NC0087084_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20010109

p"
OR
am
am
MR
a"
F"
F"
0"
so
p"
am
mm
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
FOR
RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOWN OF FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, P.E.
OMcGM
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Post Office Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
JANLTARY, 2001
00524
P 5°c
c U' � � I

am
am
am
I. INTRODUCTION
II. DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
�+ APPENDICES
ow
m"
o"
am
ow
am
f,
am
em
f—"
em

so
am
no
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
The Riverstone Industrial Park is an industrial complex that is proposed to
be developed in the southern portion of Rutherford County, North Carolina,
adjacent to the Broad River and U.S. Highway 221. The industrial park is
currently designed to contain approximately 48 separate lots, totaling
approximately 1,152 acres. Ultimately, the industrial park is expected to employ
5,000 workers.
The developer of the property, Stonecutter Mills Corporation, has agreed
ow to give the nearby Town of Forest City approximately 17 acres of land on the
industrial park property for the construction of a wastewater treatment facility to
serve the park. The Riverstone Wastewater Treatment Plant is planned to be
owned and operated by the Town of Forest City, and is proposed to be located
near the confluence of Floyd's Creek and the Broad River to allow a wastewater
discharge to the Broad River.
ow
If constructed, the Riverstone Wastewater Treatment Facility could also
be used to treat the wastewater generated at Chase High School (located
approximately 3.4 miles north of the industrial park), in addition to numerous
homes in the surrounding area of the school and the industrial park. Wastewater
flow from the high school is currently pumped through five (5) separate lift
stations prior to treatment at the Town of Forest City Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
am
MR 1

am
This study evaluates alternatives for the treatment and disposal of
wastewater from the proposed industrial facility. The alternatives have been
evaluated on an estimated construction cost basis as well as a present worth
basis over a twenty-year operations period.
The alternatives that have been evaluated are:
•
Alternative No.1 - No Action
•
Alternative No. 2 - Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment works
Alternative 2-A — Connection to Town of Forest City Sewer Svstem
Alternative 2-B — Connection to Cliffside Sanitary Sewer District WWTP
Alternative 2-C — Connection to Chesnee, South Carolina Sewer System
•
Alternative No. 3 - Connection to a Privately Owned Treatment Works
•
Alternative No. 4 — Individual and Community Subsurface Systems
,^
•
Alternative No. 6 — Surface water Discharge Through NPDES Permit
.,
System
•
Alternative No. 6 — Drip Irrigation
•
Alternative No. 7 — Spray Irrigation
"'' •
Alternative No. 8 — Reuse
am
am
M
FM
IM 2

5ECTION II DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS
As previously mentioned, the Riverstone Industrial Park is proposed to be
developed in the southern portion of Rutherford County, adjacent to the Broad
River and Highway 221. Wastewater generated by this facility is proposed to be
treated at the Riverstone Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is
planned to be constructed near the confluence of Floyd's Creek and the Broad
River. A location map of the proposed industrial park site and wastewater
treatment plant site is included in Figure 2-1.
Ultimately, it is anticipated that the industrial park will employ
approximately 5,000 people. In addition, the Riverstone WWTP may also be
used to treat wastewater generated at Chase High School (see Figure 2-1), and
approximately 200 homes in the vicinity of the high school and the industrial park
that are not currently served by the Town's sewer system. Therefore,
wastewater flow to the WWTP in gallons per day (GPD) is ultimately anticipated
5713511159 M.
5,000 employees X 25 GPD/employee = 125,000 GPD
Chase High School flow (per water billing records) = 15, 000 GPD
200 homes X 3 bedrooms/home X 120 GPD/bedroom = 72, 000 GPD t�-�
Industrial Process Flow (Estimated) = 238, 000 GPD�-
TOTAL ESTIMATED FLOW = 450,000
It is therefore proposed to obtain an NPDES permit and construct a
wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 450,000 GPD to serve the above
3

described areas. Due to the fact that it may take several years for the industrial
park to reach its full capacity, it is proposed to construct the project in two (2)
phases.
Phase 1 of the project would consist of the construction of a 100,000 GPD
wastewater treatment facility to serve the initial facilities that locate to the
industrial park, and could allow for immediate plans to construct sewer lines to
r
serve Chase High School and the surrounding area.
Phase 2 of the project is proposed to take place approximately ten (10)
years after the construction of the Phase 1 facility. Phase 2 would consist of the
upgrade of the facility from 100,000 GPD to 450,000 GPD to allow for the
increase in flow that is eventually expected to be treated at the Riverstone
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
M

FIGURE 2-1
Riverstone Industrial Park
Location Map [
Town of Forest City Chase Road
Rutherford County, North Carolina
rHarris Henrietta Road
�S
�27
_ 1,vSl i
I\ a OHarris
moo° Elementary I \
School
cc° 1 I Harrill Road
� 1
1 l
\ I
\ J „
\ J
\ \ scale: T-2000'
� I
Goa \
/
R
�o9°c
°
T
I PROPOSEDPROPOSED
RIVERSTONE
I RIVERSTONE WASTEWATER —
\ INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT
1 PARK SITE PLANT ��
ase High \
hool

M"
+m
SECTION III WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
on
OR The following is a discussion of the alternatives available to the Town of
no Forest City for the wastewater disposal alternatives. Included in this discussion
0"
are estimates of the capital costs of each alternative as well as a present worth
analysis for the 20 year planning period. The costs will be used to compare the
various alternatives, and to make recommendations for wastewater disposal at
the facility.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 — NO ACTION
This alternative consists of no action being taken by the Town of Forest City to
provide wastewater treatment to the Riverstone Industrial Park. Without an
adequate method of wastewater disposal, the land could not be developed into
the industrial park, resulting in a loss of the 5,000 jobs that are anticipated to be
available by the construction of the park. The development of the industrial park
is expected to provide significant economic growth to both the Town of Forest
City and Rutherford County. To allow for this growth, it appears to be in the best
interest of the Town to provide a method of wastewater disposal to the industrial
park site. Alternative No. 1 is therefore not an acceptable alternative and will not
MM be discussed in further detail.
R"
a+ 5

ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 — CONNECTION TO A PUBLICLY OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
Three (3) public sanitary sewer systems are currently known to be located
within five (5) miles of the proposed industrial park site. The systems are as
follows:
A. The Town of Forest City operates a wastewater pump station that is
located at Chase High School, approximately 3.4 miles north of the
— industrial park site (Alternative 2-A).
B. Cone Mills Corporation operates a WWTP that includes domestic flow
from the Cliffside Sanitary Sewer District, and is located approximately
five (5) miles to the northeast of the proposed industrial park site
(Alternative 2-13).
C. The Town limits of Chesnee, South Carolina are located approximately
four (4) miles to the south of the proposed industrial park site. The
Town operates a wastewater treatment facility with a design capacity
of 0.5 MGD (Alternative 2-C).
Alternative 2-A — Connection to Town of Forest City Sewer System
Alternative No. 2-A involves connecting to the Town of Forest City's
wastewater collection system by pumping the flow from the Riverstone Industrial
Park to the existing Chase High School lift station. This alternative would require
a lift station to be constructed at the same location as the proposed wastewater
R

treatment plant to collect all flow generated at the industrial park. Due to the
elevation differences between the proposed lift station location and the existing
lift station at the high school (approximately 200 feet), at least two (2) new
wastewater lift stations would need to be constructed to pump the flow from the
industrial park to the school. Based on preliminary calculations that are included
in Appendix C, it is assumed that two (2) submersible pump stations, each
consisting of a concrete wet well with two (2) submersible solids handling pumps,
control panel, emergency generator, and a chain link fence would be required to
pump the flow from the industrial park to the existing high school lift station.
Figure 3-1 includes a preliminary map of the proposed lift station locations, and
the location of Chase High School pump station.
If this alternative were selected, wastewater flow from Chase High School
would continue to be pumped to the Town's sewage system by the existing high
school lift station. Therefore, the 15,000 GPD of flow from the high school that is
included in the estimated Riverstone WWTP flows would not be included in the
flows received by the industrial park lift stations. Flow from the 200 homes in the
vicinity of the industrial park and high school is assumed to be included in the
potential flow to the industrial park lift station.
For hydraulic purposes (See Appendix C), Phase 1 of the project would
consist of the construction of two (2) lift stations and related force mains to
adequately pump an average daily flow of 100,000 GPD to the existing Chase
High School lift station. Wastewater flow that currently enters the high school lift
7

station is pumped through five (5) separate lift stations prior to final treatment at
the Town of Forest City's wastewater treatment plant.
— Flow is pumped from the high school lift station to a lift station at Chase
Middle School, and then must be pumped through two (2) additional lift stations'
near the Town of Alexander Mills (Highway 221A Lift Station and Alexander Mills
Lift Station), and a large pump station near Bracketts Creek prior to treatment at
the Town of Forest City VWVFP. None of these pump stations currently have
adequate capacity to pump an additional 100,000 GPD of flow, with the
exception of the Bracketts Creek lift station,
For this alternative to be feasible, the High School, Middle School, and
both Alexander Mills pumping stations would need to be replaced with higher
capacity facilities to pump the additional flow. In addition, a large portion of the
force mains and gravity sewer lines between the lift stations would also need to
be upsized to account for the increase in flow. Preliminary calculations regarding
the size of the lift station, force main, and gravity sewer upgrades are included in
Appendix C.
The Town of Forest City currently holds an NPDES permit to discharge
4.95 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater into the Second Broad River at
their wastewater treatment plant. According to NCDENR Daily Monitoring
Reports, current flows at the facility average approximately 4.0 MGD. It is
therefore assumed for the purposes of this study that the 100,000 GPD of flow
generated by the industrial park in Phase 1 will not require an upgrade to the
facility. 4•0 tab> µ&D
OVO-
8 4 _6

'.
-1
FIGURE 3-1 F°-
Alternative 2-A Pump to r °°
Chase High School Lift Station Laurel �P
Town of Forest City Chase Road Avenue �\
Rutherford County, North Carolina -� Chose High\
,V, , School
s z2 EXISTING \
CHASE HIGH
SCHOOL
5!' LIFT STATION �
I\ a Harris
Elementary
School
c°' 1
Harrill Road
°
/ ( Food
\ Ga\\C5 —
\ ( " PROPOSED
\ / FORCE MAIN
\ 1 scale: T-2000'
I 1
sp, ra
0
0
�oq°° %
PROPOSED i
PROPSR LIFT STATION, FORCED GAIN
I PROPOSED N
PROPOSED
I RIVERSTONE RIVERSTONE
INDUSTRIAL LIFT STATION_,
PARK SITE
1
�� Boo,

Table 3-1 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase
1 of Alternative 2-A.
r TABLE 3-1 ALI
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-A (PHASE 1)
r
r
r
a"
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$71,900
Duplex Pump Station (Complete,
including wet well, pumps and
controls, generator; and fencing)
2
EA
$175,000
--
$350,000
6-inch Diameter Force Main
25,500
LF
$30
$765,000
8-inch Diameter Force Main
14,300
LF
$40
$572,000
10-inch Gravity Sewer Line
1,000
LF
$60
$60,000
Upgrade Chase High School Lift
Station
---
LS
---
$150,000
Upgrade Chase Middle School Lift
--
LS
----
$150,000
-Station
Upgrade Alexander Mills Lift Station
No. 1
--
LS
---
$175,000
Upgrade Alexander Mills Lift Station
No. 2
---
LS
----
$175,000
SUBTOTAL
$2,468,900
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$246,900
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$251,000
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
$15,000
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$10,000
TOTAL COST
$2,991,800
�5
cp
�Ep10'a r
I-
9

Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the two (2) lift stations
constructed in Phase 1 to an average daily flow capacity of 435,000 GPD
(450,000 GPD as calculated in Section 2 minus 15,000 GPD from Chase High
School). Phase 2 would also involve upgrades to the force mains constructed in
Phase 1 to meet current State regulations for velocity (See calculations in
Appendix C). It is assumed that the lift station wetwells constructed in Phase 1
would be designed with enough storage capacity to continue to be used in
Phase 2. Therefore, the lift station upgrades would only involve the replacement
of pumps in the lift stations, and related electrical upgrades.
The lift stations, force mains, and gravity sewers located from the Chase
High School lift station downstream would also need to be upsized to account for
the increase in flow. Preliminary calculations estimating the required size of the
sewer lines and lift stations are included in Appendix C.
The 435,000 GPD would increase the flow at the Town of Forest City's
wastewater treatment facility to approximately 90% of the current design
capacity. In order to keep a reserve capacity available at the facility, it is
assumed that an expansion to the plant will be constructed in conjunction with
the pump station upgrades for Phase 2.
Table 3-2 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase 2
of Alternative No. 2-A.
10

