,000
Installed
Power Cable & Conduit; Instr. Wire &Conduit; Installed $ 9,300
$ 86,780
Monitoring Wells:
Monitoring Wells- 6 each; Max 40" Deep; State Specs; $2,500 each $ 15,000
Sampling Pump and Accessories; Water Level Tape $ 7,500
O $ 22,500
Piping:
Suction Piping: 10"Diam; 2 each; 25 Lft; Insul. &Heat Tape Traced; $ 2,750
Installed.
Stl. Force Main: 8: Diam; 1,000 Lft. Buried, Installed $ 31,000
Stl. Header: 6" Diam; 2 each; 800 Lft. Buried, Installed $ 28,800
Stl. Spray Lateral; 4" Diam; 8 each; 100 Lft., Buried, Installed $ 22,400
Spray Nozzles; 8 each; Risers, Installed $ 800
$ 85,750
Sub-Total $ 678,665
O
F/10

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Engineering: $ 67,800
Plans & Specs; Direct Surveying; Direct Soils; Detailed Design;
Approvals
Surveying: $ 35,000
Property; Topography; Transfer Piping; Easement; 20,000 Lft.,
20 Acres
Soils Scientist: $ 12,000
Detailed Soils Investigation; No Mounding
Soils: $ 7,500
© Storage Tank&Foundation; Rock Search
$ 122,300
Land: $ 190,000
Additional Land Required- 19 acres; Spray Field;
1 Acre R-O-W; $9,500/Acre
Legal and Real Estate: $ 47,875
Land Purchase; Contracts Review; Insurance Review;
Permits; 20 Work Days @ $225.00/Hr.
$ 237,875
Sub-Total Est. Capital Cost $1,038,840
Contingency- 10% $ 103,900
o �-
Estimated Total Capital Cost $1,142,740
F/11

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Manpower:
Daily: Check Transfer System; Storage Tank& Pumps; $ 30,576
Spray Fields;Read& Record Data;2 hr/d; 7 d/wk;
52 wk/yr. 728 MHR.
Weekly: Hose down and clean all systems and equipment;4 hr/d; $ 8,400
1 d/wk; 50 wk/yr.,200 MHR.
Monthly: Collect and transport Mon. Wells Samples(6); 6 hr/d; $ 252
1 d/m; 12 m/yr; 72 MHR
Quarterly: Supervise field maintenance; 8 hr/d; 1 d/3m; 12 m/yr; $ 1,344
32 MHR
$ 40,572
Power:
Transfer Pump: 1.5 KW; 11 hr/d;357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH $ 710
Spray Pumping: 75 KW;2 hr/d;2 d/wk;52 wk/yr; $ 1,872
$0.12/KWH
Heat Tape; Security; 2 KW; 8 hr/d; 7 d/wk; 52 wk/yr; $ 700
$0.12/KWH
Y_ $ 3,282
Miscellaneous:
Monitoring Well Sample Analyses; 12/yr; $550 ea;6 wells $ 39,600
Monitoring Well Annual Scan; 6 wells-$1,400 each $ 8,400
Mechanical repairs;allow 40 man-hours $ 1,680
Consumables-allow $ 1.000
$ 50,680
QTotal Estimated Operations& Maintenance Cost $ 94,534
F/12

WILLLALMSBURG PLANT
Spray Irrigation
Conceptual Design and Estimate
Co = Capital Cost
C, = O/M Cost
n = 20 Yrs.
r = 7.5%
PV = Co+Ct (h"-1
r(I +r)"
$1,142,740+$94,534 (1+_x}75)20- 1
.075(1 + .075)20
_ $1,142,740+$94,534 3.248
0.318
• _ $2,108,295
F/13

ATTACHMENT G
WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Existing WWTP With Upgrade
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
This alternative consists of the capital costs associated with upgrading the existing WWTP by adding
dechlorination and tertiary filtration. Operation and maintenance costs included in this alternative
are for the existing WWTP and upgrade.
Wastewater Flow, QAvc = 25,000 GPD
Equivalent Loading = 2 GPM/SF
New Filtrate Sump & Pumps:
6'x8'x10'Deep Conc. Sump $35,000
2 Submers. Pumps, ea 40 GPM $ 7,250
30 ft. TDH; 1 HP; Rail Syst.
O Control Panel; NEMA 4; Float Switches $ 4,500
Power Cable & Conduit $ 2,500
3"Diam. Galv. Stl. Force Main $ 5,000
To Filter; Above Ground; Insulated& Heat
Tape Traced; 200 Lft.
Y $54,250
Tertiary Filter:
Parkson Dynasand Filter $20,500
Conc. Pad; Heat Tape Tracing; Insulation; $30,750
Disch. Piping; Installation
Backwash piping; Sand Trap; Heat Tape Tracing; $ 8,500
0 G/1

Q WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Existing WWTP With Upgrade
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Tertiary Filter-Continued:
Air Comp; 1 SCFM @ 25 PSIG; Air Dryer $12,500
Air Piping; Insulated Housing; Blowdown to
WWTP; Installation
Power Cable& Conduit; $ 3,000
$75,250
New Chlorination/Dechlorination:
Chlorine Contact Tank; 70 CF Vol. $ 6,250
Precast Conc; Baffles; Sanuril Tablet
Chlorination; At Grade; Installation
Discharge Structure; Installation $ 3,760
$16,260
Power:
Transformer; Power Distr. Panel; Cable& Conduit; $ 8,750
10 HP, 230/460/60/3; Installation
Survey: $ 4,500
Topography; Layout
Soils: $ 3,700
Bearing; Rock
$ 8,200
Sub-Total $162,710
O G/2

O WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Existing WWTP With Upgrade
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Engineering: $ 16,300
Prepare Plans & Specs; Equip. Purch. Orders;
State Approvals
Legal: $ 18,000
Review Documents; 10 Wrk Days; $225.00/hr.
$ 34,300
Sub-Total Est. Cap. Cost $197,010
Contingency 10%: $ 19,700
Total Est. Capital Cost $216,710
0 G/3

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Existing WWTP With Upgrade
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Manpower:
Daily: Clean, adjust,read&record; Reports $ 17,420
4 hr/d; 50/wk; 52 wk/yr; 1040 MHR
Weekly: Service Sand Filter; 2 hr/d; 1 d/wk; $ 4,368
52 wk/yr; 104 MHR
Quarterly: Haul & Land Apply Sludge; $ 1,344
8 hr/d; 1 d/3m; 12 m/yr; 32 MHR
Monthly: Prepare & Submit Reports; 16 MHR $ 672
Power:
Filter Feed; 0.75 KW; 12 h/d $ 386
357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH
Air Comp: 0.75 KW; 6 h/d; $ 193
357 d/yr; $0.12/KWH
Heat Tape: 30 KW; 8 h/d; 60 d/yr. $ 1,728
$0.12/KWH
Exist. WWTP; 3.75 KW; 24 hr/d; $ 3,942
365 d/yr; $0.12/KWH
$ 6,249
Miscellaneous:
Daily Sampling& Analysis; BOD, $ 20,280
TSS,NH3, Fecal,pH, Temp, CL2;
Sample, Analyze & Report;
5 d/wk; 52 wk/yr.
0 G/4

WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
Existing WWTP With Upgrade
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate
Miscellaneous -Continued:
Filter Sand; 6 bags/mnth. $ 720
12 mnth/yr; 100#Bag
Mechanical- allow $ 1,000
Consumables - allow $ 1,000
$23,000
Total Estimated O/M Cost $53,053
Present Value:
Co = Capital Cost
Ct = O/M Cost
n = 20 Yrs.
r = 7.5%
PV = Co+Ct 1 +r °-
r(1 +r)2
$216,710+$53,053 (1 + .075)20_1
.075(1 + .075)20
$216,710+$53,053 3.248
0.318
_ $758,585
G/5

f
f
•

t
EXHIBIT I
f
i
f:
f
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
FOR
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES,WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
CASWELL COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
r
f
PREPARED FOR:
fWOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PA
GREENSBORO,NORTH CAROLINA
l
PREPARED BY:
S017THEASTERN SOIL AND ENAlRON;IIENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
SEP-rEmBER 24, 1997
{
`!WfN:C:titOw17•:•7.tr_q.7.+7q•^..St+.T: !�'w�::..'q.:.__ _._. 'tip'...... ........_w_.w_ ... :�rq ....' ..w. .t+.+r:._ .....v.. _.... ... ....... ._

Southeastern Soil & Environmental '
Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311.7696
Phone/Fax[phone]
1
f INTRODUCTION
The Burlington Industries Plant has been required by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management to conduct an engineering alternatives analysis for the
disposal of 25,000 gpd of domestic wastewater. The purpose of this report is to identify
on and off site soil areas that would likely be useable for subsurface wastewater disposal.
` Information contained in this report will be used to conduct a cost
Po projection analysis to
determine the economic impacts of this alternative. If economic impacts of this
alternative are deemed reasonable,then further site specific studies will be conducted to
determine the permittability of the site according to 15A NCAC 18A .1900.
` Site Location and General Description
1
The site is located on the corner of NC Hxvy. 87 and SR 1100 just north of the
Caswell/Alamance County line. A site map is enclosed which will be referred to in the
• remainder of the report. The soil areas considered useable for subsurface wastewater
I disposal are both cleared and wooded. The cleared areas are currently used for sludge
disposal. The site topography is a combination of ridges grading through linear slopes to
drainage depressions. The typical slope range is 2%to 20%.
Soils Description
Hand auger borings were performed over the entire tract. The site map(see Appendix)
gives specific locations for soil borings and approximate areal extent of the useable area.
A typical profile description and boring logs for the soil type(most like the Cecil soil
series) are also included in the Appendix.
Soils typically had a surface layer 4 to 10 inches thick that was sandy loam with granular
structure. The subsoil was found to have a clay texture with subangular blocky structure
to depths of 48 to 66 inches. Below the subsoil. weathered rock(saprolite)was
encountered to depths exceeding 84 inches.
The estimated soil wetness depth (observed [w colors of chroma 2 of less) ryas greater
than 7 feet.
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS •WETLANDS MAPPING • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN
.y.,\.r-..w.-..w-...w.rte+1���'7.�r�•!•v�r!e-'�.rl,r,�::(St1':'.C..!e-l...v...w..........-_ ....-.

