DRAFT
MODEL FACILITY PLAN
FOR
AN UNSEWERED OR PARTIALLY SEWERED COMMUNITY
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
* Technical assistance in the preparation and design of this report was
provided by Lombardo & Associates under contract with the Facility
Requirements Division, Office of water Program Operations.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
List of Tables
List of Figures
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-1
1.1 Planning Area Description 1-1
1.2 Alternatives Development/Evaluation 1-2
1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis/Plan Section 1-3
1.4 Management, Financing, Per Household Cost 1-3
1.5 Public Participation 1-4
2. INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Study Purpose and Scope 2-1
2.2 Planning Area Boundaries
3. COMMUNITY PROFILE 3-1
3.1 Socio-Economic Data 3-1
3.2 Land Use Data 3-4
3.3 Physical Features 3-4
3.4 Existing Waste Disposal Practices 3-11
3.5 Water Quality/Wastewater Management Regulations 3-15
3.6 Previous Study 3-15
3.7 Town Governemnt/Finances 3-17
4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Field Investigations/Community Surveys 4-1
4.3 Water Quality Impact Analysis 4-2
4.4 Wastewater Management Needs Analysis 4-3
5. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT/EVALUATION 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-2
5.2 Technology Alternatives 5-8
5.3 Management Alternatives 5-8
5.4 Screening Alternatives
6. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Cost Analysis of Alternatives 6-1
6.3 Impact Analysis of Alternatives 6-8
6.4 Summary of Selected Plan 6-8
7. MANAGEMENT, FINANCING AND PER HOUSEHOLD COSTS 7-1
7.1 Management System 7-1
7.2 Financial Arrangements 7-1
7.3 Average Per Household Costs 774
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page
Title
8. PRELIMINARY DESIGN/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 8-1
8.1 Town Center Collection/Treatment System 8-1
8.2 Septage Composting Facility 8-1
8.3 On-Site Disposal Systems 8-1
8.4 Implementation Schedule 3-1
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 9-1
9.1 Current Situation 9-1
9.2 Future Situation 9-2
9.3 Impacts of Alternatives 9-2
9.4 Impacts of Selected Plan 9-2
9.5 Mitigating Measures 9-3
10.-. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 10-1
10.1 Introduction 10-1
10.2 Public Participation Work Plan 10-1
10.3 Citizen Advisory Committee 10-2
10.4 Public Participation Coordinator 10-2
10.5 Public Consultations/Meetings 10-3
10.6 Information Materials 10-f
10.7 Town Council Evaluation 10-5
APPENDICES
A. COMPONENT COSTS FOR ON-SITE SYSTEMS
B. COMPONENT COSTS FOR SEPTAGE COMPOSTING FACILITY
C. COMPONENT COSTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SYSTEMS
D. COMPONENT COSTS FOR TOWN CENTER COLLECTION/TREATMENT OPERATIONS
E. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
F. MEMORANDUM FROM TOWN COUNCIL
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title °age
3.1-1 Population Estimates and Projections 3-2
3.1-2 Family Income Distribution 3-3
3.3-1 Inventory of Surface Impoundments 3-9
3.4-1 Waste Disposal System Types 3-13
3.4-2 Septage Generation Rates 3-14
4.4-1 Problem Area Design Wastewater Flows 4-6
5.2-1 Suitable On-Site System Technologies for Identified 5-3
Problems
5.2-2 On-Site System Alternatives Evaluation 5-4
5.2-3 Suitability and Capital Cost of Alternatives 5-5
Collection Systems
5.2-4 Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Evaluation 5-6
5.2-5 Septage Treatment Alternatives Evaluation 5-7
5.3-1 On-Site Management Options 5-9
5.4-1 Cost Comparison for Town Center Collection/ 5-13
Treatment Options
5.4-2 Description of Neighborhood Systems 5-14
5.4-3 Cost Comparison for Septage Treatment Facility 5-17
5.4-4 Comparison of Potential Septage Facility Sites 5-18
6.2-1 Outside Town Center Costs for On-Site and 6-3
Neighborhood Systems
6.2- Costs for Central Collection/Treatment System 6-4
6.2- Costs for Town Center Service Area Options 6-5
6.2- Summary Cost Analysis of Alternatives 6-6
6.2- Average Per Household Cost of Options 6-7
6.3-1 Outside Town Center Impact Analysis of Alternatives 6-9
6.3-2 Town Center Impact Analysis of Alternatives 6-10
6.4-1 Summary of Total Costs for Selected Plan 6-11
7.3-1 Average Per Household Cost 7-5
8.1-1 Expected Organic, Solids, Ammonia and Phosphorous 8-4
Removal Rates of Town Center Treatment Plant
8.2-2 Suspended Solids Balance for Each Unit Process- 8-6
Septage Treatment Facility
8.3-1 Expected Organic, Solids, Ammonia and Phosphorous 8-7
Removal Rates for Septic Tank
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
2.2-1 Planning Area Boundaries
2.2-2 Planning Area Location
3.2-1 Land Use Map
3.2-2 Zoning Map
3.3-1 Soil Suitability for Wastewater Disposal
3.3-2 Watersheds
3.3-3 Availability of Groundwater in Unconsolidated 3-12
Deposits
3.6-1 Previous Facilities Study Recommended Sewer 3-16
Service Area
4.4-1 Problem Area Map , 4-4
5.4-1 Large and Small Service Area Options for Town 5-16
Center
5.4-2 Potential Septage Facility Sites 5-19
7.1-1 Water Quality Monitoring Sites 7-2
8.1-1 Town Center Collection System Preliminary 8-2
Design
8.1-2 Flow Diagram - Sewage Treatment Facility 8-3
8.2-1 Flow Diagram - Septage Treatment Facility 8-5
8.3-1 Flow Diagram - On-Site Disposal System 8-6
9.3-1 Environmental Impacts of Wastewater Treatment 9-4
Alternatives
9.3-2 Environmental Impacts of Septage Treatment/ 9-5
Disposal Alternatives
-------
1. SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS
In 1979, the Woodrock Town Council initiated a Wastewater Management
Facilities Planning Study with funding assistance of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Funds were provided on a 75 percent reimbursement basis
under the Construction Grants Program (Section 201) of the Clean Water Act
of 1977. Preparation of a facilities plan represents Step 1 of a three step
grant program which includes Step 2, design,and Step 3, construction, of the
proposed wastewater management facilities. The following summarizes the major
findings of the Step 1 study.
1.1 Planning Area Description
Woodrock is located in the middle of Plainfield County, 25 miles west of
James City. The town occupies a land area of approximately 19 square miles.
Population and Income
The estimatedl980 population of Woodrock is 10,200 with 3528 households.
The population is projected to increase 43 percent to 14,600 by the year of 2000.
Most working residents are employed outside of the town and the median income
in 1975 was $12,380.
Land Use
Residential development is concentrated in the town center and in scattered
home developments where development density is one dwelling unit per 1/4 to 1/3
acre. There is dispersed development throughout the town at densities from 1/2
to over 1 acre lots. Commercial development is concentrated in the town center
at the intersection of Route 12 and Center Street. There is a 600 acre industrial
park in the southwestern portion of the town.
Water Resources
Groundwater is the town's only drinking water supply. There are four major
tributaries that drain the town and flow south into the Trout River. All of these
streams have low flows, except Mill Brook. The State has set effluent limitations
of 10 mg/1 BOD and 10 mg/1 suspended solids. There has been evident eutrophication
of ponds located in high density residential areas. Analysis of water quality
information indicates that eutrophication will be an increasing problem without
certain mitigating measures.