MM
TABLE 3-2
an
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-A (PHASE 2)
Im
0"
0"
am
f"
M"
P"
M"
I"
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$117,100
Upgrade Lift Stations Constructed
in Phase 1
2
EA
$75,000
$150,000
Upgrade Existing Force Main to
8-inch Force Main
2,000
LF
$40'
$80,000
Upgrade Existing Force Main to
12-inch Force Main
41,200
LF
$50
$2,060,000
Upgrade Existing Gravity Line to
18-inch Gravity Line
3,200
LF
$65
$208,000
Upgrade Chase High School Lift
Station
----
LS
----
$100,000
Upgrade Chase Middle School Lift
Station
----
LS
----
$100,000
Upgrade Alexander Mills Lift Station
No. 1
----
LS
----
$100,000
Upgrade Alexander Mills Lift Station
No. 2 -
----
LS
----
$100,000
Upgrade Forest City VWITP by
335.000 GPD @ $3/GPD
----
LS
----
$1,005,000
SUBTOTAL
$4,020,100
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$402,000
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$398,000 -
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$15,000
TOTAL COST
$4, 835,100
M
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would consist
00 of the power costs to the new pump stations, additional power costs at the
existing pump stations that will be upgraded, and the maintenance costs
am
I i .M 11

am
associated with the pump stations and force mains. Table 3-3 includes an
estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 2-A (See Appendix C for
calculations).
TABLE 3-3
am
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-1
am
am
OR
am
ITEM
PHASE 1 (0.1 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
PHASE 2 (0.45 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
Power Requirements
$16,900
$26,200
Pump Station Maintenance
$6,000
$6,000
Force Main/Gravity Sewer
Maintenance
$8,200
$9,300
TOTAL
$319100
$419500
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed in year 10, the 20-year
present worth cost of Alternative 2-A, using a discount rate of 6.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below: P01
PW = $2,991, 800 + $31,100 (PIA 6.625%, 10 yr. + $4,, 835,100 x (P/F,
6.625%, 10 yr.) + $41� x (P/A. 6.6.25%, 10 yr.), x (P/F, 6.625%, 10 yr.)
6 a t-A c. ,o o (' f cl" I---�-� Go.. # �4 ba do +v
PW = $2,991,800+ ($31,100 x 7.15) + ($4,835,1�0 x 0.527) + ( 4µ
($41, 500 x 7 15 0527) _.
PRESENT WORTH = $59918,637
� f
C rs.��
�., 12 '

No
no
Alternative 2-B — Connection to Cliffside Sanitary Sewer District WWTP
Cone Mills Corporation, Inc. owns and operates a wastewater treatment
facility in Rutherford County, and currently holds an NPDES permit to discharge
1.75 MGD of treated wastewater into the Second Broad River. The facility is
located approximately five (5) miles to the northeast of the industrial park site.
The majority of the flow treated at the facility is generated at the Cone Mills
Industrial plant, but the WWTP also treats domestic wastewater from the Cliffside
Sanitary Sewer District. Cone Mills Corporation was contacted regarding the
possibility of accepting and treating the wastewater generated at the Riverstone
Industrial Park at the existing -Cone Mills WWTP.
Discussions with Cone Mills Corporation have indicated that the company
f" does not have the interest in receiving the flow from the park. A letter from Mr.
Arthur J. Toompas, Corporate Environmental Manager of Cone Mills Corporation
is included in Appendix A at the back of this report.
Due to the correspondence with Cone Mills Corporation, the option of
pumping the Riverstone Industrial Park flow to the Cone Mills WWTP will not be
discussed further.
M
am
on
a, 13

Oft
an
Alternative 2-C — Connection to Chesnee, South Carolina Sewer System
am The Town of Chesnee, South Carolina is located approximately four (4)
am
miles to the south of the Riverstone Industrial Park site. According to the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the Town
OR owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility with a design capacity of 0.5
am
MGD, and the facility is currently treating approximately 221,000 gallons of flow
per day.
The Town of Chesnee was contacted to discuss the option of pumping
wastewater flow from the proposed industrial park to the Town's sewer system.
Mr. Connie Nichols, Mayor of the Town of Chesnee expressed interest in
accepting the flow, but noted that the Town's existing wastewater plant does not
am currently have the capacity to treat the quantity of wastewater that is eventually
am
anticipated from the park.
For the purposes of this study, it is therefore assumed that pumping flow
am from the Riverstone Industrial Park to the Town of Chesnee sewer system is a
0" feasible option. It is also assumed that flow would be required to be pumped
a"
form the industrial park site directly to the Town of Chesnee wastewater
treatment plant. This assumption is based on the fact that the Town's existing
FM wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of just 0.5 MGD, and therefore, the
existing sewer collection system is assumed to not have the capacity to accept
a"
an additional 450,000 gallons of flow per day. No costs have been included to
M
ffin 14

am
so
upgrade existing force mains, pump stations, or gravity sewer lines within the
OM
Town of Chesnee's existing sewer system.
"M If this alternative were selected, it is assumed that flow from Chase High
School would continue to be 'pumped to the Town of Forest City's sewer system.
Therefore, the 15,000 GPD of wastewater that is generated at Chase High
School will not be included in the total flow that would be pumped to Chesnee's
VW TP. The 200 homes that are in the vicinity of the industrial park are
assumed to be able to be served by the industrial park lift stations, and therefore
have been included in the flow calculations. For hydraulic purposes (See
calculations in Appendix C), Phase 1 consists of pumping an average daily flow
of 100,000 GPD of flow and Phase 2 consists of pumping an average daily flow
of 435,000 GPD of flow to Chesnee's VWVfP.
am A lift station would be required to be constructed at the same location as
the proposed wastewater treatment plant to collect all flow generated at the -
industrial park. Due to the elevation differences observed on the USGS.
Quadrangle maps for the area, the elevation difference between the lift station at
the industrial park and the Chesnee Wastewater Treatment Plant would require
an additional pump station to be constructed along Highway 221 in South
Carolina. The preliminary design for this alternative consists of one (1) lift station
on the industrial park site that pumps across the Broad River and across the
North Carolina/South Carolina border, to a second lift station. The second lift
",
station would pump the flow to the Chesnee VW TP.
M
P" 15

am
AMR
It is therefore assumed that two (2) submersible pump stations, each
am
consisting of a concrete wet well with two (2) submersible solids handling pumps,
am control panel, emergency generator, and a chain link fence would be constructed
so to pump the flow to the Town of Chesnee. Preliminary calculations regarding the
size of the lift stations and force mains are included in Appendix C.
a" Phase 1 of the project would consist of the construction of two (2) lift
� stations and related force mains to adequately pump an average daily flow of
100,000 GPD to the Town of Chesnee WWTP. According to the information
received from SCDHEC, the existing plant has enough capacity to treat this
ME$ increase of flow without expanding the facility. Figure 3-2 includes a preliminary
map of the proposed lift stations and the location of the existing Chesnee
rMh
wastewater treatment plant.
7 Table 3-4 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase
a, 1 of Alternative No. 2-C.
am
am
am
M
M
M
16

I �A
HHOPUbLE)
RIVEPtSTONE;
INDUSTRIAL PARK,
SITE
AIN it
.PROPOSED
s
LFT STATION'�
A�
PROPOSED
SCALE =2 FORCE MAIN
11; -.11Z
PROPOSED
LIFT STATION -
14-
--j 14,
CIS
PROPOSED
FORCE MAIN i
TX
EXISTING FIG FIG 3 2 -
CHESNEE WWTP --
ALTERNATIVE 2-C PUMP TO
-",4" ar. CHESNEE S.C. WWTP.i
TOWN OF FOREST CITY
01 lTL=0CrM2n t" *JTV kh-NOTIJ A-. AOf%l IM A

AM
OR
0,
MR
P"
M,
0,
6"
TABLE 3-4
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-C (PHASE 1
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$33,500 -
Duplex Pump Station (Complete,
including wet well, pumps and
controls, generator, and fencing)
2
EA
$175,000
$350,000
Force Main Crossing of Broad River
1
LS
$30,000
$30,000 _
6-inch Diameter Force Main
249500
LF
$30
$735,000 , .
SUBTOTAL
$1,148,500
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$114,900
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$139,300
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
$40,000
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$10,000
TOTAL COST
$1,452,700
a" _ Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the two (2) lift stations
constructed in Phase 1, and related force mains to transfer an average daily flow
of 435,000 GPD (450,000 GPD minus 15,000 GPD from Chase High School) of
�+ wastewater flow from the industrial park to the Chesnee plant. It is assumed that
the wetwells of the lift stations constructed in Phase 1 would be sized with
enough storage capacity for the increase in flow in Phase 2. Therefore, the
pump station upgrades would only involve the replacement of pumps in the lift
-F,
stations, and related electrical upgrades.
1 17

OM
The 6-inch force mains that are constructed in Phase 1 would not be
sufficient to transfer the increased flow to the treatment plant. Therefore, the 6-
go lines would need to be replaced with new 12-inch force mains in order to
MR adequately handle the average daily flow of 435,000 gallons per day (See
calculations in Appendix C).
In addition to the upgrades to the lift stations and force mains, the
am additional 335,000 GPD of wastewater flow for Phase 2 would be added to the
Town of Chesnee's wastewater treatment plant. Based on current flows at the
plant per SCDHEC (221,000 GPD), the additional total flow of 435,000 GPD
would increase the total flow at the plant to 656,000 GPD. As a result, an
expansion to the Chesnee VllWTP would be necessary to treat and discharge the
flow. It is assumed that Chesnee would need to maintain a reserve capacity at
0" their plant to provide for future growth in the area. Therefore, a 335,000 GPD
wastewater treatment plant expansion will be included in the cost analysis to
treat all of the Phase 2 flow from the industrial park.
Table 3-5 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase 2
of Alternative No. 2-C.
M
MM
RM
18

am
TABLE 3-5
am
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO.2-C (PHASE 2)
0"
0"
am
MIR
on
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$72,600
Upgrade Lift Stations Constructed
in Phase 1
2
EA
$75,000
$150,000
Upgrade Force Mains Installed in
Phase 1 to 12-inches
24,500
LF
$30
$1,225,000
Upgrade Force Main Under Broad
River
1
LS
----
$40,000
Upgrade Chesnee VW TP by
335,000 GPD @ $3/GPD
----
LS
----
$11005,000
SUBTOTAL
$2,492,600
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$249,300
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$253,100
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$10,000
TOTAL COST
$3,005,000
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would
consist of the power costs to the pump stations, and the maintenance costs
associated with the pump stations and force mains. A sewer usage charge from
the Town of Chesnee has also been included for the costs to treat the
wastewater flow. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Town's
existing sewer usage charge would apply ($25.40 for the 1 sc 4,000 gallons, and
$3.45 for every 1,000 gallons thereafter during a 2 month period).
Table 3-6 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative
No. 2-C (See Appendix C for calculations).
I. 19

no
am
TABLE 3-6
00
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-C
am
am
fm
ITEM
PHASE 1 (0.1 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
PHASE 2 (0.45 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
Power Requirements
$12,300
$151400
Pump Station Maintenance
$2,000 -
$2,000
Force Main Maintenance
$4,900
$4,900
Sewer User Charge
$124,300
$559,000
TOTAL
$1439500
$5819300
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed in year 10, the 20-year
present worth cost of Alternative 2-C, using a discount rate of 6.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated as
follows:
PW = $1,4529700 + $143,500 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) + $3,005,000 x (P/F,
6.625%, 10 yr.) + $581,300 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) x (P/F, 6.625%, 10 yr.)
PW = $1,452,700 + ($143,500 x 7.15) + ($3,005,000 x 0.527) +
($581,300 x 7.15 x 0.527)
PRESENT WORTH = $6,252,727
1 p O) cc
1 c�
Gc> /y3 jdU j21A
� � v
�I
c
6v
20
r�1

am
am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 — CONNECTION TO A PRIVATELY OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
Dan River, Incorporated operates a textile facility that is located
approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the proposed industrial park site near
OM Hayes Lake. Dan River, Incorporated currently holds an NPDES permit to
discharge 0.91 MGD of wastewater from the facility to the Broad River. The
wastewater treatment facility treats only the industrial waste generated at the
textile plant. A separate septic system is currently in operation that treats
am domestic waste generated at the plant.
MN
Dan River, Inc. was contacted regarding the possibility of treating the flow
from the industrial park at the existing Dan River wastewater treatment plant.
Discussions with Dan River, Inc. have indicated that the textile company does
not have the interest in receiving any flow from the Riverstone Park for various
reasons. A letter from Mr. W.J. Lunney, Director of Engineering for Dan River,
Oft Inc. explaining the company's decision to not accept the flow is included in
am
Appendix A at the back of this report.
Due to this correspondence with Dan River, Inc., the option of pumping
the Riverstone Industrial Park flow to the Dan River wastewater treatment facility _
0" will not be discussed further.
am
am
On
21

am
dER
ALTERNATIVE NO.4 — INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE SYSTEM
so
In accordance with State requirements, a detailed soil analysis report was
Oft performed on the site of the proposed Riverstone wastewater treatment facility.
A copy of the report that was completed by Toney C. Jacobs & Associates of
Mooresville, North Carolina is included in Appendix B of this report.
The soil analysis report concludes that less than one-half of the soils that
were studied on the industrial park site are provisionally suitable for septic
systems. In addition, the report states that "the density, intensity, and flow of
your proposed site will have to be drastically reduced to get an on -site option"
and that subsurface systems are not feasible at the design flow.
Due to the information and recommendations included in the soils
f"
analysis report, the option of treating the wastewater from the Riverstone
Industrial Park with a subsurface system will not be discussed further.
OW
014
am
am 22

ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 - SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE THROUGH THE
NPDES PERMIT SYSTEM
This alternative consists of the construction of a wastewater treatment
facility on the site of the Riverstone Industrial Park, and a discharge of the
treated wastewater into the Broad River. The treatment facility would be
constructed in two (2) phases — Phase 1 would involve the construction of a
facility with a design capacity of 100,000 gallons per day (GPD) and Phase 2
would upgrade the facility constructed in Phase 1 to 450,000 GPD. According to
information obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the
Broad River has an estimated 7Q10 flow of 201 CFS = 130 MGD at the location
of the proposed wastewater treatment plant.
At this time, it is proposed to construct a sequencing batch reactor as the
main treatment unit for the new facility. Phase 1 of the project would involve the
construction of an influent pump station, mechanical bar screen with manual
bypass, a pre -equalization basin, and one (1) SBR unit that would be sized to
treat an average daily flow of 100,000 GPD. Treated flow from the SBR would
enter a post -equalization basin, followed by chlorination and dechlorination in a
chlorine contact basin, and finally would be discharged into the Broad River.
Sludge from the SBR unit is proposed to be transferred to a sludge
-r
holding tank, and then hauled to the Town of Forest City Wastewater Treatment '
Plant for dewatering by an existing sludge dryer. The proposed plant would also
include a new laboratory/electrical building, and a chlorine/sulfur dioxide building.
23

M
A preliminary site plan for the Phase 1 Riverstone Wastewater Treatment
Plant is included in Figure 3-3. Table 3-7 provides an estimate of the capital
costs associated with Phase 1 of Alternative No. 5.
TABLE 3-7
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO.5 (PHASE 1)
Qty
Unit
Unit Price
Total Cost'
1
Mobilization (3%)
1
L.S.
---
$34,500.00
2
Site Grading
12,000
C.Y.
$5
$60,000.00
3
Gravel Road to WWTP
1
L.S.
$15,000
$15,000.00
4
6-inch Water Line to Plant
1
L.S.
$20,000
$20,000.00
5
Influent Pump Station and Force Main
1
L.S.
$90,000
$90,000.00
6
Mechanical Bar Screen w/ Manual Bar Screen
Bypass
1
L.S.
$95,000
$95,000.00
7
Pre -Equalization Basin
1
L.S.
$40,000
$40,000.00
8
100,000 GPD Sequencing Batch Reactor in
Concrete Tank
1
L.S.
$220,000
$220,000.00
9
Sludge Holding Tank
1
L.S.
$50,000
$50.000.00
`
10
Post Equalization Basin with Effluent Control
Valve and Vault
1
L.S.
$60,000
$60.000.00
11
Chlorine Contact Basin
1
L.S.
$10,000
$10.000.00
12
Office/Laboratory Building with
Mechanical/Electrical Room
1
L.S.
$100.000
$100,000.00
13
Chlorination/Dechlorination Building Including
Chlorination and Dechlorination Equipment
1
L.S.
$80,000
$80,000.00
14
On -Site Asphalt Paving
1
L.S.
$50,000
$50.000.00
15
Yard Piping
700
L.F.
$40
$28,000.00
16
Sewer Outfall to River
150
L.F.
$50
$7,500.00
17 lEmergency
Generator
1
L.S.
$50,000
$50,000.00
18 JElectrical
1
L.S.
$175,000
$175,000.00
Total Construction Cost
$1,185,000.00
Contingencies
Preliminary Planning and Site Assessments
Engineering Design
Construction Inspection and Contract
Administration "
Legal/Administrative
$118,500.00
$8,000.00
$92,000.00
$51,000.00
$15,000.00
=,. Total Project Cost 1,469,500.00'
24

r
r
r
r
FIGURE 3-3
PHASE-1 PROPOSED RIVERSTONE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TOWN OF FOREST CITY
x RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE 1'=80'
\� Lciborbtory\\and \
—'Electrical Buildinai
\ 1 1
\ I II
\ J
\ J
\\� Flow E-qualizationJ�
\\ 'S°�-.SBR Unit
Control Valve Vault
--Post Equal z�tion___� [
Basin
\ \
--Gh`rine Conn- �t
Chlorine / SO
° Buildin��
[-�ivage
Basin
I ,,
Paved Access
Road
\ 1
I I
Gravity Sewrr
By Others��`�
Infiuent II \
I 1
Force Main
J
/Sludge Lop6ing �r J
Station /
w I(
J I In6ent \
J Pump Stat
Effluent Disc rge
PHASE 1 — 100,000 GALLON/DAY
WWTP CONSTRUCTION
i
\o
B Screen
an Manual
Byp ss
I
\\
BROAD RISER

A
FM
Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the wastewater
treatment plant that was constructed in Phase 1 from a design capacity of
100,000 GPD to 450,000 GPD., It is anticipated that much of the existing
tankage and facilities that are constructed in Phase 1 will be utilized in the Phase
2 upgrade of the plant.
am The plant expansion would result in the upgrade of the influent pump
station constructed in Phase 1, It is assumed that the pump station wetwell
would be adequately sized during Phase 1, therefore a new influent pump station
wetwell would not be required. The influent pumps would need to be replaced,
OR along with any necessary electrical upgrades.
MR
In addition, it is proposed that the Phase 2 plant would include a new
influent force main, mechanical bar screen with manual bypass, and grit removal
system at the head of the plant. Two (2) new sequencing batch reactors are
proposed to be constructed to provide the primary treatment at the new facility.
No -
The existing SBR unit constructed during Phase 1 would be converted to sludge Y
holding to provide for adequate sludge storage capacity at the new plant.
Effluent from the SBR units would flow to a new post equalization � basin,
jP11/ a*1
and then would be disinfected in a new chlorine contact basin. A new discharge j-
pipe to the Broad River is also proposed to be constructed.. �� W
It is assumed that the chlorine building and office/laboratory building that 1
are proposed to be constructed in Phase 1 will be adequately sized for Phase 2 ���
of the project, so that no upgrades will be required to the facilities during the
FM 25

-
Phase 2 plant expansion. Therefore, no additional costs have been added to the
project for the upgrade of these buildings in Phase 2.
A preliminary site plan for the Phase 2 Riverstone Wastewater Treatment
Plant is included in Figure 3-4.
-
Table 3-8 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase
2 of Alternative No. 5.
_ TABLE 3-8
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 (PHASE 2)
-
-
-
-
Qty '`
1
Unit
'Uiit Price
Total Cost
1
Mobilization (3%)
L.S.
---
$34,900.00
2
Site Grading
5,000
C.Y.
$5
$25.000.00
3
Upgrade Influent Pump Station
1
L.S.
$75,000
$75,000.00
4
New Influent Force Main
400
L.F.
$30
$12,000.00
5
Mechanical Bar Screen w/ Manual Bar
Screen Bypass
1
L.S.
$100,000
$100,000.00
I
6
Grit Removal System
1
L.S.
100,000
$100,000.00
7
Influent Control Valve Vault
1
L.S.
$15,000
$15,000.00
8
450,000 GPD Sequencing Batch Reactors
in Concrete Tank
I
L.S.
$450,000
$450.000.00
9
Post Equalization Basin with Effluent
Control Valve and Vault
1
L.S.
$75,000
$75.000.00
10
Chlorine Contact Basin
1
L.S.
$25,000
$25,000.00
11
Asphalt Road Extensions
1
L.S.
$20,000
$20,000.00
12
Yard Piping
700
L.F.
$45
$31,500.00
13
New Sewer Outfall to River
150
L.F.
$60
$9,000.00
14
Emergency Generator
1
L.S.
$75,000
$75,000.00
15
Electrical
1
L.S.
$150,000
$150,000.00
Total Construction Cost
$1,197,400.00
Contingencies
Engineering Design
Construction Inspection and Contract
Administration
Legal/Administrative
$119,700
$85,000
$48,200
-
$1 5.000
Total Project Cost $1,465,30(1.0(l
— 26

FIGURE 3-4
PHASE-2 PROPOSED RIVERSTONE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TOWN OF FOREST CITY
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Grit movaI 1
tem� 1
Qlow Conti I�
Va'Ivp' Vault
SCALE 1"=80'
1
Cc vert\ \SBRUnit t�
Slu ge Holding Tankt
SBR Jr -its _
60-r tool Valve
Vault tTyp)
Post,,EquaIization
Basin
�h+oi:�ine Contact
Basin _
`\ —,.Effluent lseharge
PHASE 2 — 450,000 GALLON/DAY
WWTP CONSTRUCTION
Paved Access
Road
1
Gravity Sewer
By Others—�
I � I
New Influent�l
N force Main/ r J
i
I Infl�ent \
Pu p Statb
/ Upgrade
B Screen
an Manual
\ Byp ss
I \\
BROAD RIVER

OR
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative No. 5
would consist of the costs to operate a wastewater treatment facility. A listing of
these items is included in Tables 3-9.
TABLE 3-9
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
ITEM
PHASE 1 (0.1 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
PHASE 2 (0.45 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
Salaries and Benefits
$30,000
$60,000
Office Expenditures
$11000
$2,000
Bonds and Insurance
$1,000
$2,000
Chemicals
$2,000
$4,000
Supplies
$3,000
$51000
Utilities
$15,000
$40,000
Maintenance and Repairs
$4,000
$10,000
Testing
$5,000
$10,000
Sludge Hauling To Forest City
WWTP
$121000
$54,000
Miscellaneous
$2,000
$3,000
TOTAL
$75,000
$190,000
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed in year 10, the 20-year
present worth cost of Alternative 5, using a discount rate of 6.625% (per current
NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is as follows:
27
M

mmI
No
PW = $1,469,500 + $75,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) + $1,465,300 x (P/F,
om
6.625%, 10 yr.) + $190,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) x (P/F, 6.625%, 10 yr.)
am PW = $1,469, 500 + ($75, 000 x 7.15) + ($1,465, 300 x 0.527) +
($190,000 x 7.15 x 0.527)
im
PRESENT WORTH = $3,493,893
so
p"
lo 0 (10.9
om
an
m"
am 28

OM
Om
no
ALTERNATIVE NO.6— DRIP IRRIGATION
Alternative No. 6 includes the construction of the proposed VVVV7P
described in Alternative No. 5, but instead of discharging the effluent flow into
the Broad River, the treated effluent would be applied to land in the area by a
drip irrigation system. Per State guidelines, a detailed soil analysis report was
`W" performed for the Riverstone Industrial Park area. A co of the soils report that
p PY P
am was completed by Toney C. Jacobs & Associates of Mooresville, North Carolina
is included in Appendix B at the back of this report.
Based on information included in the report, an on -site irrigation system is
-, not recommended at the flows that are anticipated by the industrial park due to
on
a,
the large area requirements that would be required for this type of system to
operate. According to the report, the recommended loading rate for the treated
effluent in this area is 0.5 to 1.0 inch of treated wastewater per week. Using the
maximum recommended amount of 1-inch per week equates to a total volume of
0.09 gallons per day per square foot (GPD/SF).
Am
Utilizing this loading rate, approximately 26 acres of effective area will be
am required for the 100,000 GPD of treated effluent in Phase 1, and approximately
115 acres will be required for the 450,000 GPD in Phase 2, not including
setbacks. According to State regulations, drip irrigation systems require 50-foot
Oft setbacks from property lines. Applying the 50-foot setback requirement requires
a drip irrigation site to have approximately 31 acres of available land for Phase 1
WA
and approximately 126 acres of available land for Phase 2. The actual total
P"
A+ 29

MR
OM
amount of acreage may vary depending on the physical dimensions of the tract
of land that would be used for a drip irrigation system.
am The developer of the industrial park has agreed to give the Town of Forest
OM
City approximately 17 acres of land on the industrial park property for the
construction of the wastewater treatment facility. It is estimated that the
AM construction of the wastewater treatment plant will consume approximately five
OR (5) acres of land. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it will be assumed
that twelve (12) acres of land remain on the tract of land, and can be used for
Ad
spray irrigation. Any additional land necessary to meet State regulations for the
dripirrigation system will be required to be purchased from the developer of the
9 Y q
industrial park.
In addition, the State regulations require a minimum of 5-day storage
4" pond to hold the effluent during wet or freezing weather. Therefore, a 500,000
am
gallon aerated storage pond will be required for Phase 1, and a total of 2.25
million gallons of holding ponds will be required for the ultimate flows in Phase 2.
01% The wastewater treatment plant in Alternative No. 5 will be designed to
0"
meet current State regulations for discharge limits. For a drip irrigation system, a
filter has also been added to the project to increase the treatment at the facility
and improve the quality of the effluent that is discharged through the drip
P" irrigation system.
Table 3-10 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with
am
Phase 1 of Alternative No. 6.
Am
go 30

0"
TABLE 3-10
PM
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO.6 (PHASE 1)
oft
On
am
Auk
am
ow
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$91,700
100,000 GPD Riverstone VVVVTP
----
LS
----
$111851000/
Filters at WWTP
----
LS
----
$120,000
5 Day Storage Lagoon (0.5 MG)
----
LS
----
$200,000
Drip Irrigation Pump Station
2
EA
$100,000
$200,000
Drip Irrigation Force Main
10,000
LF
$35
$3500000
Drip Irrigation Systems
----
LF
----
$1,000,000
SUBTOTAL
$3,146,700
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$314,700
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$257,300
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$15,000
PROPERTY ACQUISITION (19 ACRES)
$190,000
TOTAL COST
$3,923,700
Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the wastewater
treatment plant as described in Alternative No. 5, and the upgrade of the drip
ow irrigation system to a capacity of 450,000 gallons per day.
am Table 3-11 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase
2 of Alternative No. 6.
on 31