f
Site Suitability for Subsurface Disposal
The soils on this site are considered to have moderatermeabili based on texture.
Pe tY
These soils will allow for infiltration,treatment,and,at a reasonable loading,adequate
lateral and vertical movement of wastewater and are provisionally suitable for use with
subsurface disposal.
Hydraulic Loading Rate
According to 15A NCAC 18A .1900 soils in this category typically require a long term
acceptance rate of 0.1 to 0.4 gpd/sq. ft. for a conventional trench. Structure becomes the
determining factor in water movement (as much as 90%). Since these soils contain
i moderate structure,a preliminary rate of 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. should be used in designing a
conventional system (0.1 gpd/sq. ft. for LPP or drip irrigation).
fSurrounding Properties
OAlthough no testing was done, a survey of surrounding properties was completed. The
Caswell County Soil Conservation Service was consulted for field sheets of surrounding
properties. Those properties %kith similar elevations and topographical conditions appear
to contain similar soils. Again, no testing was completed on these properties. Further
testing would be required prior to entering into any contractual obligations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The hydraulic consideration for a subsurface waste disposal system is only one part of the
systems design. The waste constituents also require analysis to determine if hydraulics or
nutrients %will limit the area needed to handle the projected volume of wastewater
proposed to be generated. It is, however,our professional opinion that the soils on this
site should allow for effective drainage at the rates we have given (subject to further
hydraulic conductivity analysis).
I
O
I
f__

i
r
Again, this report is preliminary in nature and does not suggest or imply that further
studies would conclude that the site is suitable for subsurface wastewater disposal.
Given the information we have been provided concerning this project,as of this date,and
our site and soils evaluation, we are submitting this report for your use and for review by
the appropriate regulatory personnel.
Sincerely,
Mike Eaker SOIL S
President t Q
EAnQ
1030
C
•

6`�p5`�(�fRLE
f •
1
'S �
r
If AX
.!� AW F
V _
U f ,

1.
i
Profile Description for Map Unit A
This map unit consists of well drained,irtoderately permeable soils on upland ridges and
( side slopes of the Piedmont. These soils formed in materials weathered from felsic and
�.. crystalline rocks. Slopes range from 0 to 20 percent.
A - 0 to 7 inches; brown(7.5YR 4/4)sandy loam; moderate medium granular structure;
t friable, common fine and medium roots;common fine pores; few rock fragments; abrupt
smooth boundary.
BE - 7 to 12 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)clay loam; weak medium subangular
blockv structure; friable, few small roots; few fine and common medium pores; abrupt
Csmooth boundary.
QBt 1 - 12 to 20 inches, red(2.5YR 4/8)clay; common medium distinct red(5YR 5/8 and
common medium strong bro%%m(7.5YR 5/8)mottles, moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; moderately plastic and slightly sticky; friable; few small roots; few
small pores; common distinct clay films on faces of peds;gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 - 20 to 43 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8)clay; common medium prominent strong brown
(7.5YR 5;'8) mottles; moderate medium subangular blocky structure;friable; moderately
( plastic and slightly sticky; few fine roots and pores;distinct clay films on faces of peds:
gradual wavy boundary.
130 -43 to 52 inches; red (2.5YR 4.8) clay loam; weak fine and medium subangular
structure: friable; moderately plastic and slightly sticky, few distinct clay films on faces
i ��f peds: gradual wavy boundary.
1 C - 5'_ to 84 inches; reddish yello%% (5YR 6/8) line sandy loam saprolite: le%% coarse
distinct reddish vellov. (7.5YR 7.6) and 1e\v distinct pink (7.5YR 8.4) mottles; massive_
liable.
O .
L.

:)A-.- =•:ALJATEC.
OEPARThgElll OF ENvIRal'IMENT
HEALTH Af 0 NATURAL RESOURCES PROPER TY I.D
PRCFER—,'RECORQc
DIVISION OF ENVIROMAENTAL HEALTH
ON•S:TE WAST EWATER SECT:ON -
' SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
FOR
ON-SITE WASTE WATER
'
417uSTL.IfmS PHONE -
i..2CRE SS (.�L�.�.iRn.SQuA-� h1 -r
'-CC.:,
PROPERTY SIZE: PROPOSED FACILTIY T/r G�D J�f�rF v/ f'ird.
-:C.:,i!ON OF SITE Hier W7
'.4A'=_R SUPPLYOn.Si;e '/Nell Community Public Other EVALUATION BY Auger Boring
FACTORS PROFILES
t 2 3 a 5 6 I 8 ^
•V
:LANDSCAPE POSITION ! 1940 I Fist LS Ls L I ! c L
�Pc:'ro) 19ao y % y'.. a- I 74
DEP-i: i 0 - y o- • O u _1D-/ -`-
I eAlLft) jrcv0 1941(A)(1 .f/ (� ' .s/4,a—I ILc� I ,frr.R lG�1 - SGI.�-,
Consistence I .1941 f� i / F' (-.-
1.194',(A
)(2)
-11941(A)(2) M / jv // n✓l ov ,.e ,irL.'._�
!.Aonefal05`y 941(A)(3, VeA J) +• /V I✓,�' :�rft I .,.(,� .J•4 ..fL� -_ /✓ -
�I�P- /; -S" 6 -57 ' 6 �S S6
:i941L4u/ I 4LL ��r• G �(I� �(q Ka•y L.[-
"`:)r• 5'e"C� 1947 ' �� I Fi r,/f,/ r (IIr/ Ci' r. �• Fi i—f r..
S: - :r s• ,;.u2)� JAK i (Ji- 16K I jalI, t�,k iSbl� Stitt- �lK- l((ML. s
,c ;AH3)' I -t�al I `�i/L Sri d 1�'� S61
r-
..ri...�r+ ., -•=ir ! _ ! /jrri' (JT I (a'� S(i��I IC
ext re�orcc^ 19 i, A)(1':i S.CG �It.L ! �.0 I Sd�(. i :Crl- f.Cl_ a1t,L Sl< � f.CC.. .• S. L
1 ( i S S S SAJ
esw er.c:e 194; fR�' SSP ---
jy :c :941(A)(= - - -------'—
CY,--_•—>7 7 '�� I /I I P7 '77 T71 77, _

