WQ0003626_Meeting Notes_20110225

Barber, Jim
.7
From: Barnhardt, Art
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 1:19 PM '
To: Barber, Jim; Shields, Joel; Honeycutt, Tony
Subject: Friday Campbell Soup Meeting Notes
Notes: 2/25/11 from Campbell Soup Meeting
1) Floated the proposal of taking B Field to a 30 million gallon, aerated, Tined holding structure. Using alternative site is not
out of the question, just not #1 choice.
2) Discussed daily vs. monthly average flow and how it is determined what we enforce on. I told them it is a judgment call
on my part and each permit violation is evaluated independently on it's own merits...but generally I will not go with daily
violations unless there are monthly average violations, or other noncompliance issues like run-off, poor wastewater
treatment etc..too.
3) Discussed the removal of some Field A & Field C acres (typically wet areas) by stopping the pivot, putting sub -tile
drainage, berm area to prevent wastewater from collecting above the tile, all done meeting the required horizontal
setbacks.
4) Asked about the outcome of the runoff event (if he should expect to get a penalty).
5) Sewer line extension being pursued to both Maxton or Westpoint Plant. They want to get one or the other but that is a
5 year plus proposition.
I followed the meeting up with a call to Jon Risgaard, asked if we could allow issue a major modification to their permit (under
agreement document...SOC, etc) for a set period to allow the work to proceed, not have 2T kick in until the end of the
agreement period (sewer connection time). It should Work out. Jim, we need to be sure we understand the variables involved so
if you could work this concept to see if any red flags are identified, that would be great. We can have a discussion whenever you
are ready.
Thanks
ArtB.
c 14-6 MEA1-11 rzek 7itev
S�nA 6-e-
1
Job
%X (EJLT

Legend
EN Improvements
Maintenance Water Level Pipe
New Drainage Installed
i ovedExistin. Drain

444
L
•
! •
IR •
• -
Ob.
e ar lk
a‘`
• 40 • irk°,
.1' 4,40 410"1
.16.411
%MP - I 4'
"IA* 'Fib 1111 '
- 4+; e•
1%0 ,
- Ai • • . .e, . .... ' .,..
'410
..."' J li 4 -ft
44/10thse
i * '' 1 ..%,144tati*„..ii•
loy ,,,,, o• rip 1/4 Site
*
4'."41P, A.".
.__ ' - :14,•01_ __.___, V : ALI_ a
•
a•
%
•11.0
inw
44.
of "
4«,
. ••• kll
4. ' Olt ilk%
., . 4
k 14 4
pidk' ibb . 'I: rste II ..
....0 lb •
i 1
.,...L. . , s,;,,,,. °pm.' % ' •
• .0, -,•-a•
to imihi '
• a- •
‘40 dr
dies,
hi •44.
411o, 4111P
*tir ‘Ne,
, • a
•
%• et
•
•
1i
k •
•
• 4' 40 1 at
V
OM. Al

7
A
Southmost Corner
Bottom EL 218.455
MaxDepth 3.625
r t�
NOTE:
• Calculation does not account for slope along
berm
• MaxFiII is Calculated at Pump House overflow
-6"
> Lowest EL is set at Ed Tank Lowest Floor EL
N"
VOLUME
3 874 524.0775 CF
28 983 452.839 gallons
[US, liquid]
Pump
Pit
North Side
Bottom EL
215.51
MaxDepth 6.57

i
Bal ber, Jim
From: Robert Ellis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:01 PM
To: Barber, Jim
Subject: FW: Campbell Soup Company Wastewater Service
Attachments: • • Tech Memo REV2.doc; WWTP Improvements Cost Opinion.pdf; PS & FM Cost Opinion.pdf;
Laurin burg WastewaterSystem_Fig. pdf
From: Ed Burchins jmailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:08 PM
To: war Iaurinburq.orq; 'Robert Ellis'; 'Cindy Carpenter';. 'Stacey McQuage'
Subject: FW: Campell Soup Company Wastewater Service
Here is some information for a meeting I would like to have at tomorrow morning 9:00 arn, Bill and Cindy, sorry for the short notice
but I feel like you both need to be involved. Let me know if there is a problem.
Edward F.Burchins
City Manager
910.291.1727 (Office)
910.280.1802 (Mobile)
[e-mail]
From: Zimmer, David jmailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:25 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Kennedy, Laurin; Scuras, Sean
Subject: Campell Soup Company Wastewater Service
Ed — Attached is the draft technical memorandum related to proposed wastewater service for the Campbell Soup
Company. Please contact me or our Project Manager, Laurin Kennedy, when youare ready to discuss.
Have a good night.
bave
«Tech Memo REV2.doc» «WWTP Improvements Cost Opinion:pdf» «PS & FM Cost Opinion.pdf»
LaurinburgWastewaterSystem_Fig.pdf»
1

f
Memorandum
To: Edward F. Burchins, City of Laurinburg
From: Sean Scuras, PhD; PE, CDM
Laurin Kennedy, PE. BCEE, CDM
Date: June 14, 2010
Subject Campbell Soup Company Wastewater Conveyance/
WestPoint WWTP Improvements
1.0 Background
The City of Laurinburg (City) is having ;discussiojngs with tie Capmpbell Soup Company (CSC)
located in Robeson County, NC about options for treatment of iibe CSC wastewater produced
from their plant operations The plant is cuurrently underconsentorder by the North Carolina
Department of Env' oriment and ppNatural Resources 1(NCDENR) because their wastewater
cannot comply with i e terms, conditions or limitations of their National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System N iiDES emit. i y
The City of1,aurinburg has'alsolbeen evaluating thelbenefits of purchasing the WestPoint
pp e iW ; � �iat r � ' "` �i(WWTP) in Wagram, NC that is currently for
Pe ere�l�Wastewater�Water Treatment Plants �`a�s�
sale C t� was retained �by,the Ctv of Laurinbur`g to evaluate the construction and capital
costs associated with pumping CSC wastewater to the WestPoint WWTP and improvements
needed at the WWTP to treat;this wastewater. This memorandum presents the basic facility
WI ‘to*and infrastructurearequirements capital costs, and other considerafioris to assist the City in
evaluating this optic n.
l
2.0 Campbell Soup Company Force Main and Pump. Station
In order to convey wastewater flow from the Campbell Soup Company (CSC) to the
WestPoint WWTP, a new pump station and force main are required: A preliminary force
main route was identified and the proposed force main would be aptr6ximately 31,500 linear
feet (6 miles) in length. The route follows existing highways and stater' pads in order to
minimize the amount of permanent sewer easement and temporary construction easement
needed for the project. The proposed route is shown in Figure 1. Tie proposed force main
route begins at the CSC plant and follows the following roads: .
• NC Hwy 71