W"
0"
TABLE 3-11
fim
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 (PHASE 21
AM
Oft
MA
P"
40
a"
00
ow
014
PM
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$206,900
Upgrade Riverstone WWf P to
450,000 GPD
----
LS
----
$1,197,400
New Filters at WVVfP
----
LS
----
$200,000
5 Day Storage Lagoon (2.25 MG)
----
LS
----
$900,000
Upgrade Drip Irrigation Pump
Stations
2
EA
$50,000
$100,000
Upgrade Drip Irrigation Force Main
50,000
LF
$50
$2,500,000
Drip Irrigation Systems
----
LF
----
$2,000,000
SUBTOTAL
$7,104,300
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$710,400
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$607,300
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$15,000
PROPERTY ACQUISITION (95 ACRES)
$950,000
TOTAL COST
$9,387,000
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would
consist of the O&M costs described in Alternative No. 5 for the wastewater
treatment plant, plus additional O&M costs for the drip irrigation system. Table
3-12 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 6.
Oft 32

A
0M
On
a"
am
Am
a"
)w
TABLE 3-12
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
ITEM
PHASE 1 (0.1 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
PHASE 2 (0.45 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
UWVfP O&M (Alt. No. 5)
$75,000
$190,000
Drip Irrigation System
$10,000
$20,000
TOTAL
$869000
$2100000
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed in year 10, the 20-year
present worth cost of Alternative No. 6, using a discount rate of 6.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below:
PW = $3,923,700 + $85,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) + $9,387,000 x (P/F,
6.625%, 10 yr.) + $210,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) x (P/F, 6.625%, 10 yr.)
PW = $3,923,700 + ($85,000 x 7.15) + ($9,387,000 x 0.527) +
($210,000 x 7.15 x 0.527)
PRESENT WORTH = $10,269,690
Am 33

am
MR
a•
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 — SPRAY IRRIGATION
Alternative No. 7 includes the construction of the proposed VVWTP
described in Alternative No. 5, but instead of discharging the effluent flow into
the Broad River, the treated effluent would be applied to land in the area by a
spray irrigation system. Per State guidelines, a detailed soil analysis report was
as" performed for the Riverstone Industrial Park area. A copy of the soils report that
OR was completed by Toney C. Jacobs & Associates of Mooresville, North Carolina
A"
04
is included in Appendix B at the back of this report.
Based on information included in the report, an on -site irrigation system is
not recommended at the flows that are anticipated by the industrial park due to
the large area requirements that would be required for this type of system to
operate. According to the report, the recommended loading rate for the treated
dft effluent in this area is 0.5 to 1.0 inch of treated wastewater per week. Using the
A"
maximum recommended amount of 1-inch per week equates to a total volume of
0.09 gallons per day per square foot (GPD/SF).
Utilizing this loading rate, approximately 26 acres of effective area will be
as required for the 100,000 GPD of treated effluent in Phase 1, and approximately
115 acres will be required for the 450,000 GPD in Phase 2, not including
setbacks. According to State regulations, spray irrigation systems require 150-
xm� foot setbacks from property lines. Applying the 150-foot setback requirement
0"
requires a spray irrigation site to have approximately 43 acres for Phase 1 and
approximately 148 acres for Phase 2. The actual total amount of acreage may
vary depending on the physical dimensions of the tract of land that is obtained.
Am 34

am
A*
The developer of the industrial park has agreed to give the Town of Forest
City approximately 17 acres of land on the industrial park property for the
OM construction of the wastewater treatment facility. It is estimated that the
M%
construction of the wastewater treatment plant will consume approximately five
(5) acres of land. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it will be assumed
that twelve (12) acres of land remain on the tract of land, and can be used for
spray irrigation. Any additional land necessary to meet State regulations for the
drip irrigation system will be required to be purchased from the developer of the_ or r�
industrial park. 30 d'°
In addition, the State regulations require a minimum of 5-day storage
pond to hold the effluent during wet or freezing weather. Therefore, a 500,000
gallon aerated storage pond will be required for Phase 1, and a total of 2.25
million gallons of holding ponds will be required for the ultimate flows in Phase 2.
The wastewater treatment plant in Alternative No. 5 will be designed to
meet current State regulations for discharge limits. For a spray irrigation system,
a filter has also been added to the project to increase the treatment at the facility
and improve the quality of the effluent that is discharged through the spray
irrigation system.
7 Table 3-13 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with
pw, Phase 1 of Alternative No. 7.
35

!""
TABLE 3-13
Am
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO.7 (PHASE 11
mo
Am
Im
00
No
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$84,200
100,000 GPD Riverstone WWf P
----
LS
----
$1,185,000
Filters at UWI TP
----
LS
----
$120,000
5 Day Storage Lagoon (0.5 MG)
----
LS
----
$200,000
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
2
EA
$100,000
$200,000
Spray Irrigation Piping
10,000
LF
$35
$350,000
Spray Irrigation Systems
----
LF
----
$750,000
SUBTOTAL
$2,889,200
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$288,900
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$267,300
LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE
$15,000
PROPERTY ACQUISITION (31 ACRES)
$310,000
TOTAL COST
$3,770,400
Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the wastewater
Am
treatment plant as described in Alternative No. 5, and the upgrade of the spray
irrigation system to a capacity of 450,000 gallons per day.
Table 3-14 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase
2 of Alternative No. 7.
oft
,., 36

so
a*
w
fm
0"
f^
oft
TABLE 3-14
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE NO.7 (PHASE 2)
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Mobilization (3%)
----
LS
----
$191,900
Upgrade Riverstone WWfP to
450,000 GPD
----
LS
----
$1,197,400
New Filters at WWTP
----
LS
----
$200, 000
5 Day Storage Lagoon (2.25 MG)
----
LS
----
$900,000
Upgrade Spray Irrigation Pump
Stations
2
EA
$50,000
$100,000
Upgrade Spray Irrigation Piping
50,000
LF
$50
$2,500,000
Spray Irrigation Systems
----
LF
----
$1,500,000
SUBTOTAL
$6,589,300
10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$658,900
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
$567,000
LEGAVADMINISTRATIVE
$15,000
PROPERTY ACQUISITION (105 ACRES)
$1,050,000
TOTAL COST
$8,880,200
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would
consist of the O&M costs described in Alternative No. 5 for the wastewater
.treatment plant, plus additional O&M costs for the spray irrigation system. Table
3-15 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 7.
,.. 37

oft
TABLE 3-15
AM
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE NO.7
om
0M
M,
ITEM
PHASE 1 (0.1 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
PHASE 2 (0.45 MGD)
ANNUAL COST
WWTP O&M (Alt. No. 5)
$75,000
$190,000
Drip Irrigation System
$15,000
$30,000
TOTAL
$909000
$2209000
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed in year 10, the 20-year
00
present worth cost of Alternative No. 7, using a discount rate of 6.625% (per
oft current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below:
PW = $31770,400 + $90,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) + $8,880,200 x (P/F,
am
6.625%, 10 yr.) + $220,000 x (P/A, 6.625%, 10 yr.) x (P/F, 6.625%, 10 yr.)
PW = $3,7709400 + ($90,000 x 7.15) + ($8,880,200 x 0.527) +
($220, 000 x 7.15 x 0.527)
PRESENT WORTH = $9,922,736
MW
0"
A"
no
Am
,,�, 38

A"
OM
ALTERNATIVE NO.8 — REUSE
This alternative involves reusing all or a portion of the wastewater
•• generated at the industrial park site to minimize or eliminate the need for a
surface water discharge. Potential reuse options include drip or spray irrigation,
oft
industrial process or cooling water, the use of reclaimed water for toilet flushing,
A% etc.
Drip irrigation and spray irrigation systems were previously analyzed in
this report as Alternatives No. 6 and No. 7. These options do not appear to be
economically feasible when compared to other disposal methods, based on a 20-
year present value analysis.
At this time, there are no known industries that are planning .to locate a
facility to the industrial park that could reuse the wastewater treatment plant
40* effluent as either a process or cooling water.
Using reclaimed water for toilet flushing at the facilities would still involve
the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. The option of plumbing all
facilities to use treatment plant effluent is not an economically feasible
alternative, nor would there be sufficient demand to utilize the required effluent
flow.
Therefore, the option of reusing treated wastewater from the Riverstone
Industrial Park will not be discussed further.
6,SS'ecr-V-Q�
M"
AM 39

SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of ten (10) alternatives were examined for the treatment and
_ disposal of wastewater generated by the proposed Riverstone Industrial Park in
Rutherford County, North Carolina. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the cost
analyses that were performed for the alternatives.
..� TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
r
.-,
Alternative
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 1
Phase 2=P�resent
Capital
Capital
O&M
0&MCost
Cost
Cost
Cost
1 —No Action
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
2: A — Connection to►
Town of Forest City
$2,991,800
$4,835,100
$31,100
$41,500
$5,918,637
wer System
2-13 — Connection to
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Cliffside WWTP
2-C — Connection to
Chesnee, SC Sewer
$1,452,700
$3,005,000
$143,500
$581,300
$6,252,727
System
3 — Connection to
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Dan River WWTP
4 — Individual and
Community
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Subsurface System
5— River Discharge#
$1,469,500
$1,465,300.
$75,000
$190,000
. 3,493,893
6—Drip Irrigation
$3,923,700,
$9,387,000
$85,000
$210,000
$10,269,690
7 — Spray Irrigation
$3,770,400
$8,880,200
$90,000
$220,000
$9,922,736
8 —Reuse
NF
NF
NF
NF
r NF
From the above table, Alternative No. 5 appears to be the most
economical alternative for the 20 year planning period. This alternative will allow
for the construction of a new treatment facility to treat 100,000 GPD of flow in
Phase 1 and 450,000 GPD in Phase 2.
100) L)O0
QO LP L�1
p3,01q,'72D
*2 ZV ,5oa
40

I�
i
Therefore, Alternative No. 5 is the recommended alternative for treating
the wastewater that is generated at the Riverstone Industrial Park.
�j
41
it

AM
Am
am
A"
oft
Am
A"
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE FROM
DAN RIVER, INC. AND
CONE MILLS CORPORATION

Dan River Inc.
A" William J. Lunney P.O. Box 261
Director of Engineering Danville, Virginia 24543
Environmental and Safety 804/799 7120
oft September 28, 2000
Mr. Mike Apke
McGill Associates
55 Broad Street
,.► Asheville, NC 28801
RE: NPDES Permit Application in Harris, NC
oft Dear Mike:
I understand your task of exploring all of the alternatives to
building a sewage treatment facility. I further understand that the
effluent from the proposed Industrial Park to be primarily sanitary
waste.
We would not entertain accepting the proposed waste stream for --the
following reasons:
1. Our present facility is designed as a process waste treatment
facility and sanitary is not included. The facility is so
permitted.
2. The incoming filter screens are designed to remove lint.
Therefore, the concept of accommodating sanitary waste would
involve considerable retrofitting at the influent to the plant.
3. The current -Land Application Permit is not subject to the-502
,., Regulation, given the absence of sanitary. It is our preference
to continue operating in this mode.
4. The manufacturing facility is designed to double the current
�. capacity. The excess treatment capacity is being held in reserve
to accommodate the anticipated.increase.
I trust this adequately addresses your inquiry. Should there be any
further questions, please do not, hesitate to be in touch at 804/799-
7120.
Sincere y,
W. L ney
Di ector of Engi ring,
Environmental and Safety
kat
,..► wj100-65
cc: Greg Boozer
Lee Goodrich
Mike Patterson
WILL ASSOC. o FILE COPY
RECEIVED
OCT. 9 2000
Project #
Pile
QUALITY TEXTILES By DESIGN

CONE MILLS CORPORATION
31OI NORTH ELM STREET
P.O. BOX 26S40
GREENSBORO, NC 27415-6540
Ct#11t3.1-1%#NE
October 92 2000
Mr. Michael S. Apke, E.I.T.
McGill Associates, P.A.
P O Box 2259
Asheville NC 28802
Dear Mr. Apke:
The Cone Mills/Cliffside Sanitary District wastewater treatment is not interested in accepting
the flow from the Riverstone Industrial Park. Expansions of existing facilities will not allow
the acceptance of this flow request.
Please call me at 336.379.6226 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Arthur J. Toompas
Corporate Environmental Manager
/jln

Am
AM
am
oft
P*
Am
PM
a"
404
mo
p"
MR
APPENDIX B
SOILS ANALYSIS REPORT

r•
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
FOR FEASIBILITY OF AN ON -SITE WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION
FOR THE 1100 ACRE RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
FOREST CITY, RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ow
ON
X"
am
MR
p"
00
�►i
Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, Lic.
Consulting Soil Scientists
168 Broadbill Drive
Mooresville, N. C. 28117
ofc [phone]
fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
November 14, 2000
,•w
To: Mr. Michael Waresak, P.E.
McGill Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28205
..
• p� CEgT '-�
0
♦ �•
CAOte Wlls • •
`O l
,U �- - �I Imo• • _'r: •.�_►�
W : TONEY C. jACO$S ; z;
i� CERTI D r-RQFi:u5P'JNAL ; ^
�% SOIL SCIENTIST
i♦
i
40
�0 SOIL SC jF\
G. JAC—�
V �
1063
a�.
\\OF WORTM
i
ToneyVJacoYI,CPSS