1'. PROPERTiRECORCEC JL-i'in!rtEN: OF Eravif2ONMENT JA:E =•:i,LLATECIt HEA."h ANO NATURAL RESOURCES PROPER'Y I.0 ..DmSiON OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
•,^,!+•SITE\NASTEVVATER SECTION
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
FOR 2or
ON-SITE WASTE WATER
L,rr46Ton1 PHONE ---
_.
/ PROPERTY SIZE. PPO POSED �ACILTIV ZS vsi� �r
I,AI w�r,l
:..._ .. .. . .:is 5. --- - --- —
::;,.'_i< J::PPLY On-Slte Well Community Public Other EVALUATION 13Y Auger Boring ✓ -_— �_
PROFILES - -
FACTORS —
tt 12 f3 14 r5 /6
?05ITION ; 1940 GS r!s L1 LS i �j -
t t940 G'/• 8 • 4 •/ 6 `1'/. i Y/ i 6'/ / 7'/.
S�JPc :ro+ --- -
Cp.r^�
DEPTH p-G /o- 7 o-L o -.v ► /0-(. o-� i o• s. ' o•<. _c c� rD-,1-.
"C•:.:'ef Group 1941(A)(1) Ste-., .)Co-t �w++_ Ls.� I .J L►--�-. S<+--�- ? S(..--`' ..1�+•+. .l<� ---.s7�.`
- -- _rr 1941(A)(2) W r ✓ i I w i v i M i .+ r i T ,�i .. ,c'1.'
.::er�wgy1941(A)(7) r✓ i
7- G-SL I /o-fv -4a G• YS ! 4-y9 ``fJ, 6 -y`l . 4.-"
r✓l� I L1: ' G!t �4 C4- V�fry. C/��i-7
--- i;941(Aii2,I ✓Al. 1 tilt- J`K sL'. f L- J`!'= - S�1L 1b_—
_- j19 r(Ai(�J S 1 1
OCi 1r ( Y -�Y .�o�Y ; �6-rf Y �-�`s'I - y
rat :e orov:: �.t941(A)(1) L 1
1941, I ! 14 _c ! i P
'1941(A)(2)I - - - -
+--,7'i -, 7/ 'y 71 _.. .'7 '� , 7 .77 / 7 i 7r
Y�9 3;.*. �o�$0 1 yf_ S'L �L row _��._._ yo 77 4r.,
PL— 121__
- o Z_
-a. L o, Z r✓. �. L c. t
L --
- ---- - IAC';EPTANCE RA' ----- -
(SYSTEM TYPE Go�J
_- -- -- - �� J•
mr RS PRESENT_ — -- —

EXHIBIT II
i
f .
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
FOR
IRRIGATION OF DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES,WILLIAMSBURG PLANT
CASWELL COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
t
•
I
PREPARED FOR:
WOJEK ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, PA
GREENSBORO,NORTH CAROLINA
l
PREPARED BN':
SOUTIiEASTER\ SOIL AND ENVIROX.MEtiTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
i •
l
qL

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311-7696
?? Phone/Fax[phone]
(' Introduction
The Burlington Industries Plant has been required by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management to conduct an engineering alternatives analysis for the
disposal of 25,000 gpd of domestic wastewater. The purpose of this report is to identify
on and off site soil areas that would likely be useable for wastewater irrigation.
Information contained in this report will be used to conduct a cost projection analysis to
determine the economic impacts of this alternative. If economic impacts of this
alternative are deemed reasonable,then further site specific studies will be conducted to
determine the permittability of the site according to T15A: 02H.0200.
lSite Location and General Description
The site is located on the corner of NC Hwy. 87 and SR 1100 just north of the
Caswell/Alamance County line. A site map is enclosed which will be referred to in the
. remainder of the report. The soil areas considered useable for wastewater irrigation are
both cleared and wooded. The cleared areas are currently used for sludge disposal. The
site topography is a combination of ridges grading through linear slopes to drainage
depressions. The typical slope range is 2%to 20%(slopes considered for wastewater
l irrigation was generally less that 8%).
I Soils Description
Hand auger borings were performed over the entire tract. The site ma see Appendix)
P( PPe )
gives specific locations for soil borings and approximate areal extent of the useable area.
A typical profile description and boring logs for the soil type(most like the Cecil soil
series)are also included in the Appendix_
Soils typically had a surface laver 4 to 10 inches thick that was sandy loam with granular
structure. The subsoil was found to have a clay texture WIth subangular blocky structure
to depths of 48 to 66 inches. Below the subsoil, weathered rock (saprolite)was
encountered to depths exceeding 84 inches.
The estimated soil wetness depth (observed by colors of chroma 2 of less) was greater
than 7 feet.
I
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • WETLANDS MAPPING •
LANG USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION &DESIGN
L
.. r!r:�•;rv!I+sCn,VY!ef!'es!p-K^.i^e!�+y;.^,rq•, r•��y�r..........ti,;��e!.r«.-.- ....;.nrrrTrt!!t7.^':..................+te-r..� .:•:,:•:.:._• ._ .-._.. __.__ ..._ .......... ..