Present Wastewater Management Practices
All property owners in Woodrock rely on on-site disposal systems. Through
field investigations, disposal system problems were identified in the town
center, in 13 concentrated problem areas (see Figure 4.4), and in scattered
locations throughout the town. On-site system problems in the town center
(20% of the systems) have caused odor problems and water quality degradation of
Linden Canal. These problem systems cannot be replaced without numerous variances
1-1
-------
and eminent domain proceedings. On-site solutions are possible for the
13 problem areas and for scattered problems outside of the town center.
Septage from Woodrock is presently disposed of at sewage treatment
plants operated by the Metropolitan Area Sewer District (MASD), however,
the MASD will not accept Woodrock's septage after 1982. There is no
septage treatment capacity available in the surrounding communities which
are all sewered.
Previous Sewerage Study
While Woodrock is not under State orders to alleviate known water
quality problems, the town has recognized the need for an improved waste-
water management program. A previous facilities plan which recommended
sewering most of the town at a present worth cost (1980 dollars) of $58
million was rejected by the town in a referendum vote.
Town Finances
The Town Council has the legal authority to construct, own and operate
wastewater treatment works. With State approval, the town can bond up to
$20 million for wastewater management facilities.
1.2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
A wide range of alternative technologies were evaluated in the 201 study
including on-site systems, wastewater collection and treatment/disposal systems,
and septage treatment/disposal alternatives. Management system alternatives
were also considered for on-site system management and user charge assessments.
Based on cost and environmental considerations, the alternatives were
narrowed to the following for the cost-effectiveness analysis:
Outside Town Center
Option.1: On-site Systems - On-site system rehabilitation for all scattered
problem systems and for the 13 problem areas.
Option 2: Neighborhood Systems - Neighborhood systems with septic tank
effluent collection and leach field disposal for the 13 problem areas, on-site
replacement for the scattered problem systems.
Option 3: Central Collection/Treatment - All 13 problem areas included
in a central system with the town center area. Large diameter gravity sewer
for wastewater flow of 2 million gpd transported via interceptor sewer to
Middletown treatment plant.
1-2
-------
Town Center
Option 1: Small Service Area - Collection/treatment for 192 residential
and commercial structures, Wastewater flow of 65,000 gpd collected by septic
tank effluent sewer, secondary treatment by rotating biological contactor,
disposal by leach field. Treatment plant site located next to Woodrock
Elementary School.
Option 2: Large Service Area - Collection/treatment for 370 residential
and commercial structures. Wastewater flow of 125,000 gpd witPl the same treat-
ment/disposal process and site as Small Service Area Option 1.
Option 3: Central Collection/Treatment - Same as Option 3 above.
Septage Treatment/Disposal
Composting is the most cost-effective method of septage treatment/dis-
posal for Woodrock. Treatment plant capacity of 2,025,000 gal/yr is needed.
A 15-acre site in Woodrock industrial park is the recommended location of the
septage composting facility.
Management System
The on-site system management program involves system inspection every
three years by private haulers under contract to the town. The systems will
be pumped out when necessary and regular maintenance will be encouraged.
1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis/Plan Section
The cost-effectiveness analysis involved a detailed cost estimate and
environmental assessment of. the wastewater management options for the areas
outside of the town center and for the town center area. On-site Option 1
was selected for Outside Town Center and Larqe Service Area Option 2 was
selected as the most cost-effective plan for Woodrock for the Town Center.
Initial capital cost of the selected plan is approximately $5.1 million, annual
0&.M is $665,000 and present worth is $11.9 million. The major adverse environ-
mental impact of the selected plan is the potential for ground and surface water
quality degradation from increased use of on-site disposal systems. Mitigating
measures are recommended in Section 9.5.
1.4 Management. Financing. Per Household Costs
A sewer district will be created for the town center sewer service area.
Only property owners within the district will be assessed user charges which
will include the local share of the capital costs and the annual operation
and maintenance costs of the system. Every property owner will be assessed
user charges for the septage facility through the septic tank maintenance fee.
The town will finance the local share of the EPA Step 2 and 3 Construction Grants
1-3
-------
Program with a municipal bond amortized at 9% over 20 years. The per house-
hold costs of the recommended plan range from $18.60 for non-problem systems
to $114.17 for town center residential property owners.
1.5 Public Participation
With a full-scale public participation program, public involvement in
the study was significant and no public controversies developed over the study
findings and recommendations. A favorable vote on a referendum calling for'
the local funding share of the Step 2 facilities design is expected.
1-4
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Study Purpose and Scope
In the spring of 1979, the Woodrock Town Council initiated a 201 Waste-
water Management Facilities Planning Study with the following three objectives:
1. To identify wastewater management needs in Woodrock, both now
and over the 20-year period;
2. To evaluate alternative methods of meeting those needs in an
environmentally sound and cost-effective manner, and;
3. To recommend a course of action for the town to follow over the
next 20 years.
2.2 Planning Area Boundaries
The project area includes the entire town of Woodrock shown on Figure 2.2-1.
Figure 2.2-2 shows the location of Woodrock and the metropolitan James City area.
2-1
-------
FIQURC 2-2-1
STREETS
HOUSES
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES
i
ro
-------
i
co
FIGURE 2-2-2
PLANNING AREA LOCATION
n
I
««.« \
J\ 1 V-'
I \ I»tTON f \
; ' >. »nY HkM X
tCALI I i 130.000
e to
-------
3.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE
In the initial phase of the facilities planning study, all relevant
background information on the project area should be gathered to create a
community profile for reference throughout the study. Information on the
community's socioeconomic characteristics, land use, physical features,
present wastewater management practices and regulationst and town govern-
ment organization should be obtained and evaluated by the project team.
This information can be incorporated as an interim report or retained in
summary form for later presentation in the final report.
During this phase of the study, the public participation work plan
should be prepared and approved by EPA. If a full-scale program is required,
the Citizen Advisory Committee should be formed and a training session held
for its members. It may also be advisable to have a public consultation to
inform the public of the study plans, to establish public priori ties/goals,
and to learn of potential issues/conflicts that should be addressed by the
project team.
3.1 Socioeconomic Data
3.1.1 Population Characteristics
The population of Woodrock is year-round and there are no seasonal
fluctuations in population. During the past 30 years, the town experienced
an increasingly high rate of-growth as a result of post-World War II urban
sprawl. Since 1960, the town's population more than doubled. The 208 areawide
water quality management plan developed population estimates and projections
for Woodrock presented in Table 3.1-1. The population of the entire town is
projected to increase 43 percent from a 1980 estimate of 10,200 to a year 2000
population of 14,600. The town center of 370 residential units is projected to
grow at a slower rate of 15 percent on the basis of available land, zoning and
health code restrictions. Average household size is 2.9 persons per household.
3.1.2 Economic Characteristics
Median family income was $12,380 in 1975, approximately $1500 higher than
the State average (see Table 3.1-2). Seventy percent of the employed residents
work in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and professional and related
services and most residents commute to jobs outside of Woodrock. More residents
are employed in professional and related services than the State average. There
are seven manufacturing and eleven small commercial businesses located in the
towns's industrial park. There are 12 dry retail and 12 service businesses,
including one restaurant located in the town center.
3-1
-------
Table 3.1-1
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS1
Total Town and Town Center
1970
2 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Total Town 8,830 10,200 11,100 12,200 13,300 14,600
Town Center3 1,100 1,110 1,180 1,220 1,265
^Population estimates and projections based on areawide 208 water quality
management.
2
US Census of Population
n"own center population estimates based on disaggregation of 208 approved
estimates, average household size, number of dwelling units in town center
and present zoning and health code restrictions without sewer service to
the area.
