Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Update ofUpdate ofWastewater Treatment Capacity Wastewater Treatment Capacity Alternatives EvaluationAlternatives Evaluationfor the Yadkin - Pee Dee Basin for the Yadkin - Pee Dee Basin of Union County, NCof Union County, NC

Presented to

Union County Board of Commissioners

Presented by

CH2M HILLBob Forbes, PEMarch 1, 2007

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Agenda

• Project background• Alternatives evaluation overview

– Non-economic parameters– Economic parameters

• Summary• Questions

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

WWTF Alt. 3A

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Basis for evaluation of alternatives

• Non-economic factors– NPDES permit factors– Institutional issues– Long-term suitability of WRF site– Other environmental factors

• Capital costs• Site issues

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina WWTF Alt. 3A

Alt. 3A Route

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Non-economic comparisonRANKING OF NON-ECONOMIC FACTORS FOR THE WRF ALTERNATIVES TO SERVE NORTHERN UNION COUNTY(each alternative scored on scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion, with 5 being best, then ranked in order of Total Score)

 

WRF Alternative NPDES Permit Factors

Institu-tional

Issues

Long-term Suitability

of WRF Site

Other Envir.

Factors

Total Score

Rank

Other Considerations

 

1 - WWTF near Rocky River and mouth of Crooked Creek

4 3 4 2 13 7 Good NPDES conditions, near service area, but partially developed site (forest, farm & residential)

 

1A – WWTF near proposed Crooked Creek Pump Station with Rocky River discharge

4 4 3 2 13 7 Good NPDES conditions, near western service area, but close to residential and rural neighborhoods.

 

2- WWTF near Rocky River and mouth of Grassy Creek

4 3 5 4 16 1 Good NPDES conditions, near service area, mostly undeveloped site (forest & farmland).

 

2A – WWTF near State Hwy’s 218 & 200, discharge to Rocky River

4 4 5 3 16 1 Good NPDES conditions, centrally-located, sparsely populated, large parcels available.

 

3- WWTF near Rocky River at Sugar&Wine Road

4 3 4 3 14 4 Good NPDES conditions but farther from service area. Proposed site is mostly farmland.

 

3A – WWTF near Rocky River at State Hwy 742 Bridge Crossing

4 3 5 4 16 1 Large, undeveloped parcels available and good NPDES conditions. Farther from initial service area, but could potentially serve more of the County by gravity.

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Non-economic comparison (cont.)

Rank

RANKING OF NON-ECONOMIC FACTORS FOR THE WRF ALTERNATIVES TO SERVE NORTHERN UNION COUNTY(each alternative scored on scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion, with 5 being best, then ranked in order of Total Score)

WRF Alternative NPDES Permit Factors

Institu-tional Issues

Long-term Suitability

of WRF Site

Other Envir. Factors

Total Score

Other Considerations

4- LRR WRF on Rocky River near Richardson Creek in Anson County

3 2 4 3 12 9 Good NPDES conditions, much farther from service area, undeveloped site in Anson County

5- WRF on Richardson Creek at Salem Creek in Union County

2 3 3 4 12 9 Difficult NPDES conditions (discharge to small creek, upstream WS and WWTP), close to service area, partially developed site

5A – WRF on Richardson Creek near Anson County line, discharge to RR

4 3 4 3 14 4 Good NPDES conditions, near eastern service areas, but close to residential neighborhoods and smaller land lots.

6- Transfer wastewater to Twelve Mile Creek WRF

2 4 3 3 12 9 Difficult NPDES conditions (discharge to small creek, existing WWTP), far from service area, partially developed site.