I
Site Suitability for Spray Irrigation
The soils on this site are considered to have moderate infiltration with slow to moderate
permeability based on texture. These soils will allow for infiltration,treatment,and,at a
reasonable loading,plant uptake of nutrients supplied by the wastewater and are suitable
for use with spray irrigation.
Hydraulic Loading Rate(Soil Water!Characteristics Method)
Factors to be considered in hydraulic loading include hydraulic conductivity, irrigation
volumes and intervals between irrigation. The soils recommended for use with spray
irrigation on this site are moderately well drained and will allow for wastewater
applications year-round.
This report will not provide a water balance, but by utilizing both in-situ conductivity
data and published soil water data,we will provide an estimated monthly drainage rate.
The water balance,once calculated,will provide the weekly loading rate utilizing this
value(the monthly drainage rate).
The objective of establishing an optimum drainage rate is to maintain good soil physical
and chemical characteristics,to promote vigorous plant growth and proper assimilation
of waste constituents, while at the same time applying an optimum amount of
wastewater.
Thus, the optimum drainage rate must be established so that the water stays within the
root zone long enough for the roots and/or soil to assimilate the waste,but not so long as
to inhibit plant activity.
In order to determine a soils water characteristic one can field measure those properties,
which is not practical. or utilize published data such as that provided in the Person
Count- Soil Survey -.lune 1995. [Note: Caswell County does not have a published
survey.J
For the purposes of this report, we used the data published in the Soil Survey for the
Cecil series. The monthly drainage rafe is determined from a combination of drainage
potential at a given soil moisture tension, thickness of the surface layer,time allowed for
soil re-aeration following a recharge event, and duration of a recharge event. The

I
amount of water lost from saturation to field capacity depends on the texture of the
topsoil and subsoil. As water begins to drain down through the soil profile following
rainfall or irrigation,the soil above begins to re-aerate. All of these factors must be
considered to effectively determine the drainage rate expected.
Generally,irrigation is accomplished in 1 to 2 hours,drainage of the soil in 3 to 5 days
and re-aeration in 3 to 5 days. Based on the sandy loam to clay loam surface texture,
structure and consistence,we feel that a 3.5 day cycle is appropriate for this site.
Based on the soil properties observed on this site and using the data form the Soil Survey
for the Cecil series,a drainage rate can be determined. The difference between the total
porosity and the water lost at 50 cm soil tension is the field capacity. This amount of
water could be applied and stored in the surface one foot or equal to 22%times 12 inches
or 2.64 inches. This is the amount of water, if applied lower than the infiltration rate,
that could be stored without runoff. However,the volume of interest is the amount that
could be applied in order to supply a plant available volume to maximize plant uptake
and renovation of wastewater. This is even more critical in moderate to rapidly
permeable soils. The range of available water content in the surface one foot of this soil
Iseries is 13%to 15%per inch.
Multiplying an assumed,conservative value of 13% to the surface one foot yields a
volume of approximately 1.5 inches.
To complete the estimated monthly value, this value of 1.5 inches is multiplied by a ratio
of a 30 day month and a 3.5 day cycle to yield a monthly drainage rate of 12.85 inches
per month (151 in. annually).
Although this does not give the average monthly application rate, it is the final value
needed to calculate the water balance.
Hydraulic Conductivity Method
We perfonned several hydraulic conductivity measurements in the clay(Bt) horizon
using a compact-constant-liead-permeameter. Consistently, we obtained readings in
I. .

I: excess of 0.06 inches per hour for this layer. This value is equivalent to 0.90 gallons per
day per square foot as compared to 0.75 inches per week being equivalent to 0.07 gallons
per day per square foot.
In the above comparison, it can be seen that a rate of 0.75 inches per week would not
hydraulically limit the sites ability to assimilate the proposed wastewater additions.
j Surrounding Properties
' Although no testing was completed,a survey of surrounding properties was completed.
The Caswell County Soil Conservation Service was consulted for field sheets of
surrounding properties. Those properties with similar elevations and topographical
conditions appear to contain similar soils. Again,no testing was completed on these
properties. Further testing would be required prior to entering into any contractual
obligations.
IConclusions and Recommendations
The hydraulic consideration for a spray irrigation system is only one part of the systems
! design. The waste constituents also require analysis to determine if hydraulics or
nutrients will limit the area needed to handle the projected volume of wastewater
proposed to be generated. It is,however,our professional opinion that the soils on this
site should allow for effective infiltration,plant uptake and drainage at the rates we have
given.
Actual wastewater loading can be adjusted by the operator using a monthly balance and
by applying more effluent during drought periods as well as less during stress periods.
Again, this report is preliminary in nature and does not suggest or imply that further
studies would conclude that the site is suitable for irrigation of wastewater. Given the
information we have been provided concerning this project, as of this date, and our site
and soils evaluation, we are submitting this report for your use and for review My the
appropriate regulatory personnel.
Sincerely, EQ SOIL's t
fY! i lii �R4-- � � �r�E•
Mike Eaker
President
`�J� 1030 '