3-2
-------
Table 3.1-2
INCOME DISTRIBUTION , WOODROCK
AND STATE COMPARISON, 1975
Income
Category
Less than 5,000
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 24,999
25,000 - or more
All families
Median Income
Woodrock
(«
171 6.0
564 19.7
1,123 39.3
835 29.2
165 5.8
2,858
$12,380
State
13.6
30.3
30.9
19.6
5.6
$10,835
Sources: State Census, 1975
3-3
-------
3.2 Land Use Data
Over two-thirds of the town's total land area of 12,173 acres is forest
land. Approximately 18.1 percent of the area is urban, 8.0 percent is
agricultural and 4.0 percent is wetlands. Residential development is con-
centrated in the town center (Route 12 and Center Street) and in clustered
developments along Route 12 (see Figure 3.2-1). Commercial activity is also
concentrated in the town center.
V
The average population density of the town is 527 persons per square
mile with an average development density of one dwelling unit for every
3.5 acres. The average development density of the developed areas outside
of the town center is .75 acres per dwelling unit. In the town center,
average development density is .5 acres per dwelling unit. Industrial
uses are restricted to the southwestern portion of the town where a 600 acre
industrial park is located. A total of 245 employees are concentrated in the
industrial park. Publically owned land is scattered throughout the town.
The town's master plan recommends increasing commercial activity in the town
center and encouraging further development in the industrial park.
3.2.1 Housing
There are an estimated 3,529 housing units in Woodrock and approximately
86 percent are single-family housing units. All of the residential units rely
on on-site wastewater disposal except for one 20 unit apartment complex which
has a package treatment plant with NPDES permit for surface disposal.
3.2.2 Zoning Regulations
Most of the land area is zoned for agricultural and residential use (see
Figure 3.2-1). Minimum lot size varies from .5 to 2.0 acreas for a single-
family residence in the three resident!ally zoned districts. Apartment build-
ings are allowed in the apartment district on a 10-acre minimum site with a
special permit from the Planning Board.
3.3 Physical Features
3.3.1 Location and Topography
Woodrock is on the western fringe of metropolitan James City, just south
of Route 36. The topography of the area is characterized by rolling hills
composed of an uneven mass of bedrock covered by a mantle of till or outwash
material. The highest elevation in the town is Mead Hill with an elevation
of 450 feet and lowest point is 150 feet above mean sea level.
3-4
-------
FIOUKE 3-2-1
LAND USE
STREETS
HOUSES
MUNICIPAL WELL
COMMERCIAL AREA
H INDUSTRIAL PARK
| OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
-------
1 t-t
ZONIN0 MAf OF WOOOMOCK
GO
I
cr>
AH -I AORICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A |f?£U.i
AR-2 AGRICULTURAL- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT t,°oo,f?,ll
COMMERCIM. DISTRICT A
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
ICAtt
3 '/' I I
-------
3.3.2 Climate
The area has a humid climate and an annual temperature characteristics
of the North Temperate Zone. Summers are short and comparatively cool with
only a few brief periods of hot weather. Winter snow cover is common from
December to early March. Average precipitation is 43 inches per year and the
normal growing season is 176 days extending from May 1 to October 15. Precip-
itation is generally evenly distributed throughout the year.
»
3.3.3 Soils
Soil suitability for subsurface wastewater disposal in Woodrock is shown
on Figure 3.3-1. Suitable soil areas are those where a conventional septic
system generally can be installed with little or no modification to the site.
In marginal areas, septic system installation can be expected to be somewhat
more expensive and complicated due to the need for a larger leaching area, the
addition of fill materials or other modifications. Areas classified as unsuit-
able present serious obstacles to the installation of septic systems because
of high groundwater or bedrock. In such areas, leach field installations may be
prohibited by State regulations or will be very costly. The soil suitability
map shows that the soils are:
22.2 % suitable
8.6 % marginal
62.5 % unsuitable
6.7 % unclassified
The unsuitable soils can be further characterized as:
6.6 % insufficient depth to groundwater
21.4 % insufficient depth to bedrock
34.5 % both groundwater and permeability restrictions
The suitability analysis was based on a 1975 US Soil Conservation Survey of
Woodrock. Field checks, including soil borings, of the SCS data indicate that
the soil survey information is generally accurate.
3.3.4 Surface Water Resources
Woodrock is located at the headwaters of the Trout River watershed. Its
four major tributaries, Willow Brook, Sheep Brook, Mill Brook and Turtle Brook
drain the town and flow south into this river. All of the brooks, except Mill
Brook, have dry periods during the summer. An inventory of Woodrock's six
ponds and one lake is shown on Table 3.3.-1. Figure 3.4-2 illustrates the
location of the. surface waters, and their watersheds. The total number of
residential units within each watershed is also listed. Development is primarily
concentrated in the Cold Brook and Lake Linden watersheds.
3.3.5 Groimdwater Resources
Woodrock relies solely on groundwater for its water supply. Since it
is located at the head of the Trout River drainage basin, there is little
influence on the groundwater resource from sources outside of the town's
3-7
-------
FlOUftC 3 8-1
TW *U(TAM.ITY Or KNLl FOM lUMUMTACt
VMTIMTtN *MT
-------
10
Table
Inventory of Surface Impoundments
Name
Sheep Brook Pond
Black Pond
Lake Linden
College Pond
Homer's Pond
Windsor Pond
White Pond
Surface Area
(acres)
15
22
142
2
1
12
6
Average
Depth (ft)
2
3
8
3
3
5
3
Maximum
Width/Length
(ft)
.20/.28
.OS/. 30
.41/.53
.08/.11
.03/.11
.097.30
.087.30
Dam
Height/Length
(ft)
10/1500
10/20
10/20
10/35
5/30
13.5/60
5/65
Vol ume
(million
gallons)
10
2
1010
2
1
20
6
-------
FIGURE 3-3-2
WATERSHEDS
^^ FLOOD PLAIN
I MIL**
i
t
o
WATERSHED
I. TURTLE BROOK
2. SHEEP BROOK
3. COLD BROOK
4.WILLOW BROOK
5 HOLLOW BROOK
6. MILL BROOK
7LAKE LINDEN
"
-------
boundaries. The town has four water supply wells and 76 miles of water
distribution mains. In 1978, over 428 million gallons/year of water were
supplied to over 3100 service connections.
The groundwater table fluctuates seasonally by six feet with highest
groundwater levels from December to April. Information on bedrock topography
and average water table elevations were combined to determine the thickness of
saturated soil overlying bedrock. Figure 3.3-3 shows the location of Woodrock's
major aquifers, and their estimated well yields.
3.4 Existing Waste Disposal Practices
3.4.1 On-Site Disposal Systems
Most of the new homes in town are located on at least one-acre of land
providing protection of surface and groundwater through dilution and also
providing ample room for reconstruction of the system if it fails. Septic
system installation has been monitored closely by the town Board of Health
since 1951 and local and State regulations have been significantly improved
during the past thirty years. Precise records of septic system installations
have been kept since 1972 by the Board of Health including depth to groundwater,
design flows, percolation test results, soil logs, and system location information.
The Board of Health is not notified of septic tank pumpouts by the private
haulers and, therefore, does not have any on-site system maintenance records.
Table 3.4.1 shows the types and numbers of on-site systems in Woodrock.
3.4.2 Septage Management
Woodrock pays $25,000 per year to the Metropolitan Area Sewer District
to dispose of its septage in the sewerage systems of Middletown and Fairmont
which are operated by the District. In addition, septage haulers pay a disposal
fee for each load to help maintain the dumping sites. Present and projected
septage flows were estimated for residential, commercial and industrial uses
based on an assumed pumpout schedule of once every three years. Table 3.4-2
shows the estimated septage generation rates for Woodrock.