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 2
• McGirt Rd (SR 1308)
McGirt Bridge Rd (SR 1309)
• McGirt Gin Rd (SR 1310)
• Lee's Mill Rd (SR 1425/1427)
• Airbase Rd (SR 1437)
If a project can be constructed within NCDOT right-of-way, then easement does not need to
be acquired. However, it is assumed that NCDOT only has maintenance right-of-way (back -
of -ditch to back -of -ditch) along the majority of these roads, so some, amount of easement will
be necessary.
The pipeline material was assumed to be C905 PVC in order to provide corrosion protection
and since this material is more cost effective than ductile iron. An 18-inch diameter pipe is
recommended to accommodate the expected range in flows pumped from CSC. Air
release/vacuum relief valves will be required at various locations along the alignment and
would be located in a protective structure such as a manhole. Approximately 15 air/vacuum
valve stations will be required depending on the final alignment.
Pipeline crossings requiring trenchless construction methods are anticipated along the force
main alignment. The following crossings were identified and would require trenchless
construction methods such as jack -and -bore or directional drilling:.
• State Roads (three assumed)
• Streams and wetlands (one at Lumber River assumed)
The Campbell Soup Company currently has six 800 gallon per minute (gpm) pumps that are
used to convey wastewater to spray fields for land application. This equates to a firm
pumping capacity of 4,000 gpm with one pump out of service, or 5,760,000 million gallons per
day (mgd). The average daily wastewater flow between January 200f and April 2010 was 2.68
mgd (1,860 gpm), whereas the maximum daily flow was 4.84 mgd (3,360 gpm). It is assumed
that a firm pumping capacity of 4,000 gpm is sufficient to convey all CSC wastewater flow to
the WestPoint WWTP, however, the existing pumps are most likely not capable of
overcoming the head conditions necessary to pump flow to the WestPoint WWTP. The
ground elevation at the CSC facility is at approximately 192 feet, so it was assumed that the
pump centerline elevation will be 180 feet in the wet well. The high point elevation between
the pump station and the WestPoint WWTP is approximately 224 feet. This results in a static
head of approximately 45 feet. Figure 2 illustrates the profile of the,proposed force main
which shows these elevations. The total dynamic head (TDH) required for the CSC pump

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 3
station would be approximately 225 feet, including pipe friction loss 4nd static discharge head
at a design flow of 5.8 mgd. As a result, it was assumed that a new pump station will need to
be constructed at CSC to pump wastewater flows to the WestPoint WWTP.
Figure 2 — Sewer Force Main Profile
225
220
215
210
c 205
0
n
200
:CSC Pump
- Station
195
190
185
WestPoint
WWTP
0
5,000 10,000
r
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Force Main Length (ft)
In order to accommodate a firm pumping capacity of-4,000 gpm while keeping the
appropriate velocities in an 18-inch diameter force main, a new pump station with three 2,000
gpm submersible pumps is recommended. The third pump is required for redundancy.
Submersible pumps are cost-effective and currently used in this type of application. The
resulting pump station criteria are summarized in Table 1. If two:pumps are in operation,
then this results in a velocity of 5 feet per second (ft/sec) within the force main. When one
pump is on operation, the minimum velocity is 2.6 ft/sec, which is acceptable for keeping
solids from settling in the pipeline.

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 4
Table 1 - Pump Station Criteria
Description
Number of Pumps
Criteria
' 2 duty; 1 standby
Pump Type
Submersible
Pump Output (gpm each pump)
, 2,000
Firm PumpingCapacity5.8
mgd
Motor Horsepower (each pump)
250 hp
3.0 WestPoint WWTP Improvements
3.1 WWTP Evaluation Summary
CSCs wastewater would add 4.84 MGD of maximum day flow to: the: existing 0.7 mgd from
the WestPoint/Gulistan plant for a total maximum day flow of 5.54 mgd-to the WestPoint
WWTP. Peak flow (including WestPoint/Gulistan flow) would be approximately 4500 gpm
(6.48 mgd). BOD loading would increase to approximately 42;48271k/ day combined loading
during maximum month.
On a maximum month basis the flow would be approximately'4:4 mgd (3.7 mgd CSC and 0.7
mgd Gulistan) but because the CSC wastewater is so strong,' it would require essentially all of
the available aeration basin capacity during peak production periods. Also, because the waste
is high in BOD but low in nitrogen and phosphorus, these nutrients will need to be added in
sufficient quantity to provide the minimum required for good activated sludge performance.
Clarifiers allow for up to 9.2 mgd peak flow but would require significant repairs to provide
the required peak flow capacity. Two RAS pumps (currently not used) will likely need to be
replaced or rebuilt.
The recommended improvements are summarized below:
• 30 hp 4500 gpm influent pump for firm capacity (could be`deferred because influent
goes directly to aeration basin without pumping)
• Chemical feed facilities for pH adjustment, nitrogen and phosphorus addition
(required)
• 800 hp of surface aerators at the aeration basin (required
• Complete rehabilitation of one 90 ft diameter clarifier (could 'be deferred if flow is held
to less than 6.1 mgd peak)