i
i
Profile Description for Map Unit A
This map unit consists of well drained,moderately permeable soils on upland rid es and
g
side slopes of the Piedmont. These soils formed in materials weathered from felsic and
crystalline rocks. Slopes range from 0 to 20 percent.
A-0 to 7 inches;brown(7.5YR 4/4)sandy loam; moderate medium granular structure;
friable;common fine and medium roots; common fine pores; few rock fragments; abrupt
smooth boundary.
BE-7 to 12 inches; strong brown(7.5YR 5/6)clay loam; weak medium subangular
blocky structure; friable; few small roots-, few fine and common medium pores; abrupt
smooth boundary.
• Btl - 12 to 20 inches, red (2.5YR 4/8)clay, common medium distinct red(5YR 5/8 and
common medium strong brown(7.5YR 5/8)mottles; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; moderately plastic and slightly sticky; friable; few small roots; few
small pores;common distinct clay films on faces of peds; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 -20 to 43 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8)clay; common medium prominent strong brown
(7.5YR 518) mottles; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable; moderately
plastic and slightly sticky; few fine roots and pores: distinct clay films on faces of peds;
grradual wavy boundary.
Bt' -43 to 52 inches; red(2.5YR 4/8)clay loam. weak fine and medium subangular
structure; friable. moderately plastic and slightly stick-; fear distinct clay films on faces
of pods; gradual wavy boundary.
C - 52 to 84 inches: reddish yellow(5YR 6.'8) fine sande loam saprolite; few coarse
distinct reddish yellmv(7.5YR T6)and Iew distinct pink (7.5YR 8/4) mottles; massive;
friable.
•

sP(L/F Y !fL�t�g TI �•�J
f
17 t
AOP A >
1 4k 3.
•1L
N. SPRAT jf4t6A�to/!
� 11 rt _

�,`DEEAF1T OF ENVIRONMENT DA7E c:'AWA7ED
RT
HEALTH AC"TNATURAL RESOURCES PROPERTY LD.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROPERTY RECORDED
ON-S;TE WASTEWATER SECTION -
;;;
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
Ile
FOR
ON-SITE WASTE WATER
(( ( pFY
{ APP' ;CANT ��tILi-W'elINV-ST(•>�S PHONE. APPLICATION DATE.
1111 � n
ACCRESS: �t�`tRn.S'buR l u '`a T
COUNTY: �iksL i Lt- PROPERTY SIZE: PROPOSED FACILTIY:
i
LOCATION OF SITE.
LYATER SUPPLY' On-Site Well Community Public Other EVALUATION BY: Auger Boring P-,_
Cut
I FACTORS PROFILES
j t 2 3 T4 5 6 7 g p
LANDSCAPE POSITION j 1940 f�1` (�� L< G 5 1 C C-X
'SLOPE (°�) 1940 d9-2 3 �� `� �. 4/
HORIZON i DEPTH o - Y o' • 0- a O-v ! 4'
Texture Group ?941(A)(1) t;/ f/ �Cp S 'Ler- S(�+ 1 ro SL•,r G -�Lo�.i
Consistence I .1941 f� C
Structure I?941(A)(2) N( c•6i `! �i svl I i /K �''fi ; �• c+
Mineralogy 941(A)(3)
•-CRIZON 2 DEPT-: j y. fol.
'extvre Group G1(A)(1) o1� Uur GL(4 L�
ens s•ence °41 I F� 1 ,lrr I l i�1Fi � Tib r. �• �
�
•e 1941i
.tmeralcgy 1)94 t(A)(3)I
i CPc:�ON 3 DEPTH I j Sz' `(I 9'» '13`I (,0-$Y (00- 0'(
Texture Grout
Li 9" 3,cC fre-L StV 5 �:(� S.c( S,Gt_ I S,i L S.CC —s• �
f Cons s;ence 94 13�r I STIP -r .(h l SAF SI4P S Q J� _ ' �A J
i
41
r
77 I 7 / � �___._._.._ - �. _
c4 I � 7 � � 9' I '77' I y�I '77r 77' I �7 � tel' 77 ' y7.
114
-- o, 1. 0,2- �. 1- �- L U. Z o, z. 2 0.
o. z
4f TE -
-''`E SPACE tc:4; -- IS!"E LONG TERM
--- 'OR5 ;194uj !ACCEPTANCE RATE ,-- -
- -5S;FiCATION ',9481 l� --__— :S'-'STEM TYPE.
1, •