Ow
r
Preliminary site and soil evaluation for feasibility of on -site waste disposal option for the
1100 acre Riverstone Industrial Park, Forest City, Rutherford Co., N. C.
an Introduction
This evaluation was made to advise the wastewater engineer and applicable State
permitting agency of the soil resources and feasibility of a 450 thousand gallon per day
on -site waste system, either ground absorption septic or a surface disposal system by
spray or drip irrigation, along with site specific loading rate for such systems, and soil or
site specifics to consider in system design. No off -site parcels were examined for
potential use as waste receiver sites. This report addresses soil and site criteria for
permitting through NCDENR-DEH (T 15A. 18A .1900), which includes the Rutherford -
Polk -McDowell District County Health Department (RPMDHD), and also through
04 NCDENR DWQ (T 15A. 02H .0200). With these two agencies the disposal options
include a subsurface ground absorption system, a surface spray or drip system, or a
discharge system (NPDES), or a combination of systems. Preliminary plans are for the
. 1100 acre tract is to divided into 48 parcels for development and have 208 acres in green
space (Fig. 1). The green space is primarily in the buffer areas along the Broad River and
its tributaries. This area is flood plain, with steeper side or lineal slopes from -the uplands
to the bottomlands. Field work for this preliminary investigation was conducted in two
days, November 9 and 10, 2000. This included soil and site investigation and the
collection of soil maps and aerial photos of the site and adjoining properties. The soil
investigation did not include participation of staff from the RPMDHD or any other State
am
agency.
Assimilation of soil information in this report began with the Soil Suf-vey of
Ruthe? ford County (Keenan, in publication). With the aid of this map and the site plan,
three partial transects were made north -south across the property. Auger holes were
randomly placed from 1-4 feet in depth to verify NRCS mapping and soil use capabilities.
All natural cuts were examined and any tree throws were checked (Plates 1 & 2). Any
other environmental features to affect land use were also noted. The primary objective of
this work was to verify and expand past soil mapping to use for waste application.
on

G1
2
The recormnendation for either a ground absorption or surface disposal system is
.. based on a combination of factors, including, but not limited to 1) topography and
landscape positions, 2) soil characteristics, 3) wetness conditions, 4) soil depth, 5) soil
restrictive horizons, 6) available space, 7) ability to meet setbacks, 8) affect on surface
and groundwater, and 9) any nuisance factors. Generally, some of these conditions which
may limit site or system use can be compensated for by modifying the system design;
however, some factors cannot be remediated. It is with this philosophy that this report is
prepared.
This report is a supplement to an engineering design by Mr. Mike Waresak, P.E.,
McGill Associates, Asheville, N. C. Details required of that design have been omitted
from this work. Portions of conclusions or design reconmrendations may have been
modified to reflect unified efforts of soil scientist and engineer. Establishnnent of final
design flow is deferred to the engineer, but this evaluation was made with a requirement
for 100 thousand gallons per day initially, expanding to 450 thousand gallons per day in
., the future.
Site
�► The proposed industrial park is located in the south central part of Rutherford County,
approximately 7 miles south of Forest City, N. C. (Fig 2). The area around the park is a
mix of rural residential, moderate density residential, agricultural and woodlands (Fig. 2).
All of the residential homes in the area are served by individual septic systems.
Approximately 2.5 miles of property line borders Broad River to the south, a major area
drainage to tine area. Broad River drainage is much of south western N. C. and the
piednnont of S. C. The area is all in woods of varying degrees of salability. There is an
ongoing logging operation in the central portion of the property west of Hwy. 221 (Plate
2-top). A few of the old fields that were identifiable are now grown up in small pines,
briars, and other hardwoods. Much of this site is in vines and briars and is difficult to
move across. A 1984 soil map and air photo (Fig. 3) is very similar to the 1993 FSA photo
in Figure 4.
No old homes were observed, nor were they shown on the USGS topo map. There
M were numerous disturbed areas used by hunters. No time was spent locating water or

3
wastewater facilities at hunting camps. The USGS topo (Fig. 5) indicates no buildings on
the property.
Soils
�• The site was mapped by USDA-NRCS as approximately one-half Pacolet sandy clay
loam 8-15 and 15-25 percent slopes, eroded and one-half Pacolet-Bethlehem complex 2-
8, 8-15, 15-25 percent slopes, eroded. The small remainder of the tract is floodplain soils
Clrewacla and Buncombe. The Pacolet is on the broad interfluves which transects the site
primarily north to south. These are easily seen in Figure 3. Pacolet soils formed from
mostly acidic metaniorphic rock such as granite, gneiss, schist, and sillimanite-mica
schist. Pacolet soils are well drained, red or reddish yellow, have a moderate solum
(usually 20-40") and have a low shrink -swell potential (Plate 1-top & 2-middle).
Appendix 1 has technical information for Pacolet and Pacolet-Bethlehem Series. Plate 1-
A has a typical 36" profile from this landscape.
The site specific soil evaluation placed and described 20 plus subsurface profiles on
the site. The inspection points were roughly field located by line of site triangulation and
topo and are not shown on the site plan because horizontal control was very limited. The
.. full extent of logging road -cuts along Hwy 221 was checked and used as an entry point
(Plate 2-top & middle).
The soils were very wet on the surface, but dry below during the evaluations. Many
holes were prematurely terminated because of rock or rock fragments. Water was added
to soil as needed while field evaluations were made to get accurate colors, textures, and
consistencies. Soil colors indicated well -drained, highly oxidized soils in the upland
positions. No low chroma mottles were noted in soil profile descriptions. Drainage
mottles of two chronna or less were not observed because the lower landscape position
r.
was excluded from the evaluation. NRCS mapping indicates these as occasionally
M
flooded. Rock and weathered rock which would interfere with system performance or
installation were frequently encountered, and many rocks were observed on the surface
(Plates I & 2). The only minor restrictive horizons observed which could significantly
limit vertical water movement and waste use was rock. Most holes had less than 40" of
provisionally suitable soil in the upland and lineal slope areas. Many holes were

4
attempted that could not be placed to the prescribed (48") depth. Because of the scope of
this work, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) measurements were not taken, nor were
soil samples collected. Toney C. Jacobs & Associates had done an intense soil
investigation for Cherokee Corporation in 1993 which included site specific work on
property adjoining this parcel (Jacobs, 1993). From those measurements we would
estimate Ksat of the surface horizon at 10 inches per day and the clay loam B soil horizon
at 4 inches per day. Both of these values are less than the published NRCS which has a
range of 48-144 inches for the topsoil and 14.4 to 48 inches per day for the subsoil (B
horizon). We usually find the NRCS values to be above those values measured in the
field. Our measurements were taken by the Compact Constant -Head Penneameter method
described by Amoozegar (1989). Depending on the final waste disposal option, this
parameter will have to be evaluated to a much greater detail.
Slopes and topography are a major limitation to on -site waste disposal. The soil
survey has approximately 40% of the area as D slope which is 15-25%. The heavily
dissected landscape with ephemeral streams would require large aerial losses of potential
available wetted areas.
.. General Discussion
On -site Septic
., The initial investigation identified less than one-half of the soils as provisionally
suitable (PS) for ground absorption septic systems. These systems would require shallow
placement and pretreatment and be difficult or impossible to permit via NCDENR-DEH.
There are really no 450K gpd systems in Piedmont Carolina. These systems would utilize
all the area in the upper landscape position on the site and require about 230 acres for
system and required repair. Dealing with DEH and industrial wastewater would also be a
tremendous challenge because of the limited DISH engineering staff.
_ On -Site Spray
This could be aerial or drip technology and could load the field with 0.5-1.0 inches
of wastewater per week. A preliminary work -up of the best soil and landscape would
indicate a required 116 to 232 acres wetted plus buffer to support the 450 thousand gallon
per day design flow. Slopes would dictate the use of drip technology rather than aerial

5
spray. A project of this magnitude would be very expensive. (I just worked on one with
25K gpd that was almost one million dollars.) The site could support a small aerial spray
system with a grass receiver crop (Plate 2-bottom). This pasture is adjoining on the
northern property boundary. The assumptions for these numbers are based on the highest
level of treatment (reuse waters).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The density, intensity, and flow for your proposed site will have to be drastically
reduced to get an on -site option. If either of the two methods are used a much more
comprehensive soil and site evaluation will be required and this soil report supplemented.
A review of the USDA soil map for the area around this project indicates comparable
adjoining lands, so to look at an on -site option on adjoining property appears to be futile.
To keep the design flow of your proposed plan will require connecting to public or
private sewer with sufficient capacity or an NPDES permit with a treatment facility.
Certainly this requires a receiver stream which meets the demanding requirements of
DWQ. As mentioned in the introduction, a combination of technologies, such as a
conjunctive permit could be considered if flows in the Broad River are too low for this
discharge. Our opinion is that on -site is not feasible at this design flow. (450,°oo 31'4)
Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance with this project. If you decide or
^ should have to reduce flow (50-100K gpd may be manageable) and need further soil
investigation, let me know if I could be of assistance. If questions arise about this report
by your office, the developer, or State agency, please do not hesitate to contact me at the
address on the front.

6
CITED
1. Amoozegar, Aziz. 1989. A Compact Constant -Head Permeameter for
Measuring Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of the Vadose Zone. Soil
Science Society of Am.J. 53:1356-1361.
2. Jacobs, T. C., 1993.Soil and Site Evaluation for On -Site Waste Disposal
Area for the Cherokee Corporation Textile Finishing Plant -Near
Harris, Rutherford County, N. C., DEH & RPMDHD, Raleigh and
Spindale, N. C.
3. Keenan, S. C. (in publication) Soil Survey of Rutherford County, N. C.
USDA-NRCS.

`AR
= \ +�800,
.90
♦ \ I / �\ 1 // \1�`�\ ` ` \ 'ram' 1 �
I I g 1 11 No
\ \ \ 7 I I III////1- _�_�_��\`---_-��� ♦ \\ \\\� �` \ � I pl 'i
zb
It I ON
N.
III
ill
It
I \ I \1 \i
\ I i is lI I< CJrl!/I/l
I I11 r --' \\`,`=•db.l�ll 111\\\\\\``\\\I ^Iljll1l\I\I1\``�`r�-
\`ll 1 111 1111111 / \111\\ \\11 .♦\� \ /�iiii�� ♦\ \` NII 11 I t { 1 I I II! r 1 r \\\\ \� f, �\ \\Bb=%•
lwllll1 I I tIIlfI/I/'/^ //\I
1Il1
r1\\1t!1
!I II iIl1I
1lll�rlll{;i It ♦`` �\�\�+_�;,, ',� 1\Inl\
;\ll\\\\\\\\\11
I I I I / // / \ t1 11 \ 1 \ 1\ ll\t1 0l 111111111 III r\\\\\\\I I � I I1j
r l ♦ 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 II I I I\\\\111111 �//11 I1
\\\-
�•'(1llltl 1 1 t� r 1 111111141t \\\ \\\\tl \ i�/1 !/r 1\ \�slll!! 1/
\\\ \n\ I I \t.\I\\\ 1 11,1\- 1//I 1\i\``////i1i1J1j1111\
p t \\\F \ \\a \ 1 1 \1y�`\ ^
11
►� 1 1 1 I `� NW, \1 1\\ \\ 1\11\I .�\\ ///,• 11 \I III
1 \ I \ \ \ \ \\\\\\111\I \\\\ \ I I1111"'���—i�J/
1\\\111\\\\\ ` \►11\I11I
fit
lot -
\I\ oS
/=.=�
` \ \ 1 111\1 \— % �_• / 1 \`��� \ �1 ��\Jll III 1
II—
\\�\ \..1':—�� I/ Jill
1 8
\\�----'-�/ii'I
N ♦ \�. //11/Ji//�/r/ +\1 / ! 1 I� 1 II, I r 1 � 1 \\ _._.J-.�� i'// -1 \1�^_�_\\ \ \.___
Fy \ 1�11 I �J���1-�i'�t►/�/',J , 1IJfl�/III 1\I \--`� '/Ogt_ \ii-+,ter-Jel/�-\\
(D 00
En
C' O - v•, 1` \`Itl `ta `��e-v�-'i-,_- 'mod/i, 1 { ! I - - --\ \I ems+ _
ar
En
CD RO
(7 �' r- � !�„7 S/�r% l'ri
tv ~ y 1 1 i\// /—\`.`. i�/// T�'Jl' 1 5�, ur
0 � ramrr
... I 1� / � / \� �--�•!•-t %==J J\1 \\\1 -\�1 /-/ \ ♦t\ 1 \1s/O-�! J ♦ '��-�� ♦/ • -+- tip\
vCD
J.
kk
_1470. __—•//,- `�— It/— -- ,��'n^��1 \ m
IF
�n"i

W4
Ow
F"
a"
fam
m"
fm
am
fm
m"
40
MR
Rim
Area map Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, hic. Figure 2
168 Broadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 28117
mm

Ow
m
Om
04
spa
FAR
m"
m"
MR
0"
MR
MR
MR
OR
fm
Ow
mo
MR
NRCS soil map Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
168 Broadbill Ur.
Mooresville, NC 28117
Figure 3
mm

&41
All
ve j. -V
ti
77
V, Me-,
_; Mi
Ism.
vow_;_
LLL
12-4sr-IN
Mi

meters
0 Soo 1000 1SDo 2000
miles 0 o5 1A
Click anywhere on the map to recenter the map on that point.
Take a look at our Mao Legend for help with topographic map symbols
USGS topo I Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, bic.
168 Broadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 28117
Figure 5