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 5
• Repairs on second 90 ft diameter clarifier
• Two 15 hp 1950 gpm RAS pumps and valves (could be ,deferred if further
investigations show that the existing pumps are operable)
• 2.3 MG of additional aerobic digester tankage
• 500 hp of surface aerators at the aerobic digesters
Estimated cost for these improvements is approximately $5.85 million (including a 30%
contingency and a 15% allowance for engineering, legal and administrative costs). A detailed
cost estimate for these improvements is attached to this memo and shown in Section 4 below.
An alternative approach that may be worth consideration would be to convert the 10 MG EQ
basin to service as the aeration basin (by adding the required aerators). Then the existing 6
MG aeration basin could be repurposed for use a additional aerobic. digester basin. These
volumes better match the increased BOD loading and would allow some additional plant
capacity for future increases in loading. Cost for this approach would be similar to the above
but less the cost for new digester tanks. Also, because the EQ would be eliminated, additional
wetwell or EQ volume would be needed at Campbell's to buffer peak hour flows.
Note that under either treatment -scenario, the operating cost for power, chemicals, and
biosolids handling will be significantly higher on a per 1000 gallons treated basis than is
typical because the BOD concentration of the wastewater is so high: Such increased cost for
industrial wastewater is often recovered through a surcharge on,excessive BOD
concentration.
3.2 Wastewater Flow and Load Characteristics
Wastewater flow and load characteristics for the wastewater generated by CSC operations
during 2009 were provided and are attached as Appendix A. The. current flow at the
WestPoint WWTP is approximately 0.7 mgd from the WestPoint/Gulistan operation.
Characteristics of that wastewater have not been determined for this evaluation. It will be
assumed that the concentrations of BOD and nitrogen in the WestPont/Gulistan flow are no
greater than in the CSC flow. Actual WestPoint/Gulistan wastewater,characteristics should
be reviewed to confirm this assumption.
3.2.1 Flow
Daily wastewater flow data from Campbell's for the period from January 2006 through April
2010 were used to estimate daily, annual average, maximum month, and maximum day
flows. A summary of those flows is shown as Table 2 below.
Table 2 - Campbell's Historical Wastewater Flow

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 6
Flow, MGD
Annual
Maximum
Year
Average
Average Day in Maximum Month
.. Day
2006
2.68
3.66
.4.84'
2007
2.58
3.33
. .4.72
2008
2.45
3.31
4.53
2009
2.31
2.86
..4.01.
2010
2.06
' 2.29
' 3.44
Maximum
2.68
3.66
.4.84
According to CSC staff, the majority of the wastewater generated.fxom soup production
operations is from cleaning operations on night shift and there are'no, plans for expansion that
would increase the wastewater flow. Existing pumping equipment consists of six 800 gpm
pumps for a total peak capacity of 4800 gpm (6.91 mgd) and a firinpeak capacity of 4000 gpm
(5.76 mgd).
3.2.2 BOD
A total of 20 samples were analyzed for BOD in 2009. The annual averageBOD loading was
15,933 lb/day. -However, the loading is highly seasonal with the t , ro:maxirnum BOD loading
values (31,179 lb/day and 35,682 lb/day) occurring in August durin'g°the late summer period
of peak production and wastewater flow. Because a limited quantity. :of data is available, the
maximum values of 35,682 lb BOD/day will be used for this evaluation rather than a
statistically less extreme value. Based on this design loading; the average BOD concentration
during the maximum month would be approximately 1,170 mg/L. _ Therefore, the
WestPoint/Gulistan flow (if at the same BOD concentration).would:increase the loading by
6,8001b/day to a total of 42,482 lb/day.. Although the EQ basin volume is sufficient to
smooth daily peaks, it is too small to smooth the late summer production peak that appears to
continue for 45 days or more. Therefore, we have considered the•capability to meet permit
while treating at the maximum 42,482 lb/day loading.
3.2.3 Nutrients
Nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) are required to±support biological growth in
the activated sludge process. In excess, nutrients may need special conditions for treatment
but if not available in sufficient proportion to the wastewater BOD,, lack of nutrients can limit
growth of the microorganisms that are responsible for treatment. This is uncommon when
treating municipal waste but industrial waste treatment often requires nutrient addition.
The typical major nutrient requirements are 0.087 mg N/mg biomass COD formed and 0.017
mg P per mg biomass COD formed. Based on the estimated WAS' production of 42,482 lb/d
and that it has a COD of 1.21b COD/ lb WAS, the nitrogen and phosphorus requirements are
estimated at approximately 44351b N/ day and 8661b P/ day during the maximum

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 7
production period. Actual maximum loadings are less than half that requirement. It is very
likely that nutrient addition (nitrogen and phosphorus) will be required to effectively operate
the activated sludge process on this wastewater.
3.2.4 Sodium and TDS
Based on the reported cation levels (the concentrations of sodium and other positively charge
ions) the maximum total dissolved solids concentration of the wastewater is estimated at no
more than 700 mg/L. Although this is somewhat higher than is typical for municipal
wastewaters in the area, it is not at a level that would impact biological activity in the
activated sludge process. The concentration of monovalent cations: (estimated at a maximum
of 11 meq/L for this wastewater) can cause flocculation problems if greater than10 meq/L.
Based on the 2009 data, for most months the monovalent cation concentration will not be a
problem but when it exceeds 10 meq/L the resulting settling problems can be overcome by
adding multivalent cations (such as magnesium) to reduce the monovalent :multivalent ratio
to < 2:1. Magnesium addition is most common. If added in the form of mag solution
(MgOH2) it can also add alkalinity and increase pH.
3.2.5 pH
The pH of the CSC wastewater is low (averaging 6.0 but often as low as 4.5 or less). Chemical
addition will be required to increase pH before the wastewater enters the activated sludge
process. A pH of 8 is a reasonable target and adjustment of pH to this level should also
provide sufficient alkalinity to maintain pH above 7.2 throughout the process (important for
optimum nitrification performance). Typical chemicals usedfor.adjiistment of alkalinity and
pH include lime (CaOH), caustic (NaOH), and mag (MgOH2). Of:these, both lime and caustic
would further increase the concentration of monovalent cations so'tle use of mag (a divalent
cation) is recommended. A chemical feed point exists near the WWTP influent, new storage,
feed and mixing equipment may be required.
3.3 WWTP Evaluation
Sean Scuras and Dan Barnes of CDM made a'site visit to the Westpoint Stevens Wagram
WWTP on May 13, 2010 for a preliminary evaluation of the facilities and equipment.
Operator Ronald Locklear provided a tour and information about.the facilities. No
manufacturer information or operation and maintenance manual'was'available.
3.3.1 Headworks and Influent Pumping
The existing headworks includes a mechanical bar screen in good; condition and a manual
backup. The influent is then pumped up to a 10 MG equalization.basin by a pair of 40 hp
screw pumps. Lift is estimated at 15 feet. Assuming 70% operating efficiency, these pumps
are estimated to have a capacity of.7400 gpm (10.6 mgd) each. Tlie pumps are in poor
condition with significant corrosion and deformation that is certainly reducing pumping