3.4.3 Industrial Wastewater Disposal
Some of the seven manufacturing firms in Woodrock generate process
wastes containing hazardous substances (manufacturers of chemicals, metal
stampings, and photo-chemical supplies). There are no records of the present
process waste handling practices of these industries which all rely on on-site
disposal systems. Based on water use, the volume of industrial wastewater is
12.6 million gallons per year. There are two NPDES permits issued to five
industries, all for the discharge of cooling water to streams.
3-11
-------
FIGURE 3-3-3
AVAILABILITY OF OROUNDWATER
IN UNCONSOLI DATED DEPOSITS
WELL YIELDS
N
OJ
*
ro
> 250 Gallons/MinuU '
80-260 GallonMinute
5-50 Gallorw/Mlnut*
[""] < 5 Galloni/Minute
Public - Supply Wtll
-------
Table 3.4-1
WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TYPES
Year Built
Type of System
Number
of Units % of Total
Prior to 1951
1951-1960
1960-1970
1970-1977
1977-Present
Cesspool
Septic System
500 Gal Tank
Leaching Pit
Septic System
800 Gal Tank
Leaching Trench
Septic System
1000 Gal Tank
Leaching Trench
Septic System
1500 Gal Tank
Leaching Trench
1,041
614
1,390
374
109
29.5
17.4
39.4
10.6
3.1
Total
3,528
100.0%
3-13
-------
Table 3.4-2
SEPTA6E GENERATION RATES*
Liquid
(million gal/yr)
Source
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total Liquid Volume
Ibs. Total Solids/yr.
1980
1.467
0.068
0.022
1.557
356,000
2000
1.860
0.125
0.040
2.025
452,000
*Based on pumping average tank size of 1000 gal, three year pumping
interval and number of households.
3-14
-------
3.4.3 Solid Waste Management
The town's sanitary landfill is located in the Turtle Brook watershed
roughly 1 1/2 miles upstream of the town's well fields. Refuse is compacted
daily and covered with six inches of subsoil and clay cover material. Since
septage is not disposed of at this site, the major water quality concern for
the facility is the impact of its leachate on groundwater resources. The
landfill area is limited and projected life of the facility is 10 years.
\
3.5 Water Quailty/Wastewater Management Regulations
All surface waters within Woodrock have been designated as either Class B
or Class Bl waters which are of high quality and suitable for bathing and
recreational use. Effluent limitations for Mill Brook restrict any municipal
treatment plant discharges to no more than 10 mg/1 suspended solids and 10 mg/1
BOD. The flow in the other streams in Woodrock is insufficient to accomodate
any treatment plant discharge.
The State regulates subsurface wastewater disposal systems through the
Health Code which is administered by local Board of Health. Under the State
Health Code, all subsurface disposal systems under 15,000 gallons per day
capacity are regulated by the local Board of Health while systems over 15,000
gallons per day are regulated by the State. All surface water discharges are
regulated by the State, in accordance with the NPDES.
3.6 Previous Studies
In 1977, Sanders Engineering of James City completed a 201 Wastewater
Management Facilities Planning Study for Woodrock that recommended a sewerage
system emcompassing nearly the entire town. Figure 3.6-1 shows the extent of
the recommended sewer service area. The study recommended that the calculated
wastewater flow from this area (2 million gal/day in the 20 year planning
period) be transported via an interceptor sewer from a pump station located in
the town center to the Middletown treatment plant three miles to the east.
Assimilative studies of Mill Brook indicated that a maximum of 1 mgd could be
discharged to the stream. Since there are no suitable land disposal sites,
Sanders Engineers concluded that treatment at the Middletown plant was the only
feasible treatment alternative. The total estimated present worth cost of the
system in 1980 is $58 million (ENR 3145).
There was considerable public controversy over the potential growth impacts
of the town-wide sewerage system plant. Many citizens also challenged the
adequacy of the study's needs assessment and contended that such a large
collection system was not needed. The referendum vote on bonding the Step 2
design of the collection system was defeated.
3-15
-------
CO
I
FI9URE 3-6-1
PREVIOUS FACILITIES STUDY
RECOMMENDED SEWER SERVICE AREA
STREETS
HOUSES
SEWER SERVICE AREA
-------
3.7 Town Government/Finances
An elected part-time Town Council administers the local town govern-
ment. The Town Council may appropriate money for wastewater management
and other town projects within the annual budget limitations. Construction
of a town-owned wastewater management system would require a referendum
vote. The Town Council, by State law, has the authority to construct, operate
and maintain a town-owned wastewater management system.
\
The major source of tax revenue for the town is from real estate property
taxes. Woodrock's equalized tax rate is $45/1000 which is comparable to that
of surrounding communities. The town's bond rating is Single A and the
allowable debt limit of $10 million can be doubled, with State approval, for
wastewater management or other projects.
3-17
-------
4.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
A most crucial step in developing an appropriate wastewater management
program for a community is to carefully define present and future wastewater
disposal problems as required in PRM 79-8. The more precisely the problem can
be defined, the better the solution can be tailored to meet the town's specific
wastewater management needs. Extensive data gathering and evaluation are needed
for accurate problem definition including such techniques as sanitary surveys,
water quality sampling and community public opinion surveys. v
It may be appropriate to report the results of these problem identification
activities at a public consultation both to inform residents of the nature and
extent of the problems and to confirm the project team's problem evaluation. A
problem identification summary should be provided at such a public consultation.
4.1 Introduction
Information obtained for the community profile was evaluated to determine
the location of suspected wastewater and water quality management problems in
Woodrock. The following information was mapped:
1) Board of Health repair and complaint records;
2) Problem areas identified by Board of Health personnel
and the Citizen Advisory Committee members; and
3) Problem areas identified in the 208 regional plan.
Overlaying these maps suggested the location of 11 potential wastewater
management problem areas. Field investigations were focussed on these areas
and adjacent developed areas. Questionnaires were sent to each household to
determine what household characteristics were related to system problems and
to locate problem systems identified by homeowners. A water quality sampling
program was also conducted to evaluate the effect of on-site systems on ground
and surface waters.
4.2 Field Investigations/Community Survey
4.2.1 .On-Site System Problem Identification
Several techniques were employed to evaluate the performance of on-site
systems including:
1} Aerial survey of entire town revealed 65 surface breakouts in the
potential problem areas. Identified problems were mapped.
2) Community survey of all households resulted in 788 responses
(28 percent). Questionnaire intended to relate household
characteristics fsystem age, household size, frequency of
maintenance, etc). Identified problems were mapped.
4-1
-------
3) Sanitary survey of 1600 households included homeowner interviews
and the visual inspection of the system to determine any evident
problems such as surface breakout or odors. Identified problem
systems and their suspected caused were mapped.
4) Soil borings in areas where several on-site disposal system
problems were observed. Elevations and other topographic
features were noted on maps.
4.2.2 Water Quality Data Collection
Surface and groundwater samples were taken from selected locations to
determine what impact septic systems have on the quality of water resources
in Woodrock. All of the samples were collected on a single day and included:
26 surface water samples
16 in high density areas
10 in low density areas
10 groundwater samples
t all 10 in high density areas
4.3 Water Quality Impact Analysis
Based on soil conditions and existing water quality information, a
model was developed to estimate the contribution of nutrients from
domestic sources to the ground and surface waters during the 20-year planning
period. The estimated nutrient contributions calculated by the model for
each watershed were compared to the levels measured during the sampling
program and to drinking and surface water standards. The results of the
analysis indicate:
Surface Water
1) Development density in the Cold Brook and Linden Lake watersheds
will cause increased eutrophication of Lake Linden, Windsor, Homer's
and White Ponds.