Al
00
fm
am
RUTHERFORD COUNTY SOIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND
December 14 1995
STATUS SYMMOM
A
36B
70C
999D
999F
A 5A
924B2
924C2
924D2
A 7B
A 424C2
424D2
A 72,4B2
A 724C2
A 724D2
A 60B2
A 60C2
A 60D2
A Q
A 824E
A 824F
Map UNIT NAME
Appling sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30
percent slopes
Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex, 50*to 95
percent slopes
Bandana-Ostin complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
Bethlehem-Pacolet complex, 2 to 8 percent,
slopes, eroded
Bethlehem-Pacolet complex, 8 to 15 percent,
slopes, eroded
Bethlehem-Pacolet complex, 15 to 25 percent,
slopes, eroded
Buncombe loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded 15 to 25 percent slopes,.
Pacolet sandy clay loam,
eroded
Pacol
et -Bethlehem complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded percent slopes,
Pacolet-Bethlehem complex, 8 to 15 p
eroded complex, 15 to 25 percent
Pacolet-Bethlehem
slopes, eroded
Pacolet-Saw complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Pacolet-Saw complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded
Pacolet-Saw complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
stony
Pits, Quarries
Rion sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Rion -Ashlar -Rock outcrop complex, 45 to 70 percent
slopes

OR
," Pacolet Series
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability: Moderate
Parent material: Residuum that weathered mainly from
intrusive and high grade metamorphic rocks such as.
metamorphosed granite, migmatitic gneiss, biotite
gneiss and sillimanite-mica schist
Landscape: Piedmont
Landform: Divides
Landform position: Side slopes and summits
Commonly. associated
• soils: Madison, Bethlehem, Cecil, Saw and Rion soils
on summits and side slopes
Slope range: 2 to 25 percent
Taxonomic class: Clayey, kaolinitic, thermic Typic
Kanhapludults
MR Typical Pedon
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded; about 0.8 mile north of Ellenboro on SR
1007, 0.3 mile northwest on SR 1569, 900 feet
northeast of SR ?"-9 and 150 feet southwest of RR
tracks, in pastu:— at an elevation of 1,020 feet;
OSGS Forest City, NC topographic quadrangle; lat. 35
degrees 21 minutes 39 seconds N. and long. 81
degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds W.
a, hp--0 to 5 inches; dark reddish brown (5YR 3/4) sandy
clay loam; moderate sediun granular structure;
friable; many fine roots; 5 percent gravel by
volume; few fine flakes of mica;_ slightly acid;
clear smooth boundary.
Bt=5 to 26 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) clay; moderate
medium subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky,
plastic; common distinct clay films on faces of
peds; few fine and medium roots; few fine flakes of
-� mica; moderately acid; gradual wavy boundary.
BC=26 to 37 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam;
weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; gradual
wavy boundary.'
C1=37 to 52 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy loan
saprolite; massive; friable; few fine flakes of
mica; very strongly acid.
C2=52 tc- Q inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) sandy
loam saprolite; massive; friable; common fine flakes
of mica; very strongly acid.
am
Range in Characteristics
Solum thickness: 20 to 50 inches
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Rock fragment content: 0 to 15 percent by volume
throughout; dominantly gravel size
Reaction: Moderately acid to very strongly acid;
limed soils range to slightly acid in the upper part
Ap horizon:
Color=Hue of 2.5YR to ion, value of 3 to 5, and
chroma of 4 to 8
Texture=sandy clay loam
BA horizon (if it occurs) :
Color=Hue of 2.5YR to 10n, value of 4 or 5, and
chroma of 3 to 8
Texturenlay loan, sandy clay loam, or loam
Bt horizon:
Color --Hue of 1OR or 2.5YR, value of 4 or 5, and
chroma of 6 or 8
Hottles=if they occur are few and random in shades
of yellow and brown
Texture --clay, clay loam or sandy clay fcolg-slidw
27
BC horizon:
Color -Hue of 1OR to 5YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma
of 6 or 8
Hottles=if they occur are few and random in shades
of yellow or brown
Texture --clay loam, sandy clay loam, or sandy loan
C horizon:
saprolite that is similar in color to the BC
horizon, or is multicolored, with loauy textures

Am
am
so
MM
0M
A"
MR
am
go
am
MM
M"
Bethlebei Series
Depth class: Hoderately deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Perneability: Hoderate from
Parent -material: Residuum that weatheredmainly
from
high grade metamorphic rock such as sillima
schist
Landscape: Piedmont
Landfors: Divides
Landf orl position: Convex suuits and side slopes
•
Commonly associated soils. Pacolet and S
aw On
suvits and side slopes; Rion and Cliffside soils on
side slopes rcent
Slope range: 2 to kaolinitic, thermic Typic
Taxonovic class: Clayey,
Kanhapludults
Typical Pedon
Cr=36 to 62 inches; soft, weathered sillisanite mica
scbist bedrock; few thin, hard bedrocks ;
few tongues and thin coatings of Bt horizon material
in fractures -
gravelly sandy clay loam, from an area of
BetbleheR 9r t slopes,
Paco8 to 15 percenlet-Bethl�eu couplet, '
s on
eroded; about 2.8 miles southeast o4n Secondary Road
Secondary Road 1753, 0.7 mile west ,
75o arl feet north in woodland; at an elevation of
1topographic
1,120 feet; USGS polkviile, 24 25 seconds I -
quadrangle; lat. 35 degrees
and long. 81 degrees 42 minutes 42 seconds W.
gravelly sandy
by=0 to 7 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) c�ture; friable;
clay loan;
weak mediumgranular
few fine roots; 20 percent
few fine flakes of mica;
gravel by volume; very strongly acid; clear sloth
boundary. 5YR 4/6) clay; moderate
Bt1=7 to 24 inches; red (2•
sedium subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky,
lastic; few fine roots; couon distinct clay fills
p 5 cent gravel by volume;
on faces of oP�ica;pv very strongly acid; gradual
wavy boundary. �5YR 4/6) clay loan;
�=24 to 30 inches;.red(2blocky structure%
moderate medium subang� plastic; few fine
friable; slightly sticky, slightly P
roots; few distinct clay films on faces of peds; 10
percent gravel by volume; few fine flakes of tica;
acid; gradual wavy boundary'
very strongly 6 gravelly
K--30 to 36 inches; yellowish red (5yR 4f ) gr
sand clay loan; couon mediuR distinct reddish
allow (7.5YR 6/8) mottles of sandy loam s p
y ar blocky, structure; very
weak nedlul subangul volume; couon fine
friable; 20 percent gravel by acid; clear
and Rediva flakes of Rica; very strongly
irregular boundary.
Range in Characteristics
Solum thickness: 20 to 4 41nches
inches to soft, weathered
Depth to bedrock: 20 to0
bedrock co lo slide 28
Rock fragment content: 15 to 35 percent by Volnm the
percent b volume
the A horizon, and 0 to p gravel or cobble size
lower horizons; dominantly � strongly acid; limed
Reaction: Strongly acid or very art
soils range to slightly acid in the upper p
Ap horizon: value of 3 to 5, and
Color=flue of 2.5YR to 7.5YR,
chroma of 4 or 6 clayloam .
Texture=gravelly sandy
BA horizon (if it occurs):
Color=flue of 5YR to JOYR, value of 4 or 5, and
chroma of 6 to 8
Texture=sandy clay loam or clay loam in the fine -
earth fraction
Bt horizon: value of 4 or 5, and
Color=Hue of 2.5YR or 5YR,
cbroaa of 6 or 8
tore=claY or clay loam in the fine earth fraction
Tex
BC bOrizon:
Color -flue of 2.5YR to 5YR,
chroma of 6 or 8
Texture --clay loam or sandy
earth fraction
value of 4 or 5, and
clay loam in the f1ne-
C horizon (if it occurs):
Saprolite that is sisilar in color toaID he BC tetures in
horizon, or is multicolored, with 1 y
the fine -earth fraction
Cr horizon:
oft bweathered sillimanite-mica schist bedrock that
can
S 'e dug with difficulty using hand tools
M"

....,,s�
�'fi ; st
' �. �
�.
��.
vY
_ ��"f'�
• r ..i�
'`-'a
x ��
._ � a ,,.. ,_�. ._ _'. .
,- :}
+.
/ ,-a:
S
s xt
Se y
� 4��
�� a ✓'.t'
��..
f
_�
•
...
a'�lr r
� aA� '..�
t ti r fr
�
� t �
I
` ._ I� �
;:r':�
I
..--+-
r
�..
Mesa. +-�
��
�
2Sc�. O 'l.
. ��
�� yv.oV- �,� ,lam s ..
,
y�..
i
t
t .a...,.
�
tea- Vv•b� �.�
��.�'�- �
��� J���
fi M/.
��
;
z y�

m
i.F
.'
1.'

Am
am
oft
Am
am
am
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
- - CALCULATIONS
lim

.,��McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
,McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. B.s 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
'5 Broad Street. Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
oft
JOB
iversi7 WU)TP ,
I f a cJw�. N.s. A "4w
SHEET NO. 1 OF
CALCULATED BY MR- DATE" 1612. 00
DESCRIPTION PIi1nA C,,.IG'Twx (Ptj1MtAoV1)
SCALE PROJECT NO. 005a I
Pkase I (This Aws a 6-IAJ
Ab,W Aa,A ib 6, vkJ o P
Pvmp S 17ad )�r I oO, 000 G P D a,wa� to a I IFi $° r dvo (z� bt
00o GPD = ,0 GPM x z,5 PF = 175-GPM. _ - - -- n•rnCs►a�a, H S)
loa; --
f,,C,k mlo-c-,43
195 GPM thry (o-lac,l f rWL ma,A = 1_11 FPS ( S5vn:2 A_V SSA
try c r'n In _V- ,= 2 ps
1756-Pm thru lj Qfu- Mn+r, 1,12 F_PS- does no+ Mee+ JC-6 t w-3s
if.--rid-o�smAL � ----- --
P6sc 2
�i8>nnave IS,00O Gip "� �}
Pump 54D$uns +p 6 Slzotl far Y35�0606PD avwor- fog ..Flaw f,.tm 6,Shs looC-
H35a-0o� �n� 3o2 PM x 2 s-YF- ?556PM---- CA -AA- A 1,e_P
cnf.,k VeQoot+jj
-155
6-PM
�(J 6-144 Qtc-P man _B,bFPS y Vttoc,� 60 h19n
755
GPM
I'hro
8-IAJ fb/Le_
Ma,n - rf,,,e FPS
_755,
GPM
t-hrd
107 Ar i _1��,g _
rna,n - 3.09 FP -- - - - --- ....
755
,55
6M,
G PM
}y fd
i�nry
IZ-,Mj 4fLt
►W n� frorL<
ma,l, ,12 y FPS
ma n' _ 1.57 FpS ---> aloes naj ,'jej lwk retie
J
PON, tG,/\.. n Phah c m�iF 6x .Q.� J- 12-InA1aJ fr1 dlume•�er
) PufPtn sysk-'m (ch, N[��GI/-Sc oaf? - � PVi AV` uAAi--is Z=t
D4saIX tm Can l0aN5 ir1� _av j �q) t'� O..1+114W5 1.�4T one. P�mP _4E, 11tn', IS r �lP'ci C�p
I A[{US N,X Pu is S,Y, wow, 0.. �y�( Pomp S" ;�dA WUJ� %r«�iGi�i� f, Zt Cori
away. Sik-6c 60j 6_TvonJ,n L.4 sie,i)m -A,f oAj LIF+ StaiA �# 2 1tI
2 Ion"
�y� �/
jj Pe.! `' preX,tL,Ml+l,W.q �V'MnP C r JIa ?i%N,c, @ ^*T ifl ft
>GL[h",6A POMP 5+01i Jill WW(d 6 lN-�t1,M��' {� P,)&P S C Area H• pump Sia' lm
/{SS�ty �r�U+JuP/m� (ainq��n w,ih F!7,•,t= 1�tSC7t?