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 8
efficiency. Only one of the pumps was operating at the time of the inspection and it is
uncertain that the other pump (that appeared to be in worse condition) would operate
reliably.
At least one of the screw pumps should be replaced with a pump at a capacity of at least 4,500
gpm to assure firm pumping capacity. However, because the influent can be diverted directly
to the aeration basin without pumping, screw pump replacement could be deferred.
3.32 EQ Basin
The 10 MG EQ basin is mixed and aerated using two 50 hp aerators and two 40 hp mixers.
Each aerator is rated to mix a 150 ft diameter. These could be supplemented with the two 40
mixers currently in use on the aeration basin that will no longer be needed there as the
increased loading will require sufficient aeration to mix the basin. Assuming that the EQ is
relatively well mixed now, adding the mixers from the aeration basin should assure that it
remains well mixed even with increased solids loading.
3.3.3 Aeration Basins
The existing aeration basin is reported to have a volume of 6 MG. '..Air and mixing are
provided by six 50 hp (some may be 75 hp) floating aerators (at least 200 hp total) and two 40
hp mixers. Assuming the field oxygen transfer efficiency of the aerators is approximately 1.75
lb 02/hr/hp (42 lb 02/day/hp), the existing aerators can transfer. at,least 84001b 02/day. At
1.0 lb 02/lb BOD, the maximum BOD loading will require approximately 42,482 lb 02/day.
The unmet oxygen demand of 34,082 lb 02/day will require approximately 811 hp of
additional aeration. A spare aerator is also recommended. Electriealservice to the plant may
have to be expanded to meet this significant increase in power demand. Generator capacity
may also need to be increased. These costs are not estimated in this memo.
With sufficient aeration, when operated at a mixed liquor of 3,500 mg/L the existing aeration
basin volume is adequate to provide a minimum 5.5 day SRT during the peak production
period. Because this occurs during the warmest part of the year, this SRT would be sufficient
to provide complete nitrification. However, nitrification may not be.necessary because the
N:BOD ratio is so low that excess ammonia is unlikely to be a problem. Without nitrification
considered, the 5.5 day SRT is more than adequate to provide for good flocculation
characteristics. Note however, that the large complete mix aeration basin will still be prone to
filamentous bulking and the concurrent settleability problems.
3.3.4 Final Clarifiers
One of three 90 ft diameter clarifiers was in operation (#2). Clarifier.,#1 was out of service but
only partially drained. Although the concrete appeared to be in faireondition, the steel weirs
and scraper mechanism were severely corroded. Complete rehabilitation of Clarifier #1 is
recommended before placing it back into service.

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 9
Clarifier #2 appears to be operating well and the steel that could be observed with the unit in
service was in fair condition. The concrete is not in the best condition.as much of the
aggregate is exposed. The condition of equipment and concrete below the waterline is
unknown but is obviously serviceable.
Clarifier #3 was out of service and mostly drained but the scraper mechanism was operating.
However, the skimmer arm and center well have been damaged and require repair before the
clarifier could be placed back into service. Although the major components of the scraper
mechanism appear to be in fair condition, a more complete inspection is needed to confirm
that there is no further damage from the same incident that bent the skimmer and center well
steel. The weirs and baffles are moderately corroded and should also- be replaced.
Based on clarifier diameter, SVI of 150 mL/g, and MLSS of 3500 mg/L, each clarifier is
estimated to have a hydraulic capacity of approximately 4.6 mgd at•peak hour. Currently no
backup is available for the operating clarifier. With Clarifier #3 repaired; the firm capacity
would be 4.6 mgd, which provides Class I reliability for up to 6.1 mgd peak flow (firm
capacity must be at least 75% of Class I flow). Although Clarifier #1•should be rehabilitated at
some point it is not required to treat the CSC flow.
3.3.5 RAS Pumps
RAS for Clarifiers #1 and #2 is pumped by a set of three centrifugal pumps located in a pit
near the clarifiers. We were unable to enter the pit so couldonlyobserve the pumps from
above. The pumps appear to be in moderate to poor condition. Valves on the pump suction
side appear to be in poor condition and have not been exercised for long time according to
the operator. If the backup pump were needed, it may not•be possible to valve it into service.
At a minimum, operability and capacity of two of the three existing RAS pumps should be
confirmed with Clarifier #2.
It is recommend that the RAS pumps and valves.for Clarifiers #1 and #2 be replaced. A
minimum RAS pumping capacity of 60% is recommended during peak hour flow so new
RAS pumps should be sized to provide a capacity of at least 2.8 MGD (1950 gpm) each.
Assuming a head of 20 ft, each pump would be approximately 15: gip;: The existing RAS
pumps at Clarifier #3 are 15 hp each and in good condition.
3.3.6 Aerobic Digestion
The existing aerobic digester has a volume of 1.5 MG. Six 40 hp (240 hp total) surface aerators
are currently installed. A minimum of 30 days detention tune is recommended to achieve
stabilization during the peak loading period. That detention time can be provided at a WAS
flow rate of up to 50,000 gpd. With gravity thickening or decanting, the WAS can be
thickened so that the digester contents will average 3 % solids (30,000'thg/L). At 30,000
mg/ L and 50;000 gpd, the digester is capable of handling up to 12,510 lb/ d of WAS. Because
of the low TSS/BOD ratio, we can assume a yield of no more than0:75 lb WAS TSS/lb BOD