OEPi+RTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT OATE=W LUATEO: -
HEALTH ANO NATURAL RESOURCES PROPERTY I.O.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF
RECORDED
ON-SITE WASTEWATER SECTION
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
�...•
FOR Zor
ON-SITE WASTE WATER _
IAR?, ir�A(`' 3L.L�L.rn(�.Tonl I MOk,ST(L%f-S PHONE: APPLICATION SATE
ADDRESS
I COUNT! PROPERTY SIZE PROPOSED FACILTIY_ Zf OPl> .sI
n O t
LOCATION F SiT�:
WATER SUPPLY. On-Site Well Community Public Other EVALUATION BY: Auger Boring ✓ P•: Cut
l I FACTORS PROFILES
! tl 12 13 14 15 16 /' ! 18 J : Z0
( • NDSCAPE POSITION .1940 GS �s GJ GS LS
a 1940 G% $' , /,'/• 6 '. Y'/. Y'/ I t:-4 c. % 7
!SLOPE (.6) � -
MORIZON DEPTH O-L /0-7 D-G O -•0 O-L o.r. p• y ! p.G. o-(� p• —
I Texture Group 1941(A)(1) sLo...., C"' Sef" J
Consistence I 1941
Suuc--:E r
1 Minerarogy 111941(A)(3)
r.Urt.-J"N ? DEPTH 7' L-•�6 /o-jv - 60 G• YS 6-Y9 1 G- J
TExT--e 5rc-.- 1)941(A)(,)! Chi. L4. U. U• G(. � I C./« Gly-_--�/•�
-c-.--e �t9<t;A. �il 164
L. S I(<- -/(►/� S frk - ..fb .
t.;rnera, I154t(i.li�}! S .S i ✓� 1 •(E j 1 SIE .5�-�'r ._-,5�—
If r. R.�O h D E=T 1-+ I III .iO -�Y •pf .rlo J'K 1 J 6-�'`{ i (.o-�- 1 yrf.-e y r
Texture 3:°up 19<t(A)('•}f S. f[( 1iC 1 L 1 J_( L J L ! S, C —3•` - J-
�c:5:s:er.ce °< S�-P 1 J flP t 1A-P SA7' I IA•P 54-? .. •f R�
--- — �<;,
- -- -- -s P1 Al-- - -ns -- -- -
OJ ll P1 P1 �1 PJ
L Z
L p O. L � c
-- =_ — - -~----- - I S!"E LONG TERM
— ,•`' t�„ 50 �� ,1°�5) iACCEPTANCE RATE
--
�S !SYSTEM TYPE. �KJ
SENT - - - _
c_:•...,.....�....--_.-...... .......•.,.�.......... .. .. ..-- �,_,..... .--._-_ _...�...-a,-krdr Win;_:.__-_, --------------'-"----------- -—

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
DATE _VALUATED:
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES PROPERTY LD.
` DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEA ' PROPERTY RECORDED
L
ON-SITE WASTEWATER SECTION
SITEISOIL EVALUATION -
FOR 3
ON-SITE WASTE WATER
LAPPLICANT �`t� ��^ Z��Kt�/1 PHONE. APP_i-_AT*1QN
ADDRESS: '
COUNTY: Gccs✓c,l I PROPERTY SIZE: PROPOSED FACILTIY: -w l d
LOCATION OF SITE: lJ �• t
WATER SUPPLY: On-Site Well Comm ity Public Other EVALUATION 8Y: Auger 9onnS =/P•; Cu;
(' FACTORS
' PROFILES
yt L2 L3X4 z5 Z6 L' I 2.e Z= 30
LANDSCAPE POSITION •1940 1 GS A /'
SLOPE(%) 1940 i 4 ,1. o- V, 0.3• o- %l o - '/. 'n-r'/.i o-1 J- -_3
IhORIZONIDEPTH ! 9- O- O-e .;0-/J O-IO -n- 7
11( Texture Group 1941(A)('): -r G". S Lo_' J`� -J
I- Consistence I .1941 '
i Structure 1941(A)(2jl w Ii / •-� •^ w .- .,�
I
Mineralogy )941(A)(31 [ A) ' e1- �. ��__• �.__
I !�ORIZON2DEPTH - O A-VO
-(,I P-Ge O-4•1 -7.4%, '
I Texture Group 1i1941(;, .. Grrl. i' �(-•. t� jG=• C./.
Consistence _/�-(•r
(�..�
I_.
Structure t 94 i.A) - k J O(L Sy/� ' I i&
Mineralo y
nORI-UN 2 1JEPTI, 'fi•.F •-IF'I f �1-d'•1 ! o- 4I6 62 P'l bo
Texture Group {19:1(Ai+' f�G J,
C 1.I- ! J. 0 f. GL 1. � ( 1, � i-L J , L L
Consistence 194. J,4f j,¢,0 1 -r/f? dqO -j.f/° ! -rAP i JfFP_ •�4P _. JffP I/�P
t - Structurr
I _ I
Mlneralogy
onsls;ence - i ' ------ -----
St:ucture -
....::rraloyy
f 7r--- - - ,- 7 , f
5C 'vE'yESS 154, i 7' j +T' 1 v7 I '7 77 7
---- > ! ' --��
^�- _ :;'C.ti'; _ 7 I > 7 � 7r �_� 7/ _.. - a7 I
7
- .R:C' •_ ^• c» �c=- c?p (0 vo - 1'
-- P-1 PS Ps Ps P�
L..,. a Z.
pZ � o � ot✓ 1 taL oL at �
- ,- ---=iy»J _ON1G TERM
~:.i: ANC RATE _ ---
• (�..''�JSIr IC I•.T!'✓h I l -__ .S*,STEM EM 7'VP--- �IV�.__.-. ___. _•. -
SE'1E__
EVALr'ATEC ?Y— -}'}- _j rP=ccyT
r-- -