0"
a
C
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates. P.A. • P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 28802
;5 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
is
pm
no
ow
Owe
MA
p.
JOB RIyers+U�
fi Gh,p,Fl.s. 44-jvwt
SHEET NO. 2 OF
CALCULATED BY PA A DATE 1 1 Z as
DESCRIPTION PW p 54k4W W L J (G OAS �PMII A O! /q l
SCALE PROJECT NO. DD 5 24
�0. }
P� ttk,A%i Awi' �6r►S Asir Po, A+ = 17S 6PM 1S. T-Ph
'fi,k4 cam d() .fIL
Phase 2 pimp i,t it Fipts C�
Assvn� t��i n� PV "�J IA P�,,,,P 5 hro. w� � 55 G P/� s
P MP
6e. M-f faj ri'/X Mdk tA
41
Per G&Zs) ppmS(9A Po,n f : 756 &PM r27 F-Q.+ TbH --1b7 old.
i
i }
S�.� Mo. 2. w i55 itpJ
6 �rce. ryaw1� 6- rtP60 W,4, 6- 1 f�fm PA60
\
u 'nt b! SSJF:6(tt Ma to 4- e. W _►'�`'l�,;a�.4-�-{ = i ���U�r
'Due, fb kaj �os� S•���,�► 4fL& Moan twoJ��
LkSo, 12 -IAA Ma %n
f

PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
_ OCTOBER, 2000
RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOWN OF FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
a -A
ALTERNATIVE 2-1 PUMP TO EXISTING CHASE HIGH SCHOOL LIFT STATION
PHASE 1=100,000 GPD (PEAK FLOW = 250,000 GPD =175 GPM)
Pump Station No. 1
6-inch force main
Flow
(GPMI
Flow
(CFS)
Area
(M
Velocity
(FPS)
S
(F_TAM
L
CM
Eq. L.
CM
Total L
(FT)
Pipe HL
(m
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
2,000
100
2,100
0.00
100
0.22
0.196
1.14
0.0012
2,000
100
2,100
2.55
175
0.39
0.196
1.99
0.0034
2,000
100
2,100
7.19
200
0.45
0.196
2.27
0.0044
2,000
100
2,100
9.20
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
6-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
100
2.55
100.0
102.55
175
7.19
100.0
107.19
200
9.20
100.0
109.20
Design Point =175 GPM ®107 Feet TDH
_ Pump Station No. 2
R-inrh fnrre main
Flow
(GPM)
Flow
(CFS)
Area
(SM
Velocity
fFPSI
S
(FT/FT)
L
Eq. L.
am
Total L
(FT)
Pipe HL
(IT)
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
16,000
500
16,500
0.00
100
0.22
0.196
1.14
0.0012
16,000
500
16,500
20.04
175
0.39
0.196
1.99
0.0034
16,000
500
16,500
56.48
200
0.45
0.196
2.27
0.0044
16,000
500
16,500
72.32
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
6-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
100
20.04
100.0
120.04
175
56.48
100.0
156.48
200
72.32
100.0
172.32
Design Point =175 GPM Q 157 Feet TDH

PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
OCTOBER, 2000
RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOWN OF FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE 2-1 PUMP TO EXISTING CHASE HIGH SCHOOL LIFT STATION
PHASE 2 = 435,000 GPD (PEAK FLOW =1.088 MGD = 755 GPM)
Pump Station No. 1
8-inch force main
Flow
(GPM)
Flow
(CFS)
Area
(3]E)
Velocity
ff=
S
(FT/FT)
L
(FT_)
Eq. L.
am
Total L
om
Pipe HL
(M
0
0
0.349
0.00
0.0000
2,000
100
2,100
0.00
500
1.11
0.349
3.19
0.0059
2,000
100
2,100
12.34
755
1.68
0.349
4.82
0.0126
2,000
100
2,100
26.46
1,000
2.23
0.349
6.38
0.0212
2,000
100
2,100
44.53
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
8-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
500
12.34
100.0
112.34
755
26.46
100.0
126.46
1,000
44.53
100.0
144.53
Design Point = 755 GPM @ 127 Feet TDH
Pump Station No. 2
12-inch force main
Flow
(GPMI
Flow
LCM
Area
(M
Velocity
(FPS)
S
(Fr1M
L
1M
Eq. L.
(FT)
Total L
(__T1
Pipe HL
am
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
16,000
500
16,500
0.00
500
1.11
0.785
1.42
0.0008
16,000
500
16,500
13.46
755
1.68
0.785
2.14
0.0017
16,000
500
16,500
28.87
1,000
2.23
0.785
2.84
0.0029
16,000
500
16,500
48.59
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
12-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
500
13.46
100.0
113.46
755
28.87
100.0
128.87
1,000
48.59
100.0
148.59
Design Point = 755 GPM @ 129 Feet TDH

.@ McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
jLlcGill Associates. P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville. NC 28802
i5 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
m
m
m
RI reCs�a*e WWI / Pump -% aa,P- W.S. A lierna•h,'e
SHEET NO. 3
CALCULATED BY to A /1 DATEpp COI IZ /DO
DESCRIPTION PUMP 5j&+1,m C4-aWIdAIIJj CPre.(,.1N.nu/fy)
SCALE PROJECT NO. 005 24
I
i
Rv� r Ed yes WQ �5 I� oFfi��
I)ExIS-n9 Chas¢, N.S. L-Ipt Sft;+0 1S dvplex Pump sia'i em /ca>j a+ 55 GPm
Flow Is lhre� h 7,5Z0' o _ 3-,nah -St.. MOL A +o Ckett,.McOe Sl- of L.S.
z�EXashn� cha- M,S• G,P4 s4rj&M Is 4uplexx plmpv,-4,�em t-a4d a+ Io5GP14
Flow m pJqetl 1Yrc Ajlvk I`113ov1 d$ q-1ozA 'Fo(ce mooi h rivly 2ZIA z-5 "I Afexl)
�m; I IS
An vp�ro,A � fie.
3) iiwy 221A P.S. IS Cdtf,? P-, Le,n9 6, mcOl Assoe*skeS
Asstw,p, r w HLu, ZZI, P.S. w,ll hav2 eoQac,iy o�x2YDGQM
Pvftfs..... w,II pJf -fivao,, Iqm' oeforte. main
1-6Aflow }hreo9(n 1000'64 8-" �uA,.er-o-,) ?2w /2—M,49rae.�j
-la f1o. /{lexa.,dct M,IIS �wwp Sin hvwt
N� (per Ro�.r EdwLrdsj AlexomaGu Mllls Is dople-x P.5, Wl' 306-PM CpPac,%y.
Flaw IS puffWj -l-�rovyl ZaIZ I o$ 'Z-0J'lQCL Ma,A in tk eX14A"j
Br,l"+k Cre..L P,1Mp 5fNti^,
oY Btucia S Ct E-Ic—L, F {_--SAz -IuA- ,S, 1g ca �^ �F1l�tc{r rii�$YIIZfa'JPJ
pecorrlS. f}ssu /Ip tp9l4 a /2ceSSWI/ f2 TAIj pump Sfef,w, ai>� f :t proee4p
Add Ioc))Doo GPD x 2.S PF°i� "190�
Cha3a F(.S55 GPM ib SSO&PAA
'Nm.w fi,rt,z. Ina,n Nzer&je [�J QJCkd ✓ho.f1 Sh, C- %pod Op(learr 166oesm v
P(r afiu �iCl cw�cJialvc;=) ve.lot�i IF fottk- rna'n= (0-,eAJ%Qs 2,61 FPS
- Assvrr� AR,),) Z3o GPM PS pivs 7,Soo' �- nc.� c2 Ma,n r�pv1:j. i
z) Chc,� A.S. P.S. go€s 105 GPM +6 290 GPM A%tw 1 u Ma •� �R>�o ed . Pe/ OVJ Ma� 1 t Ta it. 1 -j
appear s = yo
Pzt :• 1 TC e.¢Gt (e Pe:::fKS a/eQoc, �,, a (^ %/r,t h'a •n av 6', r t 1 l i 3.18 FPS
!-iov+evat', :I. {i �Icizv�t;' �: {irt:.)Ma•,,. `INt3oc�'}, Ids t; ton N14�- vSc k-.,��1 F'vi
RSsvo'•e r,Cuy Zsse GPM PS Plvs Id �i c6-•n,%, FM 1s re v•,-P?

M
.f�McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering - Planning - Finance
,&,Gill Associates, P.A. - P.O. Box 2259, Asheville. NC 28802
5 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28807-828-252-0575 - Fax [phone]
NX-11
1'a
SHEET NO. _I OF
CALCULATED BY M A DATEp10 fL �
DESCRIPTION Porn SIN�cM CR-GCJIG�N`.I (� S gIffi,AGy)
SCALE PROJECT NO. 0057—q
3) Hwy 7,21 A P""P 5f`fi'A Cofcr,, 4&�, f 2z0 GPM fa 395 GPM
�12o G'Il_ Since. only IL100'o­6 f%llg; ma,A, ex,sf, n' fy" FN opPrus fo G (V=4.4Q Fjol'
Tvt-I = 2.2
}i.enA poet I{nf°U5 i000l o� $ ne�-ZZaU' /2-n �i 97av; �t
C�aufY 8-,ncI SGI f�owtn9 i(I of m,, Slote (zrPS) t 313"1
1000, °B g-,nJ`9faV, UW-0-t fa/ 4 up9f/aoG.� 10//-,ftl &oP0C,�j _ sf84
-AssJn^q (Z'Ife^" faJ- 1S at5jf 1lalle 7a �OM'iLC� T�OMIS
4� 41r_XaAj_w mills P-S. cqa�.✓ 5oes -P/dm 3coVM to 't75604
Per 0.jej "I T I 6ad a-PPtar-t to k n-o,f 0. 11vua Omr e 11411
�- n,,( fife2 Ma-n gp__cfs lb
$_ :^: 3.03 FPS
IksuyK, replace, pumps 4-o y75&-PM J,A- wtls' An -leiuL Man 0�
5� EX+SPny 73fa��i? s CleeL
Add all OAJAfto~ 560 GPM (b.-M c.Mee 64,4wen n 755 GPM an 179'-6-01)
1) c. � N-5- P,S. vpctau 4m 23o GPM +a S 10GPM
44cc maun ftetckj. ✓d&_,� 4 /2-,'t , FM = 2.30 FPd
- ASSVrv,°- naut PS a—� tarAl--
2) Chase At .S, P.E.
Jps(1w, fl.t +
2,8o GPM -h(
$60 GPM
New -Ftu- m°.^
r\ujJ Mot.
J 66 IZ--n..ln
FA = 2.44 FPS
- Ass al~a N'W
A S .ww
lZ MM-t
J-M Aea W
3 t4wj ZZI A P.mMf
5.6 u OPSIZIS
4'e^ 34 SGPMia
975 �P1a --
P%ea,) J�l (a mca,A
nQRJ<i7 . Ve_eoc.,
>t� l2 n_ !P PIV
2,77 FPS
Prss ure. I%Lw P. 5, o, J nu w i L -,
E F M Ae re s s wJ -
I
-10-kl\J grow,
!
; A
12-o 9/OM line Ic�V v4
vPSraA sFwlw
!/Pys. c_4W f8-lfr/ir
(,AC. !9-IAL4
y%tlx,,l� l,re:-FlBw,rl 1i1/1 a?
M,n s uPe- hw CrxQaE� y
ce /58SGPM.

.q McGill
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0.575 • For 828-252-2518
JOB Rlvy56e k)u)T-P / RMp -h CG+ao. N.1,4/1.
SHEET NO. -1 OF
CALCULATED BY np MA DATE /� O 12 DO
DESCRIPTION /V*p SAA M C W'43V"$ (PfVJ ,M tA'GJ.�)
SCALE PROJECTNO. 0052— 1/
4) 4+ 1(44V''xz 14,11S A S. vPs1a7 r z�^' 475 GAM 47 10S3 G p*
f� /
New faru- p-0.. r;t. / ks� >. ✓� ect!y lZ- �c% FM = Z.qq FPS
Assume nvw PS. a�aJ new ?ttessWq

P"
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
a. OCTOBER, 2000
ALTERNATIVE 2-1 PUMP TO EXISTING CHASE HIGH SCHOOL LIFT STATION
PHASE 1=100,000 GPD (PEAK FLOW = 250,000 GPD =175 GPM)
oft
Chase High School Lift Station (Flow = 230 GPM)
6-inch force main
r-]
4M
OUR
am
0M
0M
am
am
0"
pa
am
oft
Flow
(Q=
Flow
XM
Area
(M
Velocity
a M.
S
a=
L
(
Eq. L.
(M
Total L
am
Pipe HL
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
7,520
100
7,620
0.00
100
0.22
0.196
1.14
0.0012
7,520
100
7,620
9.25
200
0.45
0.196
2.27
0.0044
7,520
100
7,620
33.40
230
0.51
0.196
1 2.61
1 0.0057
7,520
100
1 7,620
1 43.27
Chase Middle School Lift Station (Flow = 280 GPM)
8-inch force main
Flow
(G=
Flow
(CFSI
Area
(
Velocity
am
S
(ET/FT)
L
am
Eq. L.
(M
Total L
(M
Pipe HL
CM
0
0
0.349
0.00
0.0000
14,300
100
14,400
0.00
100
0.22
0.349
0.64
0.0003
14,300
100
14,400
4.29
200
0.45
0.349
1.28
0.0011
14,300
100
14,400
15.50
280
0.62
0.349
1.79
0.0020
14,300
100
14,400
28.91
Highway 221A Lift Station (Flow = 395 GPM)
6-inch force main
Flow
tuPMI
Flow
icy
Area
Velocity
a =-
S
amm
L
i
Eq. L.
(m
Total L
(m
Pipe HL
CM
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
1,400
50
1,450
0.00
150
0.33
0.196
1.71
0.0026
1,400
50
1,450
3.73
300
0.67
0.196
3.41
0.0093
1,400
50
1,450
13.47
395
0.88
0.196
4.49
0.0155
12400
50
1,450
22.41
Alexander Mills Lift Station (Flow = 475 GPM)
8-inch force main
Flow
Flow
Area
Velocity
S
L
Eq. L.
Total L
Pipe HL
0
0
0.349
0.00
0.0000
2,042
50
2,092
0.00
200
0.45
0.349
1.28
0.0011
2,042
50
2,092
2.25
400
0.89
0.349
2.55
0.0039
2,042
50
2,092
8.13
475
1.06
0.349
3.03
0.0053
2,042
50
2,092
11.18
am