Mr. Edward.Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 10
during peak operation, giving an estimate of up to 31,8621b WAS TSS/d produced during
max month. Therefore, the existing digester volume is inadequate and approximately 2.3 MG
additional digester volume is required to stabilize the maximum month WAS flow.
The oxygen requirement for aerobic digestion is approximately 2.3 lb 02/1b VSS destroyed.
Assuming the WAS is 80% VSS and there is 45% destruction in the digester, up to .11,4701b
VSS/ day will be destroyed for a peak oxygen demand of up to 26,3811b 02/day. At 1.51b
02/hr/hp (361b 02/day/hp, oxygen transfer is less efficient in digesters) approximately 733
hp of surface aerators would be required to aerate the total digestet volume. Allowing for the
existing 240 hp of aerators, approximately 500 hp of additional aerator would be needed for
the digesters. Aeration density would be about 193 hp/MG, which is greater than the
approximately 100 hp/MG minimum for mixing. Additional digester volume and aeration
would be needed before the peak production period wastewater could be treated.
4.0 Feasibility
There are many considerations the City will need to examine m developing this concept in the
implementation phase. These considerations are categorized as follows:
•
• NCDOT
• Regulatory Approvals (USACE, NCDENR)
• Easement Acquisition in an adjacent County
The actual NCDOT right-of-way along the state roads identified above will have to be
determined. An encroachment permit from NCDOT will then have' to be obtained for
working within the NCDOT right-of-way and crossing under NCDOT roads.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires an environmental assessment (EA) for
pump stations with permitted design flows greater than 2.5 mgd. Therefore, an EA would be
required for this project. Since the force main will cross the Lumber River, a permit from the
US Army Corps of Engineers and a 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained from
NCDENR. A NCDENR Fast Track permit for the construction of Pump Stations and Force
Mains will also have to be acquired in addition to a Sedimentand<Erosion Control Permit and
an Authorization to Construct for the WWTP improvements.
•
Easements will need to be acquired in Robeson County, so the City will need to determine the
legal aspects of this easement acquisition process.
A summary of planning -level capital costs for the required facilities are presented in Tables 3
and 4. Detailed cost estimates are attached to this memorandum: Improvements that can

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 11
possibly be deferred at the WestPoint WWTP as described in Section 3. above are shown as
Phase 2 costs in Table 4. The capital cost estimates are in current dollars (June 2010) and
assume traditional design -bid -build delivery.
Table 3 — Summary of Estimated Capital Costs, Pump Station and Force Main
Description
Pump Station
Cost (2010 $).
$3,240,000
Conveyance Facilities
$5,080,000
Construction Total
$8,320,000
Engineering, Legal & Administration (15%)
$1,250,000
Land Acquisition Contingency
$100,000
Total Capital Cost
$9,670,000
The engineering, legal and administration cost (15-percent of the construction total) is an
allowance for estimated services for preliminary design, final design, permitting and bidding
assistance, and engineering services during construction (not including full-time resident
engineering).
Table 4 — Summary of Estimated Capital Costs, WestPoint WWTP Improvements
Description
Chemical Feed
Cost (2010 $)
Phase 1
Improvements
$175,000
Cost (2010 $)
Phase 2
Improvements
Influent Pumps
$150,000
Aeration Basin/Mixers
$386,000
Final Clarifiers/RAS Pumps
$79,000
$380,000
Anaerobic Digestion
$2,760,000
•
.
Construction Total
$3,400,000
•
$530,000
Contingency (30%) •
$1,000,000
.
$160,000
Engineering, Legal & Administration (15%)
$660,000
.�
.
$100,000
Total Capital Cost
$5,060,000
,..:;
.',.
$790,000

Mr. Edward Burchins
June 14, 2010
Page 12
cc: Dave Zimmer, CDM

City of Laurinburg, NC
Project: WestPoint WWTP Improvements
Date: June 2010
Subject: Planning Level Capital Cost Opinion
Process
Item
Quantity"
• Unit Rate
Phase 1
Total Cost
Phase 2
Total Cost
Chemical Feed •Mg,
N and P metering pumps
6
ea
$20,000
$120,000
Mg, N and P storage tanks - 2500 gal
3
ea-
$15,000
$45,000
Rapid mixer
• 1
ea '
.,-$10,000
. $10,060
Influent pumps
Open screw pump, 30 hp, 4500 gpm, 15 ft lift
(installed in existing structure)
1
ea '
• _ $150,000
-
'
$150,000
Aeration basin
Floating surface aerators, 75 hp -
11
ea
$32,000
$352,000
- - -
Spare
1
ea'
$30,000
$30,000
Mixers
Move from aeration basin
• 2
ea
$2,000
$4,000
Final Clarifiers
Rehab /replace scraper, 90 ft diameter"
1
ea""
•- " $$06,000
$306,000
Repair skimmer/center well/weirs and baffles _
1
ea
' • .$79,000
- $79,000
RAS Pumps
15 hp, 1950 gpm
2
ea
• ;.' $25,000
_
$50,000
6" plug valves
6
ea
` $4,000
$24,000
Aerobic digestion
2.5 MG tank
2
ea '
$1:250,000
$2,500,000
Floating surface aerators, 50 hp
10
ea
" 1 $26,000
$260,000
WWTTP Improvements Subtotal
$3,400,000
$530,000
Construction Contingency
_
30
%
$1,000,000
$160,000
Total Construction
$4,400,000
$690,000
Engineering, Legal & Administration
-
15
%
,.
$660,000
$100,000
Total Capital Cost
$5,060,000
$790,000