CEPARTMENI OF ENVIRONMENT 0.A-, z•:A,..::,TEC
v. HEALTH ANO NATURAL RESOURCES PRCPEn i! LC .—
OIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTh PRCFER--.' RECORCc
ON-SITE WASTEWATER SECTION
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
FOR YoF Y
ON-SITE WASTE WATER
1 �.�. _. ;+NT ��'�1„^t�+ �d�s 4✓, PHONE:
AOCRESS'
,�r:r! C—W�.-••-l1 PROPERTY SIZE: PROPOSED FACILTIY
_SCA??ON OF SITE. -------
:lA.ER SUPPLY :n-Site Well Community Public Other EVALUATION 8Y. r.,:^yer :enng
EFACTORS PROFILES
31 32 33 ;4 35 36 3 7 3e
:CSE POSITION ! 1s4o LS c Ls
rCAP ! L r✓S `'� �-s -- -
IT- -..—
` 5�OPE (°� 1940 i o 3 i. Y y. b'/. ? /. -C' . i S�•
CR!ZON DEPTH I I O-l► 0-(' o — ------.
Texture Grouc I1941(A)(1)I SL.... C�.-� �<+ (.—�- SC.� SL.—I -
:nsistence ( 1941 I =.
5 ccure i 1941(A)(2)l
:Mineralogy 11941(A)(3)I Alf-. fir, L.
OEP"r, i b�
.exlure Grouc 1)941(A)( )i U% Gil. Ll C- w
s s e ce 1941
c e c• '2b,IL � SbL'
'cy�
�`�n ? OEPTr U- I 3 I -8 i �' i1 -9 lip-ej '1 f44
i lute GrouF ;,i 941(A)(1,I s.L L L L. L -
:o:.s s;erce-- —.194. J P
77
3S A—
__----., ----- o. L o.L -k L o.L o.L o. L L t
— SPAr �g tl - (ACCEPTANCE RATE ---
- — ---•y4V 1V~u.U.yl _p� ISYSTEM+ PE -
�..
..:,---- ;,• -M_ 'tel._-.— -------- - -_---__=____

001ARIMENI OF E,,vlROMNlEh1T DATE c/i.; :.icC
HEALTn AND NATURAL RESOURCES PROPER-,Y :.0. c —�-
CIV(SION OF ENvIR01+MENTAL HEALTH PROPER-' RECOR•.L.EC
C!+-SITE WASTEWATER SECTION
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION -
(( FOR 3° �
ON-SITE WASTEWATER 30•(11 nt� ��
PHONE APP_.0
A2CRESS
PROPERTY SIZE: PROPOSED FACILTIY-
Cn-Sae Well Comm ity Public Otter EVALUATION BY. Auger Boring /�• -, __
'
FACTORS PROFILES -- - ---
Z7 L2 L3 14 LS 2-6 L' i L8 Z -- 3J-.
i_-!,NC 5 CAPE POSITION ( .1940 LS -
( 1940 1 7• o- 04' o- %1 0 1i 0-Y 0-1 / O-j1 O_3 %
;w JEpT:, i 0-1. O-<. 0- O /o 0-10 1 0- 7 0- 7 o - re. o -C
II -- `cx%g0 Group I�941(A)(')I ,S • S�.r SCo -C[w� LLL or. J J(a__
----'-_n5isltncr I .1941
_C• rC 11941(A)(2)I t,,J'� I ✓ I ..i / ..� / +�� —
,.r.�raiosy �?941(A)(3)i E A)/:,x _
( L EPT. ! O D C�1 -�ie I /O .b L -- 7 _(00 f. 6
,)941(A; .)I GI4 U i �• G L��' �`•••_�+/� U�r
SOIL i L 1 f`� L �!/< S t/L
rf�cy. ;t941;A113• s SG 1 .46-,
I 1� I 1E.z VEx- fir:. ,���• ��,c
yb.� .-� .. -t-�r (o- �; -f I o-A r:2 F vo k`(�r.-�
S CL J. ( 1 1� C J.L 3 , L Jj L_
-J.4,0 ..si4/� 1fiP dfP I -rrP I. JAP f J P .r4P sf�P t.4�
. ___ �__—.mac— _—._ __- �j41 _ i i .— I - .___•—__ - _ .
7 -
- - - - --- -- o. L o. L o. o. Z
O.1
i _- `�v -~u"-4°► 0 SYSTEM TYPE CAD- J-- --- -
' GTHEP.S PRESENT
:.�Y•.M•k�.i{:S�..Nl:P::..•'.l' __-...—•`-f:.•_^.aSYL_'•�f�:a_•_.._...--. .. .... t.- I