im
a"
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
.. OCTOBER, 2000
ALTERNATIVE 2-1 PUMP TO EXISTING CHASE HIGH SCHOOL LIFT STATION
PHASE 2 = 435,000 GPD, (PEAK FLOW=1,088,000 GPD = 755 GPM)
Chase High School Lift Station (Flow = 810 GPM)
12-inch force main
0"
om
0"
om
0"
0"
0M
am
om
am
..
004
no
Flow
fum
Flow
(CFS)
Area
(M
Velocity
am
S
a=
L
(M
Eq. L.
(M
Total L
(.
Pipe HL
um
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
7,520
100
7,620
0.00
400
0.89
0.785
1.14
0.0005
7,520
100
7,620
4.11
800
1.78
0.785
2.27
0.0019
7,520
100
7,620
14.84
810
1.80
0.785
2.30
0.0020
7,520
100
7,620
15.19
Chase Middle School Lift Station (Flow = 860 GPM)
12-inch force main
Flow
ffim
Flow-
XFS)
Area
LM
Velocity
ums)
S
amT1
L
(m
Eq. L.
am
Total L
am
Pipe HL
iM
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
14,300
100
14,400
0.00
400
0.89
0.785
1.14
0.0005
14,300
100
14,400
7.77
800
1.78
0.785
2.27
0.0019
14,300
100
14,400
28.05
860
1.92
0.785
2.44
0.0022
14,300
100
142400
32.07
Highway 221A Lift Station (Flow = 975 GPM)
12-inch force main
Flow
(am
Flow.
(C_ FS)
Area
L E'1
Velocity
amaum
S
L
a
Eq. L.
cm
Total L
am
Pipe HL
M)0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
1,400
50
1,450
0.00
500
1.11
0.785
1.42
0.0008
1,400
50
1,450
1.18
975
2.17
0.785
2.77
0.0028
1,400
50
1,450
4.07
1,000
2.23
0.785
2.84
0.0029
1,400
50
1,450
4.27
Alexander Mills Lift Station (Flow =1055 GPM)
12 inch force main
Flow
(GPMI
Flow
(CES)
Area
Velocity
OM
S
L
OE'I'1
Eq. L.
EM
Total L
QQ
Pipe HL
im
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
2,042
50
2,092
0.00
500
1.11
0.785
1.42
0.0008
2,042
50
2,092
1.71
1,000
2.23
0.785
2.84
0.0029
2,042
50
2,092
6.16
1,055
2.35
0.785
2.99
0.0033
2,042
50
2,092
6.80
am

ask
.@McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering - Planning - Finance
McGill Associates. P.A. - P.O. Box 2259, Asheville. NC 28802
55 Broad Street. Asheville, NC 28801 -828-252-0575 - Fax [phone]
om
am
Oft
Oft
A"
om
a,
am
aw
JOB R wW-S rra. W uJTP Z eVM 2 + Gh aA.P. g. S. A (I-e.Auk-e
SHEET NO. ' OF
CALCULATED BY MA J DATE i 3
DESCRIPTION.
SCALE PROJECT NO. pOSZ 7
ramn 1
-
AcI 1 N P NwM► ' ,rs 6� OA Gig fts n Fa ,0,6! kr Morse
'l aw�r P.�. �, re�+wN► S� b , 6� -ia�o
Pvm S fi No. I a + -TAj
newi
P�� sift": 7, 5 Hp
GhasQ. AEI •S-- P,.e SI& h#K :1 7. 5NP
N J °�
f4 Sfa �i.M {'
I
110µP k 0.15 Kw04P 82051
kW
AsSLO,�,� ruAJ.�s
x' 2R20 o C100 kw- tifs x1434-3/
�0 D�
P
)AA to n C&
Ass ' 000
000
2
1'
t
Au u D, ZD l{-� � e
/ o IY
u�,000 X = �100
�_sot��T

ter
gmcGM
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
�5 Broad Street, Asheville. NC 28801.828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
MR
OR
MR
oft
am
JOB
&.a ww7p 1 pito -h C64t H.s. A 14vAoAe
SHEET NO. Z" OF
CALCULATED BY MA DATE 13Loo
DESCRIPTION rn ��""w ht�j
SCALE PROJECT NO. 00524
i
N,,* Les ha-oJi ou c. a��j t 4 or k #A 4- e%ct
Paw4.r R4v•r ^"41
A +' SUP
S- -h . 20 KP
wyk
i,
To {
I`76 HP x 0.75 Y,.
,
Assvn�e vrn s �4PAX �✓n g �'''IC14 fair �6S of t t�'Sf
p Pe,,
At,
Z4 kw x Lq 2.0 h,s = 3731740 kw- hq X` .Q7
/Lw-�� - 1
6 too
i
S+s fIK Ma A "Q'
i
AsSv,� .�l cba
�dm /yew
i
Fats /40k 6-rdk l A kUm u
1yeie
TO i;o

gM.cGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
,1cCill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 28802
S Broad Street. Asheville, NC 28801 9828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
om
0"
Sc
JOB R ► v�151v1� u) Lo nzn I PW1hl1
SHEET NO. I AAAA OF
CALCULATED BY /y1/4" DATE I �2 GCS
DESCRIPTIONPia S� i� C yAW fat�d" L��'^n'"Or7�
SCALE PROJECT NO. 00 5 Z `7
' ► hump C'4mm
Phan
$asec► mt► Ca,r,f D�rs an Qvad �+r►°`P, ' I afpe s emu+- P�"`P s�Z►� l s A"d
A
_.�. � �_..tA
fw.c�sSar l fj pjMp WV, f-Iw►
r p,rMp seal G-IAJ C9- At 4 U
►
p f losses. Tc n+aa.+ Sfi
�iSS�1tr.Q. 1i' �p v✓ Z. JM ' S � L W %4%f4V && Cl► f VA I
VeJeex. CzFPsa, PA"
f P P P,►n+ s�ia�+v�t �+ p i7S
1 sf - Ps b Sae. a - rnd�s �.-Q �u' 1� s, ZAd 4fpfo x .
n -I auk
f
Bot k- f � `►" S%?i' can s QlWe -.r ' b I /let v ✓md m or
Pv s- *- dV�-It. I
Ass ` t��'',. IeM') f°� 'a.- A ff+,�j1
►Afa 75 6P/H! k,
Pe mp'lm%morl cc.Qw IIA&M S ot.t. 5 i 81 put.A + _ 175 GAW @ j-y� � T'DFj cip Fo. � r 6m k s -
w rAp .s+b i� w► '
j FV (Q M AL ►n LeiYt A 13, a00 S vnv.. Soo' E$ Lai►n4 f'ti Ar -V
+t pvme 175 6PM
M ►AI 75"' CfA4 ,� ' F t �a
Pha►s �.
PV"
. t)e- 4 islums c. ; 6dw�. Diu„ too ,at fry I -,n�- Ica ,+ a , ►
7 S; RM GP - o .
PvMp
V (et oti.� piAz"S

AM
Aq
wo
A•
AM
A■�
M"
r�
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
OCTOBER, 2000
RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOWN OF FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-3 PUMP TO CHESNEE, SC WWTP
PHASE 1=1009000 GPD (PEAK FLOW = 250,000 GPD =175 GPM)
Pump Station No. 1
6-inch force main
Flow-
mm
Flow
(cam
Area
Velocity
am
S
m=
L
m
Eq. L.
(m
Total L
cm
Pipe HL
(M
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
11,500
500
12,000
0.00
100
0.22
0.196
1.14
0.0012
11)500
500
12,000
14.57
175
0.39
0.196
1.99
0.0034
11,500
500
123000
41.08
200
0.45
0.196
2.27
0.0044
11,500
500
12)000
52.60
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
6-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
100
14.57
100.0
114.57
175
41.08
100.0
141.08
200
52.60
100.0
152.60
Design Point =175 GPM @ 141 Feet TDH
Pump Station No. 2
6-inch force main
Flow
(,GPM=
Flow
(CM
Area
Velocity
am
S
0=
L
Eq. L.
LM
Total L
(M
Pipe HL
0
0
0.196
0.00
0.0000
13,000
500
13,500
0.00
100
0.22
0.196
1.14
0.0012
13,000
500
13,500
16.39
175
0.39
0.196
1.99
0.0034
13,000
500
13,500
46.21
200
0.45
0.196
2.27
0.0044
13,000
500
13,500
59.17
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
6-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
100
16.39
100.0
116.39
175
46.21
100.0
146.21
200
59.17
100.0
159.17
Design Point =175 GPM @ 146 Feet TDH

00
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CURVE CALCULATION SPREADSHEET
.. OCTOBER, 2000
RIVERSTONE INDUSTRIAL PARK
TOWN OF FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2-3 PUMP TO CHESNEE, SC WWTP
PHASE 2 = 435,000 GPD (PEAK FLOW =1.088 MGD = 755 GPM)
0M
Pump Station No. 1
12-inch force main
A"
am
On,
A"
0"
P"
MA
ram►
014
a"
MR
Flow
�GpMI
Flow
'
Area
(M
Velocity
cm%%
S
fflam
L
CM
Eq. L.
(
Total L
im
Pipe HL
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
11,500
500
12,000
0.00
500
1.11
0.785
1.42
0.0008
11,500
500
12,000
9.79
755
1.68
0.785
2.14
0.0017
11,500
500
121000
21.00
1,000
2.23
0.785
2.84
0.0029
11,500
1 500
1 12,000
1 35.34
Total Head Loss
FLOW
(GPM)
84nch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
500
9.79
100.0
109.79
755
21.00
100.0
121.00
1,000
35.34
100.0
135.34
Design Point = 755 GPM @ 121 Feet TDH
Pump Station No. 2
12-inch force main
Flow
ffi
Flow
(CM
Area
(M
Velocity
@:
S
foam
L
am
Eq. L.
(M
Total L
(M
Pipe HL
(.
0
0
0.785
0.00
0.0000
13,000
500
13,500
0.00
500
1.11
0.785
1.42
0.0008
13,000
500
13,500
11.01
755
1.68
0.785
2.14
0.0017
13,000
500
13,500
23.62
1,000
2.23
0.785
2.84
0.0029
13,000
500
13,500
39.75
Total Head Loss
FLOW
{GPM)
12-inch
Line
Static
Head
Total HL
0
0.00
100.0
100.00
500
11.01
100.0
111.01
755
23.62
100.0
123.62
1,000
39.75
100.0
139.75
Design Point = 755 GPM @ 124 Feet TDH

P"
.qMcGRI
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
4cGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 28802
5 Broad Street, Asheville. NC 28801 •828-252-0575 - Fax [phone]
r"
f"
04
A"
P"
JOB RIY"*"S�M VIA Vd TpP-y p f o Gee sr c� SG A #Y-le, f I
SHEET NO. I OF
CALCULATED BY AA DATE 0 13 LOO
DESCRIPTION i rl C�Gdla7lr/I�j
SCALE PROJECT NO. 00 7 2- Ll
P�► a s� I A I I 14 >P NvM 6s 16,jej Mo'-sc
S u Lis L4 "s co,
t V
f { '
wrv+ S fu fid1~ No . Z fmorMb
Isc II�ar ' y0 ��/�
I
so 14p, x 40.7S Kto/HP k
Assu/r2. p�MQ Sa�ars jv� $ ti�ld �r 36S c1 Js /ye-� Z� 2v %fJ
� / f
Cod It VJ x Zqz.(? .4fs c 17 5 200 �0. 07 1�w kr = tz, Z6
i s �12 TO0/1
f
Pomp t->i-m +e-M MoJemamo,
A ss u fre I o� /p % t
f i
Fo OL jc*W-4 Ce
yew
nod Poo4QV Soo' x 0. 20 o q, q00
CvIPt�T ' VS*� (',11w cif GJ.S
cuhj 111 000 5 VK 2 AUM pet �oc�
T64oa el 1 Do/000 GPP x �O a(� S w io M', rat ��M yr�ud+s I n. Z Mo�+ pp-tloj
3
13�
I s� N,©o0 wt t ZS• do Me x� ' 5� 4 q�, Ord, &V cx s l aoo
59g� 3,�5 o.6SsG.20 20,646.2o tLs,�a 20,•?!1.6D �ZNI

don
om
Am
om
OR
on
mm
Ono
am
tw
on
Fm
McGifl
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering - Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
JOB 1 v�.rs�" AM IPWvkP k 04Q.SYi$2SC A 1 kArk
SHEET NO. Z OF
CALCULATED BY MA DATE 10/ 1 3l 00
DESCRIPTION r"' CjLl) 14 wmS
SCALE PROJECT NO. W7 2 f
Phan
t V,
po�fs
wer P-e
a
perms ia.t,
Q
To ia NP_ too 14P
A5S vrr'-p- EPf)`� fivy ftf 36 S cl0tefly2I? 20 /eGr
/
�s �w,-�►� D.o7�,,_L, 15,330 -
75 kw x 2gZo = Zlq, OW ! k
s vr►�e� 0� Ps e =ar 1 � / A,S
I —
�, odv x 2
a.aLI) P4r
z -Sao ' 4 o, 20�l,Qov
Use Ghar
C'm !o 00 �yp,2P t e
1
4Sa10o0 G P� kC� c wjS rL r►,1ii{nn5 u�J � .
8a.40, - 2s. yo ax -F X'qu 0600 � 3. `� S%i000 d
13,136,za+ ZS.go = q3,1( 6o f nor
2 mo. �►eiE�o�.
Wo