City of Laurinburg, NC
Project: Campbell Soup Company Pump Station/Force Main Evaluation
Date: June 2010
Subject: Planning Level Capital Cost Opinion
Item
Quantity
•
.Unit Rate
Total Cost
Pump Station
Pump station (4,000 gpm peak capacity at 225 ft
TDH; 2 duty 250 HP pumps and 1 standby)
5.8
mgd
$0.45 / gal
$2,587,500
Pump Station Construction Contingency
25
% .
$650,000
Pump Station Subtotal
$3,240,000
Force Main -
- -
18-in PVC force main (open cut)
31,500
If.
$120 / If
$3,780,000
18-in force main under roadways (trenchless)
150
If
.
. $1,000 / If
$150,000
18-in force main under river (trenchless)
200
If
$1,500 / If
$300,000
Rock excavation allowance (See Note 2)
1
Is
`. $2'00,000 Is
$200,000
Air/vacuum valves in manholes
15
ea_
$10,000 ea
$150,000
Force Main Construction Contingency
10
%
$500,000
Force Main Infrastructure Subtotal
$5,080,000
Pump Station/Force Main Construction Total
$8,320,000
Engineering, Legal & Administration
15
%
. ,
$1,250,000
Land Acquisition Contingency
1
Is
.. $1'00,000
$100,000
Total Capital Cost
$9,670,000
Notes:
1. Force main material assumed to be C905 PVC.
2. Assumes no significant rock or problematic subsurface material encountered.
3. Assumes 3 road crossings and 1 river crossing.
4. Easement acquisition cost assumed, actual cost may vary depending on final pipeline alignment.
5. All costs are in 2010 dollars.

Barblir, Jim
From: Robert Ellis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Barber, Jim
Subject: FW: Laurinburg-CDM Call
Attachments: Laurinburg_04_18_11.docx
From: Mills, Dianne jmailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Ed Burchins; Jenny Tippett; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Zimmer, David
Subject: FW: Laurinburg-CDM Call
This is a copy of the report in tracking mode. I have changed the numbers throughout the tables to reflect the changes we agreed to:
Added $30K for Adm
Used the Wooten report book value for plant
Increased the debt service interest rate to 5.5% which increased the rate of return.
After our phone call today I will send another draft version with the tracking gone.
I have another conference call at 4 which I cannot change so I will only have 30 minutes.
Thanks
Dianne B. Mills 1 Management Consultant
CDM
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 512 I Charlotte, North Carolina 28204
t/f: 704-342-4546 X205 1 704-342-2296 www.cdm.com
1

City of Laurinburg: Campbell Soup Analysis
1.0 Background & Purpose
The City of Laurinburg (the "City" or "Laurinburg") is currently assessing the feasibility of treating
wastewater flows from the Campbell Soup Company ("Campbell Soup"). One option the City is
evaluating is the purchase of the WestPoint Pepperell
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to handle the flows from
Campbell Soup. CDM was retained previously by the City to
evaluate the capital and construction costs associated with
adequately treating the estimated flow from Campbell Soup.
In the previous study, dated June r ', it was estimated that the
cost of the pump station and force main to convey to the
WestPoint plant would be an estimated $9,67o,000. This
estimate included engineering, legal, administration and land
acquisition. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that
Campbell Soup would fund these improvements directly and that cost is not included in this analysis.
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine the hypothetical rate the City would charge
Campbell Soup for the use of the WestPoint plant, assuming the purchase of the plant by the City. For
this analysis, it is assumed that there will only be two customers contributing flow to the plant -
Campbell Soup and Gulistan Carpeting ("Gulistan"). If additional customers are expected to .
contribute flow to the plant, it would be necessary to amend the analysis to include the impact of those
customers.
City of Laurinburg
Campbell Soup Analysis
Key Team Members
Dianne Mills, CDM
_Brian orXer, CDM
Date
April 12, 2011
Formatted: Superscript
The analysis follows the utility method of cost recovery, which focuses on both an operating cost
component and a capital cost component. The plant operating costs and the capital improvements
that would be required to treat the flow from Campbell Soup is based on CDM's previous cost
estimates. For the purposes of this exercise, the purchase price of the plant is assumed to be the net
book value (original cost of the plant assets depreciated to current year) as defined in the Wooten
report on the WWTP. This is an important assumption to note as the actual purchase price of the plant
may differ substantially from the net book value depending on the results of negotiations. Any
variations in the purchase price will result in a calculated rate different from what is presented herein.
The net book value calculated in the Wooten report was used as a purchase pricempslat °n-g
those estimates of depreciation up to this year. An overview of the utility method is outlined in the •
following section.
2.0 Overview of the Utility Method
The utility method of cost recovery is based on allocating to customers the system costs for
operations and maintenance separately from capital costs. The operating cost element is allocated
among customers based on individual flow characteristics. The general idea is that the cost to
operate and maintain the system is dependent upon the amount of flow through the system, so eaeh
customer should pay its proportionate share of those costs based on flow. The process to calculate a •
general O&M rate is to divide the total allocable O&M cost by total flow to get a flow per 1,00o gallon, •
that applies to all customers.
•1