2) College Pond may suffer eutrophication problems during the 20-year period.
Groundwater
1) Water quality in all groundwater samples and in the periodic samples of
town wells (under the Safe Drinking Water Act) is well within U.S. drink-
ing water standards.
2) It is not expected that water quality in the town's aquifers will be signi-
ficantly affected by the projected development density within these
areas over the twenty year planning period.
4-2
-------
4.3.3 Monitoring Needs
1) Surface water quality monitoring of those ponds that are expected to
experience increased eutrophication is recommended along with other
mitigating measures presented in Section 9.5. Monitoring of the town's
streams downgradient of highly developed areas is also recommended (see
Figure 7.1-1).
2) Groundwater quality monitoring of areas upgradient of town*wells is recom-
mended to supplement the present town well monitoring program Csee Figure
7.1-1) and to provide an early warning of groundwater quality degradation.
4.4 Wastewater Management Needs Analysis
4.4.1 On-site Disposal System Problems
Approximately three-fourths of the households in Woodrock were either
visited during the sanitary survey or responded to the questionnaire. From
these contacts a list of approximately 500 problem systems was compiled.
Projecting these finding to the entire town results in an estimate of 629
existing system problems. Approximately 60 percent of these problems.are
located within 14 specific problem areas.
The town center area is the most severe problem area with the largest
number of problems, 67 (20%) of the 370 systems due to high groundwater and
low permeability soils. Many of these properties have insufficient land
area for on-site disposal system repairs. The location of the 14 problem
areas, including the town center (Problem Area #14) is shown on Figure 4.4.1.
The remaining 40 percent of the disposal system problems are scattered through-
out the town.
The following conclusions were reached on the basis of the field
investigations and the community survey:
1) The majority (85%) of the disposal system problems are
seasonal in nature, occurring during the spring months or
during periods of wet weather.
2) The most common problem is groundwater flooding of the
leach field during wet weather.
3) Overloaded systems are a common problem and disposal systems
serving large families or multi-family buildings experienced
overloading more frequently than systems serving fewer
people.
4) Clogging leach fields due to lack of maintenance and poor
soil conditions are common problems.
5) Less than half of the systems in Woodrock are regularly
maintained.
4-3
-------
FI9UHE 4-4-
PROBLEM AREAS
STREETS
HOUSES
-------
6) Leach field flooding by surface water runoff was a frequent,
though less common problem.
7) Few households use water saving devices and wastewater flow
could be reduced by at least 15 percent with a water conservation
program.
4.4.2 Design Wastewater Flows
\
Table 4.4.1 lists the number of households, number and type of problems,
and expected wastewater flows from each problem area. The 13 problem areas
outside of the town center do not have vacant lots available for future
development and, therefore, design flow is the same as present wastewater flow.
Wastewater flow for the town center (Problem Area 14) is calculated based on
70 gallons per capita per day. Present residential wastewater flow is 78,000
gallons per day and commercial flow is 22,000 gallons per day, for a total
flow of 100,000 gallons per day. While population growth of 15 percent is
expected in the town center over the twenty year planning period, a water
conservation program can maintain residential flows at present levels.
However, commercial activity is expected to double the commercial wastewater
flow resulting in the need for a 25 percent reserve capacity for the town center
treatment plant.
4.4.3 Septage Management Needs
With the majority of septic systems in Woodrock (83%) functioning
satisfactorily, on-site systems can be relied on in most areas of town during
the 20-year period with proper maintenance practices. However, Woodrock
must provide adequate treatment for septage generated by regular maintenance
of these systems. The Metropolitan Area Sewer District (MASD) has notified
that it will no longer accept septage from the town after 1982 in order to meet
the septage treatment needs of its member towns. Since all of the surrounding
towns, are sewered, a regional septage facility is not feasible.
4.4.3 Management Needs
For Woodrock to be eligible to receive federal funds for the construction
of wastewater treatment facilities (town center treatment plant and septage
treatment facility) or for the rehabilitation of individual septic systems, two
particular management measures are required. .Federal regulations specifically
state that the town is responsible for:
1) The establishment of a comprehensive management program for
on-site systems. At a minimum this must include: measures
to assure proper installation; the physical inspection of all
on-site systems at least every three years; a program to
assure the proper operation and repair of such systems; and
the testing of selected wells on an annual basis.
4-5
-------
I
O)
Table 4.4-1
PROBLEM AREA DESIGN WASTEWATER FLOWS
Problem
Area
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14**
Scattered
Number of
Houses
28
5
30
13
13
44
13
27
26
8
11
14
7
370
2919
Surface
Breakout
10
1
10
9
2
7
5
7
6
1
5
7
2
15
171
Backup
2
1
5
2
1
3
1
_
_
2
_
-
-
10
76
Soggy
Leach
Field
7
2
7
1
4
20
4
8
12
4
3
4
3
17
133
D1 rect
Discharge
Or Overflows
-
_
-
-
1
-
-
1
_
-
-
-
20
Other
.
1
2
1
-
2
-
2
3
-
1
-
-
5
1
Total No.
. of
Problems
19
5
24
13
7
33
10
17
21
7
9
11
5
67
381
Total No.
of Non-
Problems
9
0
6
0
6
11
3
10
5
1
2
3
2
303
693*
Design Waste-
Waster Flow
(gallons per day)
10,750
1,660
7,930
8,310
2,710
12,720
4,480
7,480
8,070
2,320
2,960
4,840
1,650
125,000***
1,123,800
TOTAL 3528
258
103
229
22
18
629
751
1,307,750
* Number of future failures at 1% annual failure rate
** Present Problems
** Residential flow estimated at 80,000 gpd, commercial flow
estimated at 45,000 qpd In 2000
-------
2) The establishment of a system of user charges. The user charge
system must be adopted as a municipal by-law or regulation, and
must provide for the distribution of all costs associated with
the operation of the treatment works among the users in proportion
to each user's wastewater contribution.
4-7
-------
5. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT/EVALUATION
During this phase of the study, the project team must develop a reasonable
range of alternative courses of action appropriate to the town's identified
wasteuater management problems. The project team should provide information to
the public on the per unit costs, technical reliability and the environmental
impacts of suitable technologies. Technical guidance in evaluating the
application of these technologies to the identified problems will assist the
public in screening alternatives. » , >
Public participation should be aimed at establishing the public accept-
ability of the specific alternatives and their environmental impacts. A. public
consultation on the alternatives under consideration should be held (required
under 40 CFR-3S) to refine alternatives prior to the detailed cost-effectiveness
analysis. Such a consultation may reveal conflicts/compatibilities between
certain alternatives and identified community goals (i.e. desire for growth,
town center development, etc.). A responsiveness summary is required following
this public meeting.
5.1 Introduction
Based on the field Investigations the project team formulated the following
preliminary alternatives for solving the identified wastewater management problems
in Woodrock:
1) Outside Town Center Area
Scattered problems can be solved on-site with rehabilitation of
present system.
Clustered Problem Areas
The clustered problem areas are evenly dispersed throughout
the town and should either be solved as separate problems or
tied together as one central system. There are three approaches
for the clustered problem areas ~ on-site, neighborhood systems
and a central collection and treatment system.
2) Town Center
Due to the lack of space for on-site repairs and the severity of
the disposal system problems in the town center, on-site solutions
were not considered for this area. With an estimated design waste-
water flow from the town center of 125,000 gpd the State requires
a secondary treatment plant. The town center treatment plant can
serve a smaller area or the town center can join in a town-wide
collection/treatment system.