7- Transfer WW to CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP

3 3 4 2 12 9 Moderate NPDES conditions, farther from service area in Mecklenburg County, question of available capacity

8 – Transfer WW to Anson County WRF on Pee Dee River

5 2 5 2 14 4 Best NPDES conditions, farthest from service area in Anson County, undeveloped site

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Cost Comparison – First 8 AlternativesTABLE 2Summary of Potential Costs in Million Dollars (first eight alternatives, increased from 5 MGD to 6 MGD capacity in initial phase, decreased from 10

MGD to 9 MGD expansion capacity in 2nd phase, and updated from March 2004 to November 2006 dollars)

Initial Phase for 6 MGD Alt#1 Alt#2 Alt#3 Alt#4 Alt#5 Alt#6 Alt#7 Alt#8

Force Main Costs $12.6M $14.2M $17.6M $29.0M $22.4M $44.3M $59.5M $53.1M

Pump Station Costs $4.3M $4.3M $4.3M $6.4M $6.4M $6.4M $6.4M $6.4M

Collection System Costs $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M

6 MGD ADF WRF Capacity $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M $37.5M $47.8M

Initial Phase Capital Costs $91M $93M $96M $110M $103M $125M $130M $134M

Ultimate Build Out-15 MGD

Force Main Capacity Expansion (Booster

Pump Stations)

None None None None None $3.4M. $6.8M $3.4M

Pump Station Capacity Expansion Cost

$9.0M $9.0M $9.0M $14.1M $14.1M $14.1M $14.1M $14.1M

Collection System Extension $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M

9 MGD ADF WWTF Capacity Expansion

$71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M

Capacity Expansion Costs of Each Alternative

$107M $107M $107M $112M $112M $116M $119M $116M

Ultimate Buildout Total $199M $200M $204M $222M $216M $241M $249M $250M

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Cost Comparison – Other 4 AlternativesTABLE 3Summary of Potential Costs in Million Dollars (last four alternatives evaluated, with capacity increased from 5 MGD to 6 MGD in initial phase, decreased from 10 MGD to 9 MGD in 2nd phase, and updated from March 2004 to November 2006 dollars)

Initial Phase for 6 MGD Alt#1A Alt#2A Alt #3A Alt#5A

Force Main Costs $15.9M $16.0 M $24.0M $26.8M

Pump Station Costs $4.3M $4.3M $4.3M $4.3M

Collection System Costs $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M

6 MGD ADF WWTF Capacity $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M $47.8M

Initial Phase Capital Costs $95M $95M $103M $106M

Ultimate Build Out for 15 MGD

Force Main Capacity Expansion (Booster Pump Stations)

None None None None

Pump Station Capacity Expansion Cost $9.0M $9.0M $9.0M $9.0M

Collection System Extension $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M $26.7M

9 MGD ADF WRF Capacity Expansion $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M $71.6M

Capacity Expansion Costs of Each Alternative

$107M $107M $107M $107M

Ultimate Buildout Total Costs $202M $202M $210M $213M

Uni

on C

ount

y, N

orth

Car

olin

aU

nion

Cou

nty,

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Evaluation SummaryTABLE 4SUMMARY RANKING OF NON-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND ESTIMATED COSTSFOR THE WRF ALTERNATIVES TO SERVE NORTHERN UNION COUNTY

Alternative & Description Non-economi

cRanking

CostRankin

g

Total

Score

Overall

Rank

1- LRR WRF on Rocky River near Crooked Creek 7 1 8 4

1A – WRF near proposed Crooked Creek Pump Sta. with discharge into Rocky River

7 3 10 6

2- LRR WRF on Rocky River near Grassy Creek 1 2 3 1

2A – WRF near State Hwy’s 218 & 200, discharge to Rocky River 1 3 4 2

3- LRR WRF on Rocky River at Sugar & Wine Road 4 5 9 5

3A – WWTF near Rocky River just downstream of State Hwy 742 Bridge Crossing

1 6 7 3

4- LRR WRF on Rocky River near Richardson Creek in Anson County 9 9 18 10

5- WRF on Richardson Creek at Salem Creek in Union County 9 8 17 9

5A – WRF on Richardson Creek near Anson County line, discharge to RR 4 7 11 7

6- Transfer wastewater to Twelve Mile Creek WRF 9 10 19 11

7- Transfer WW to CMUD McAlpine Creek WWTP 9 12 21 12

8 – Transfer WW to Anson County WRF on Pee Dee River 4 11 15 8

Non-economic rankings are from Table 1; cost rankings are in order of estimated costs (lowest to highest, from Tables 2 & 3), and the overall rankings of the 12 alternatives represent the sum of non-economic and cost rankings