In this analysis, the operating cost element also factors in BOD loadings from Campbell Soup. As
extra strength waste, treatment of BOD loadings theoretically requires greater expenses than norr 'al.
wastewater flow. Since Gulistan is not anticipated to have any BOD loadings, the estimated portion
of the operating costs that deal with treating BOD are separated and allocated directly to Campbell '.
Soup as a separate charge per ioo pounds.
The capital cost element under the utility method contains a charge for depreciation and a return.oh
rate base of the assets. This provides proper compensation for the costs of creating and replacing •
assets to ensure system integrity and to cover interest costs on the debt financed portion of capital •
and a return on the equity portion of assets. The approach requires a valuation of the current system,
in this case the current net book value of the plant and the cost of any anticipated improvements that
would be required as a result of the additional flow. These values are multiplied by a rate of return
factor to calculate the annual return on rate base. The return on the rate base is added to the annual
depreciation, and this total is divided by the total annual flow to determine a rate per r,000 gallons .
applied to both customers.
3.0 Rate Analysis
The following section details the approach to estimate the rate to adequately recover the costs of the ,
WWTP. For the purposes of this analysis, the following assumptions have been used:
▪ Campbell Soup is expected to pay for the entirety of the pump station and force main
required to convey flow to the plant
• The estimated average daily flow for Campbell Soup is 2.69 MGD, and o.7 MGD for Gulistan
• Average daily BOD loadings from Campbell Soup is estimated to be 15,933 lb/day, or 58,155
roo lb annually
• BOD treatment expense is assumed to be 75% of the chemicals and power costs at the plant
• The rate of return is assumed to be 5.5e% which is based on the anticipated interest rate for
revenue bonds
• The cost of anticipated capital improvements are assumed to be bonded at a rate of 5.5e%:
with and amortization of 3o years and a 2% cost of issuance. Capital is inflated at 3.o%
• It is assumed the City will recover 5o% of the capital rate through a monthly fixed charge
The next section describes the cost categories and how the expenses are allocated into the
appropriate categories.
3.1 O&M and Capital Cost Recovery
The O&M costs in this case are recovered by three separate but related rates — a general O&M charge
based on total flow, a charge to recover the costs of conveyance from Campbell Soup, and an extra
strength BOD treatment charge based on Campbell Soup loadings. The first step is to separate the,,
expenses into the appropriate expense category. As mentioned, it is assumed that 75% of the power
and chemical costs at the plant are BOD related expenses. The operating expenses related to
conveyance are to be incurred entirely by Campbell Soup. All other O&M expenses are allocable to
the general O&M category.
COM

Table i shows the breakdown of operating costs by allocable category.
Table
City of Laurinburg
Schedule of Operating Expenses
Campbell Soup Analysis
Allocable Category
FY 2012
General Operating
Personnel
$443,500
Electricity/Chemicals
383,000
Maintenance/Repairs
706,500
Professional/Contract Services/Lab
42,000
Capital Outlay
36,000
Administration
30,000
Other/Contingencv
164.500
Total Revenues
$1,805,500
Operating Expenditures Campbell BOD
Electricity/Chemicals
$1,149,000
Operating Expenditures Campbell PS/Pipeline
Electricity/Maintenance
$290,000
Total Operating Cost
$3,244,500
Annual capital costs are determined by calculating the annual depreciation and annual rate of return..
on plant assets. The depreciation on the plant assets were calculated using straight line depreciation.:
This included both the depreciation on existing plant assets and the annual depreciation on the $3.9M
in anticipated capital improvements. The rate of return is calculated using the rate of return factor
multiplied by the net book value of the existing plant (estimated to be $2.7M) and the $3.9M of
improvements (OCLD-Original Cost Less Depreciation). Table z shows the results of the capital cost
recovery calculation.
•

Table 2
City of Laurinburg
Schedule of Capital Recovery
Campbell Soup Analysis
Allocable Category .
OCLD
Return on Rate
Capital Recovery
West Point WWTP
$2,681,000
$147,455
Phase 1 and 2 Improvements
$3.900,000
$214,500
Total 0
$6,581,000
$361955
I
Annual Depreciation on Assets
West Point WWTP
$144,537
Phase 1 and 2 Improvements
$130,000
Total
$274,537
Total Capital Cost to be Recovered
$636,492
The following section outlines the calculations for the rates that would be assessed to both Campliell
Soup and Gulistan.
3.2 Rate Calculations
The general O&M rate is calculated by dividing the total allocated O&M cost by the total system flOw.
The resulting cost per i,000 gallons applies to all flow from both Campbell Soup and Gulistan. As
previously mentioned, Campbell Soup intends to incur all costs related to conveying its flow to the
plant. Therefore it necessary to calculate a separate rate per i,000 gallons for the costs related to the
pump station and pipeline, allocable solely to Campbell Soup. .
The remaining piece to the O&M rate is the rate per BOD loading. Since Gulistan is not expected to
have any BOD loadings, the BOD related expenses divided by Campbell Soup's estimated loading per
year yields a rate per loading that would be assessed to Campbell Soup.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the O&M rate calculation.
Table 3
City of Laurinburg
O&M Rates Calculation
Campbell Soup Analysis
O&M
Annual Flow
Cost per 1,000 gal
General Operating Charges
$1,775,500
. 1,237,350
$1.43
Campbell PS/Pipeline
$290,000
981,850
$0.30
O&M .''
Campbell Loadin g
'.„ (100 lb/year)
Charge per 100 lb
BOD Charge Calculation
$1,149,000
58,155
$19.76
ccM
•..
• ' .