5-1
-------
5.2 Technology Alternatives
5.2.1 On-Site Disposal Systems
Table 5.2.1 shows which conventional or alternative on-site systems are
most suitable to each of the identified disposal system problems. Table 5.2.2
summarizes the environmental, technical and cost considerations involved in
evaluating the use of these systems in Woodrock. Appendix A presents the
component costs for each of the on-site system alternatives for the conditions
in Hoodrock.
5.2.2 Collection Systems
Both conventional large diameter gravity sewers and alternative collection
system collection system technologies were considered for use in the neighbor-
hood systems or in a central treatment system. Table 5.2.3 summarizes the
considerations for selecting collection technologies in Woodrock.
5.2.3 Mastewater Treatment/Disposal Systems
Table 5.2-4 summarizes the considerations for selecting suitable wastewater
treatment alternatives for a town center treatment plant. Alternative waste-
water treatment/disposal systems for the town-wide collection system because there
are no suitable sites near the town center that could accommodate the land disposal
of 2 million gpd and Mill Brook can not assimilate this volume of effluent.
5.2.4 Septage Treatment/Disposal Systems
The costs, environmental impacts and technical reliability of available
septage treatment/disposal alternatives were evaluated by the project team.
Table 5.2-5 presents a summary of these considerations for each alternative for
a 2,025,000 gal/yr facility.
5.2.5 Flow and Water Reduction Systems
The following flow and waste reduction methods were considered:
1) Installation of water conservation devices
2) Installation of waterless toilets
3) Public education
4) Water rate modification to penalize increased use
5-2
-------
en
i
to
Table 5.2-1
SUITABLE ON-SITE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES FOR IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
Technology
Waterless Waste Disposal System -
Greywater Treatment/Disposal
Greywater Recycling System -
Septic Tank/Soil Absorption System
Aerobic Treatment or Septic Tank -
Sand Filter -
Disinfection -
Surface Discharge
Aerobic Treatment or Septic Tank -
Soil Absorption System
- Evapotransplration System
- Mound System
- Dual Alternating System
- Fill System
- Conventional Leaching System
Aerobic Treatment or Septic Tank -
Sand Filter -
Soil Absorption System
- Evapotransplration System
- Mound System
- Dual Alternating System
- Fill System
- Conventional Leaching System
Identified Problem
D.LP.WSA
LP.WSA
B.D.GW.LP
D.GW.LP
B.GW
LP
LP
NSB
D.GW.LP
B.D.GW.LP
D.LP
D.LP
Requirements/Limitations
State Approval
State Approval
Surface Water Assimilative Capacity
Proximity to Surface Water
State Approval
Large Land Areas
State Approval
Large Land Areas
B - High Bedrock
D - High Density
GW - High Groundwater
LP - Low Penneable Soils
NSB - No Special Benefits
USA - Water Short Areas
-------
Table 5.2-2
ON-SITE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
System Type
Compost Toilet*
Oil Flush Toilet*
Septic Tank, Sand
Filter, Disinfection
Y1 Septic Tank, So11+
*" Absorption System
Aerobic Unit, Sand
Filter, Disinfection
Aerobic Unit, Soil+
Absorption System
Septic Tank, Sand
Filter Disinfection
Septic Tank, Soil
Absorption System
Aerobic Unit, Sand
Filter, Disinfection
Aerobic Unit, Soil
Absorption System
* Includes a greywater
+ Includes a greywater
toilet flushing
Ol
I/I O>
01 Ol U
t- O 10
i- Id-C
3 «*- O
CT i- M
0) 3 i-
K l/> O
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
disposal
i i/i
0) 4->
QC c
^"* E
0,0,
01 v-
C 3
ui o-
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
H
H
system
+j
c >>
01 ff
3-r-
1- 3
UI Or
M
M
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
reuse system for
i
to
f
4_>
^ jj
O i-
r- 10 i
4J O -r-
0 »- X>
C 3 C IO
0) I_ -O f r-
4-> O O Or
o *a (- at at
a. o
H
H
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
H -
M -
L -
Q. r- 0£
M
L
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
High
Medium
Low
«u
ce. M
4J
i C
to
-------
Table 5.2-3
SUITABILITY AND CAPITAL COST OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Type of
Collection
System
Vacuum
Sewers
Pressure
Sewers
Small Diameter
Gravity Sewers
Large Diameter
Gravity Sewers
Specific Site Conditions
High Bedrock
or Groundwater
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
Suitable
Medium Capital
Cost
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Flat Terrain
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
Suitable
Medium Capital
Cost
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Large Wows
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Suitable
Medium Capital
Cost
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
High Density
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Not Suitable
High Capital Cost
Suitable
Medium Capital
Cost
Highly Suitable
Low Capital Cost
NOTES: Operation and maintenance, and energy requirements are higher for the vacuum
and pressure sewers since these collection systems utilize mechanical
components.
Vacuum and pressure sewers both may but not necessarily utilize existing
disposal systems, whereas small diameter gravity sewers require the use
of existing disposal systems.
5-5
-------
Table 5.3-4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Treatment
System
Extended
Aeration
Activated
Sludge
Trickling
Filter
Rotating
Biological
Contactor
Oxidation
Ditch
Aerated
Lagoon
Anaerobic
Lagoon
Land
Application
Aquaculture
w/ Greenhouse
H - High
M - Medium
L - Low
M c/>
M +J
C C '
>, 21 22
l-*3 -O '3
Q) O* CO*
C 01 V OJ
LUGS _J Q£
H L
M L
L L
L L
L M
H H
L H
L H
L H
NOTE:
w
c >»
0) -M
3 M-
<*- 3
LU O*
H
H
M
H
M
M
L
H
M
The above
r O
5 '5 5
S^-i J
woo u
O TJ S_ 01
Q. O 0. I
L
L
M
L
M
M
H
M
L
conclusions
5
2
IQ
o:
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
L
are
the specific conditions in
(125,000 i
IQ
M
r- +J
Q. I/I
IQ O
O U
M
M
L
L
L
M
M
M
H
only true
Woodrock
0)
0
c c
0 10
S S
2 ^+,
01 "O -^ Ul
a. c 10 o
o IQ s u
H
M
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
for
gpd. septic tank effluent)
5-6
-------
Table 5.3-5
SEPTAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
I/I
4J
C
>, L.
Treatment System Sa
SS
Ul OS
Lagoons L
Land Application M
Subsurface
Composting M
Lime M
Stabilization
Chemical M
Oxidation
Co-Disposal M
Conventional H
Treatment
H - High
M - Medium
L - Low
M i/i
M 4J
c c
US- ' S-
» -F- »f
§3 T3 3
O" CO*
.C
-------
5.3 Management Alternatives
5.3.1 On-Slte System Management
To Include an on-site rehabilitation program in the facilities plan, an
on-site system management program is required by EPA. Regular inspection of
all systems rehabilitated with federal funds is required and regular system
maintenance for all systems in the town is recommended. Three approaches to
initiating a regular on-site system maintenance program were considered as
shown on Table 5.3.1. Present Board of Health inspection practices are
considered adequate to insure the proper installation and rehabilitation of
on-site systems. The project team concluded that the Board of Health was
the appropriate town agency to supervise the required water quality monitoring
program.
5.3.2 User Charges
1) Sewer District Charges
The sewer district would assess user charges for the capital and O&M
costs of the treatment plant, on the basis of wastewater flow, directly to
each user through a district fee. For residences, wastewater flow is con-
sidered equal and the user fee is uniform for all households. Commercial
user charges will be based on water use.