The capital recovery rate has been separated into a fixed monthly capital charge and a volumetric
charge. For this analysis, the assumption is that the City will recover half of the capital cost through
the fixed charge, and half through the volumetric charge. The monthly fixed charge is calculated
using the pro rata share of the fixed cost to be recovered (i.e. 50% of total capital cost) based on flow.
The volumetric charge calculation involves dividing half of the total capital cost by total annual flow.
Table 4 outlines the capital recovery rates.
Table 4
City of Laurinburg
Capital Rates Calculation
Campbell Soup Analysis
Costs
Annual Flow
Monthly Fixed Charge
Total Capital Cost to be
Recovered:
$636,492
1,237, 350
Monthly Fixed Fee
$318,246
1,237,350
Campbell
$21,044
Gulistan
$5,476
Costs
Annual Flow
Cost per 1,000 gal
Volumetric Rate
$318,246
1,237,350
$0.26.
3.3 Estimated Impact of Rates
This section describes the estimate impact the calculated rates would have on a typical bill for each
customer as well as the impact on,revenue and expenses for the City. Table 5 estimates the typical
monthly bills for Campbell Soup and Gulistan under the calculated rates.
Table 5
City of Laurinburg
Estimated Monthly Billings
Campbell Soup Analysis
Campbell Soup
Gulistan
Total Monthly Revenue
General Operating Charges
$117,406
$30,552
$147,958.
Campbell PS/Pipeline
$24,167
$24,167
BOD Charge Calculation
$95,750
$95,750.
Capital Charge Fixed
$21,044
$5,476
$26,520.:
Capital Charge Per 1,000 Gal
$21,044
$5,476
$26,520'.
Total Monthly Billings
$279,412
$41,504
$320,916.•.

Table 6 outlines the schedule of revenues and expenditures by category as it pertains to this exercise.
The debt service is calculated using the inflated estimated annual improvements needed at the plant
and on the estimated purchase price of the plant. As mentioned, the purchase price of the plant is
assumed to be the net book value of the plant as determined in the Wooten report, -and -updated. The
results of the analysis project net revenues to the City of approximately $195,000.
•
Table 6
City of Laurinburg
Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures
Campbell Soup Analysis
Cost
Revenues
O&M Charges
$2,065,500
BOD Charges
$1,149,000
Capital Charges
$636,492
Total Revenues
$3,880,992
Operating Expenditures
General Operating
$1,805,500
Campbell PS/Pipeline
$290,000
Extra Strength Operating
$1,149,000
Total Operating
$3, 244, 500
Debt Service
$441,275
Net Revenue
$195,217
A number of assumptions were made in this analysis order to get a starting point for the rate analysis.
These assumptions if changed could have a significant impact on the suggested rates. It is very
important-that---94,e-r-eleasing-te-Cacuphell-as-a-r-ate-Fee.ammendation:

Buffer Selections
Buffer Distance (feet)
1
Source Layer
Parcels
Target Layer
Parcels
Measure Results
Segment: 0 feet
feet
Area: 7.95 acres
rsiacK I tans

a
1
... , . .. . — - - • ' — ..:10
a
..1Z•
• 40
W
•

• Sign In 1 Register
• Contact Us
• Subscribe
ik LOT
.o... +arm
• Vacation Starts/Stops
Search
Pinehurst's Wagram Water Deal Not Likely
Wagram water tower
By John Krahnert III
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Favorite -story -
Your favorites
Discuss__ __.._. Share -this -
Comment, Bloq about Email, Facebook, TwitterAdvertisement
Specialty , Y 9 Pharmacy
Now OPEN
Medicine
Food
Fitness
Knowledge
Compounding
ending
Pinehurst's bid to buy water and -wastewater treatment plants in Scotland County for $5.5
million appears to be over.
Village Manager Andy Wilkison said today that the Scotland County Board of Commissioners
has still not approved the deal, and it doesn't appear that will change. The owner of the plants
— WP Properties Wagram — is now shopping them to private entities, he said.
"As far as the village of Pinehurst being the lead agency in trying to make something happen
that would involve the Wagram plants and their use for the public in the Lumber River basin, I
think that initiative has stalled out, probably permanently," Wilkison said, adding, however,
there is still the possibility that another public entity could take up the cause.
The two plants served a former Westpoint-Pepperell textile plant. The village announced its
intention to purchase the plants last July. The deal included the plants, an intake line and 198
acres of land. It had hoped to close on the deal in November, but the deal became hampered
by delays in Scotland County.
According to state law, the Scotland County Board of Commissioners has the right to approve
or deny the sale of utilities to an entity that is from outside of the county.
The village and Scotland County reached an impasse over when feasibility and due diligence
studies on the deal should be conducted. Village officials wanted approval before they
committed a significant sum of money to conduct any studies.
Scotland County wanted the studies completed before voting on the proposal. The deal has
been hanging in limbo for a few months.
Wilkison said Pinehurst has not withdrawn its proposal -and the owner of the plants hasn't

rejected it, but completing the deal now seems unlikely.
"It would appear that the owner sees our bid as unworkable, at least of right now," he said.
He said theoretically, Scotland County could change its mind, bait said every indication leads
him to believe that won't happen. He said there hasn't been anf communication with Scotland
County officials recently.
Village officials who supported the deal not only said the plants Would help alleviate
Pinehurst's water issues, but would be a resource for the entire: region.
The village had hoped to form a consortium of partners — neighboring counties and
municipalities — to utilize the facilities.
Mayor Ginsey Fallon said today that if anything, Pinehurst's bid to acquire the facilities has
raised public consciousness and the visibility of the resource. She said the village would
continue to study the possibility of additional wells to supplement its water supply. She
stressed the importance of conservation and planning for the future.
She hoped that the plants are still pursued.
•
"The end of the desire was to secure water not only for Pinehurst,.but for the entire region,"
she said. "That was what we were so excited about. Maybe it'll all happen anyway, but it won't
be purchased by Pinehurst."
Just recently, the Moore County Board of Commissioners expressed its preliminary interest in
the facilities and agreed to join other communities in seeking a.grant to study the plants'
potential.
"If it still happens somehow, that's a good thing," Wilkison said. "That's what we wanted. To
that extent, we didn't feel like Pinehurst had to be the lead on it. We were just the only ones
at that time willing to take a step out there and acquire them.
"If the facilities slip away and are lost for the public's possible benefit in the future, that would
be disappointing."
Contact John Krahnert III at [phone] or by e-mail at jkrahnert©thepilot.com.
More like this story
. Village's Wagram Water Deal Falls Through
• Village Still Has Interest in Wagram Plants
• Village Water Deal Reaches Impasse
• Water Deal Reaches Impasse
. Village's Deal in Wagram Faces Delay
Like
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Advertisement