2) Septage Facility User Charges
User charges will also be required to cover the following costs of on-
site system management:
Periodic septic tank pumping;
Initial capital and O&M costs of septage treatment facility;
Administrative costs incurred by the town.
The user charges for these services can be paid through an assessment
on the tax bills or to the septage hauler who would be charged at the disposal
facility. The method of user charge assessment depends on the on-site manage-
ment option selected.
5.4 Screening Alternatives
5.4.1 Cost/Environmental Impact Considerations
The screening of wastewater management alternatives involved the selection
of technologies, the definition of service areas and the evaluation of the
environmental impacts of each alternative. The screening process was a complex
5-8
-------
Characteristics
Table 5.3-1
On-Site Management Options
Option 1
Town-Owned
Pumping Service
Option 2
Town-Wide Contract
To Private Pumper
Option 3
Town-Operated
Reminder System
Convenience to Homeowner
High
High
Low
Relative Administrative
Cost to Town
High
Moderate
High
in
u>
Relative Cost to
Homeowner
Moderate
Low
Low
User Charge Assessment
Uniform
annual charge
added to tax
bill
Uniform annual
charge added
to tax bill
Payment to
pumper every
three years
with pass
through of
funds to pay
for septage
disposal
Town Administrative
Duties
Acquire and maintain
equipment, hire staff
for pumping, record
maintenance and upgrading,
collect fee
Supervise contract,
collect user fee
Send reminder
notices, main-
tain records on
pumping dates,
follow up on
those who do not
heed the reminder
-------
series of tradeoffs between the wastewater management approaches to develop
a reasonable number of alternatives for a detailed cost effectiveness analysis.
Public comments helped narrow the technology/service area combinations to three
plan options for the problem areas outside of the town center and two plan
options for the town center problem area:
Outsi.de Town Center
1} On-site Option - For all scattered problems and for fo problem areas.
2) Neighborhood Option - Neighborhood systems for 13 problem areas,
on-site systems for scattered problems.
3) Central Collection/Treatment - All 13 problem areas included in
central system with town center area.
Town Center
1) Large Service Area - Collection treatment system for 450 residential
units and commercial structures.
2) Small Service Area - Collection/treatment of 192 residential units
and commercial structures.
The development of the options was based on community goals established
through the public participation program.
t Increase capacity for commercial growth in town center
Maintain level of projected residential growth outside
the town center
Protect undeveloped and environmentally sensitive areas
(water supplies, ponds, streams, wetlands and flood plains)
Minimize short-term impacts of sewer construction
Minimize operation and maintenance requirements of wastewater
management systems
Assure technical reliability of systems
t Minimize system costs
5.4.2 Technology Selection
The selection of technologies involved the factors of public accept-
ability, cost, environmental impacts and technical reliability.
5-10
-------
1) On-Site Systems
A septic tank system (conventional or mounded leach field) was selected
for the cost-effectiveness analysis of the areas outside the town center (see
Table 5.2-2).
2) Collection Systems
The septic tank effluent collection system was selected ftr the cost-
effectiveness analysis of the neighborhood option for the 13 problem areas
and for the town center treatment plant (see Table 5.2-3). For four of the
13 problem areas, a small diameter gravity sewer was used for the cost
analysis. Due to the topography in nine of the problem areas, the use of
pressure sewers in combination with small diameter gravity sewers was required.
3) Treatment/Disposal Systems
Treatment/disposal by communal leach field was selected for all of the
13 problem areas. The rotating biological contactor treatment process was
selected for the town center treatment plant with disposal by leach field
based on a preliminary cost effectiveness analysis of the options shown in
Table 5.4-1. Aerated lagoons and land application considered in Table 5.3-4
were eliminated from this analysis due to insufficient land area near the
town center. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the remaining options
included both subsurface disposal at a site next to the Woodrock Elemenary
School and surface disposal in Mill Brook. The site next to the Woodrock
Elementary School provided sufficient land area for subsurface disposal near
the town center and is the least cost solution. Sludge produced by the treat-
ment plant will be disposed of at the septage facility.
4) Flow and Waste Reduction Systems
An aggressive program of public education and the encouragement of water
saving devices were selected as the most cost-effective methods of flow and waste
reduction. The Board of Health agreed to carry out a public education program
and the Water Department will offer water saving devices at wholesale cost. A
15 percent reduction in residential water use is anticipated from such a program.
5.4.3 Service Area Definition
The neighborhood system service area for each of the clustered problem
areas included all problem and non-problem systems in the defined problem
areas. Potential leach field sites were located and mapped for public consider-
ation. Table 5.4-2 shows the conditions and type of system selected for each
problem area. The same service area shown on Figure 3.6-1 was used for central
col lection/treatment option.
5-11
-------
Table 5.4-1
COST COMPARISON FOR TOWN CENTER COLLECTION/TREATMENT OPTIONS
Treatment System
Extended Aeration
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Activated Sludge
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Trickling Filter
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Rotating Biological Contactor
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Oxidation Ditch
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Aquaculture w/Greenhouse
Surface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
Costs($)
Capital .
1,564,300
1.547,300
\
1,444,500
1,427,500
1,471,200
1,454,200
1,441,200
1,424,200
1,484,300
1,498,300
2,145,500
2,128,550
Annual 0+M
58,350
54,350
56,700
52,700
44,500
40,500
45,450
41 ,450
47,600
43,600
42,300
38,300
Present Worth
2,128,760
2,069,800
1,991,650
1,932,280
1,890,350
1,831,380
1,870,320
1,811,350
1,983,710
1,908,010
2,541,570
2,482,650
en
i
-------
Table 5.4-1
COST COMPARISON FOR TOWN CENTER COLLECTION/TREATMENT FACILITY
(continued)
Notes:
0 Surf ace discharge requires effluent quality of 10 *mg/l + SS,
and effluent transport to Mill Brook. Therefore, a sand filter,
modifications to pump station and 3500 LF of force main are
required.
t The above costs are only true for the specific conditions in
Woodrock (125,000 gpd septic effluent).
5-13
-------
Table 5.4-2
DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SYSTEMS
in
Problem
Area
1
2
3 .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Percolation
Rate ( ml n/ Inch)
10
10
20
20
10
10
20
20
10
20
10
20
10
Depth to
Groundwater (ft)
>5
2
>5
2
XB
75
2
/*5
5
>5
>
Leachfleld
Size (Acres)
1.5
0.5
1.0
2.1
0.5
1.7
1.3
2.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
2.1
0.3
Type of
Leachfleld
no mound
mound
no mound
no mound
mound
no mound
no mound
mound
no mound
no mound
no mound
no mound
no mound
Type of Collection
System *
S.D.G.S.
S.D.G.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. &.P.S.
S.D.G.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
S.D.G.S. & P.S.
Extent of Collection
System (ft)
7546
1175
2450
2940
1490
7275
2560
6500
2500
2100
1840
2265
850
*S.D.G.S. - Small Diameter Gravity Sewer
S.D.G.S. & P.S. - Small Diameter Gravity Sewer for Collection, Pump Station and Pressure Sewer
-------
The smaller service area for the town center includes the majority of the
problem systems and the larger service area includes problem systems that
could be repaired on-site. The small service area option was developed in
response to public comments that commercial growth should be restricted to a
small area of the town center and that such a service area may be less costly.
A projected flow of 65,000 gpd in 2000 with water conservation was estimated
for the small service area. Figure 5.4-1 shows the two service area options
for the town center.
5.4.4 Septage Facility Site/Technology
Public comments on the septage facility technologies supported a
resource recovery approach to septage management. The project team narrowed
the alternatives to the compost and land application techniques based on these
comments and on a preliminary cost effectiveness analysis shown in Table 5.4-3.
Three septage disposal alternatives considered in Table 5.3-5 were eliminated
from this cost comparison for the following reasons:
1. Lagoons
Poor effluent quality
Odors
2. Co-disposal
Landfill site capacity limited
Landfill leachate is already suspected of causing
groundwater pollution
^
3. Co-Treatment
No treatment plant capacity available irr nearby communities
Town center treatment plant capacity inadequate for
septage volume
t Inadequate land area near town center treatment plant for
septage holding tanks
With the projected volume of septage in Woodrock, a site of 40-45 acres of
agricultural land with a 4' depth to groundwater was required for land
application. Such a site was not available and this treatment technology was
eliminated.
Appendix B provides a breakdown of the component costs for a septage
composting facility. Three potential sites were located for the composting
facility which requires only 10-15 acres for the projected flow. Table 5.4-4
summarizes the considerations used in locating and comparing the potential
sites. Figure 5.4-2 illustrates how these considerations were used in evaluat-
ing the three potential sites. Based on this evaluation, Site B was selected
for the septage composting facility. Compost produced by the septage facility
will be used by the Town Highway Department as a soil conditioner in town parks
and roadsides or sold to local nursery growers
5-15
-------
FIGURE 5-4-1
LARGE and SMALL SERVICE AREA
OPTIONS for TOWN CENTER
LARGE COMMUNAL SYSTEM
SMALL COMMUNAL SYSTEM
tCALt
0 K) 100 tOO PttT
5-16
-------
Table 5.4-3
COST COMPARISON FOR SEPTAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
Treatment System
Compostl ng
L1me Stabilization
Chemical Oxidation
Conventional Treatment
Costs ($)
Capital
343.100
331,200
509,700
280,400
Annual 0 & M*
34,990
36,910
41,310
46,180
Present Worth
707,000
716,500
914,300
763,000
Note: The above costs are only true for the specific conditions 1n Woodrock (2,025,000 gpy domestic
septage)
includes equipment replacement
-------
Table 5.4-4
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL SEPTAGE FACILITY SITES
Site Factors
Watershed
Soil
Zoning
Slope
Present Use
Adjacent Land Uses
Access Route
Depth to Groundwater
Exposure
Distance to Nearest
Dwelling
Distance to Nearest
Municipal Well
Size
Site A
Sheep Bk
Till, Hardpan
at 18-24 inches
Residential
(AR-2,
40,000 sq ft
lots)
2-10%
Cleared and
Wooded Areas
Golf Course,
Woods,
Residential
Highland St.
2-4 ft.
West
1500 ft.
6000 ft.
50 AC
Site B
*
Willow Bk
Sandy Loam
Industrial
3-82
Gravel Pit,
Wooded
Railroad
Wetland,
Residential
Dirt Road to
Washington
St.
6 ft.
South
1500 ft.
2500 ft.
15 AC
Site C
Willow Bk
Till , Hardpan
at 24 inches
Industrial
5-1056
Wooded
Railroad,
Agriculture,
Residential
Connection to
Washington St
needed
2-4 ft.
North
1000 ft.
3000 ft.
70 AC
-5-18
-------
FltUftl 5-4-Z
POTENTIAL SEPTAGE FACILITY SITE
STREETS
HOUSES
en
i
WATER SUPPLY OR
DEVELOPED LANDS
LESS ENVIROMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS"
MUNICIPAL WELL
-------
5.4.5 Management System Selection
Option 2 (town contract with private pumper) was selected for cost
considerations and administrative simplicity. This option relieves the
homeowner of the responsibility of inspection and maintenance of the
system. Regular pumping is provided automatically when needed, and pay-
ment for the service is made each year along the the property tax bill.
Record keeping by the town is minimized because the pumper takes care of
pumping schedules, inspection reports, etc.
5-20
-------
6. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
With screening alternatives on the basis of costt environmental and
public acceptability considerations, the project teem develops a reasonable
range of alternatives for detailed 'cost-effectiveness analysis. The
alternatives represent the major viewpoints on the project issues expressed
through the public participation program. With the cost-effectiveness
analysis of the alternativest citizens can evaluate the alternatives on the
basis of cost and impact considerations to develop what the community feels
is the "most cost-effective" facilities plan. The selected plan must be
comprehensive and address all of the identified wastewater/water quality
problems in the project area.
Public participation in this phase of the study should include a
major public meeting on the plan alternatives and the results of the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Plan selection for the draft facilities plan takes
place following this public meeting and a responsiveness summary is required
under the public participation regulation (40 CFR 25 & 35).
6.1 Introduction
To select*the most effective plan, comparable plan alternatives must be
compared. For this purpose, total plan costs for each alternative were
developed to include the following plan components:
Wastewater management plan for Outside Town Center
Wastewater management plan for Town Center
t Septage treatment/disposal
t Management system
The most cost-effective plan is the one that has the least present worth
cost and does not have unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
6.2 Cost Analysis
6.2.1 Outside Town Center
On-Site Systems Option 1
All of the problem on-site disposal systems are either cesspools or
undersized septic tanks and do not meet the present state regulations. It is
assumed that all problem systems will be completely replaced with a septic tank/
mounded leach field system to meet current State regulations and to correct
problems of high groundwater, surface water flooding, and overloaded/ undersized
systems.
6-1
-------
Table 6.2-1 presents the capital cost, annual operation and maintenance
and present worth cost of the on-site option for each of the 13 problem areas
outside the town center and for all of the scattered problems. Capital cost
does not include engineering services for system design or installation
supervision. The fee the septage hauler must pay to dispose of septage at
the treatment facility is also not included because it is included in the
cost analysis of the septage treatment facility.
Neighborhood Systems Option 2 ,.
Appendix C presents the component costs for a neighborhood system for two
problem areas to illustrate the method used to calculate system costs for each
area. Since all of the problem systems are located in the backyard, it is
assumed that a new septic tank would be installed in the front yard for promixity
to the street sewer. In addition, a mounded leach field is used for those
problem areas where a common disposal site with sufficient depth to groundwater
could not be located. Table 6.2-1 presents the costs for a neighborhood system
in each of the 13 problem areas outside of the town center. This table shows that
in each of the problem areas, on-site systems are the least cost solution.
Central Collection/Treatment Option 3
The central collection/treatment option includes a large diameter gravity
sewer system for the entire area shown on Figure 5.4-1. All 14 problem areas
are included in the central collection system. Wastewater treatment and disposal
would take place at the Middletown sewage treatment plant as proposed in the
previous facilities study. Table 6.2-2 presents the costs of the collection
system and the treatment plant capacity cost for this option.
6.2.2 Town Center Problem Area
A cost analysis for the two sewer service area options of a town center
collection/treatment system is presented in Table 6.2-3. For cost comparison
between the two options, the small service area costs include on-site replacement
of all problem systems in the large service area that are outside of the small
service area. Appendix D presents the component costs for the large and small
service area treatment/collection options.
6.2.3 Total Cost Comparison _
To compare the Central Collection/Treatment System Option 3 cost to the
other options for the 13 problem areas outside the town center, the cost of
a septage treatment facility and the cost of solving the town center must be
included for a total cost for each option. Table 6.2-4 presents the capital,
O&M, and present worth costs for each option. As shown on the table, the present
worth cost of Central Collection/Treatment System Option 3 is over five times
more expensive than either the On-Site System Option 1 or the Neighborhood
System Option 2 with either the large or small town service areas. Table 6.2-5
6-2
-------
Table 6.2-1
OUTSIDE TOWN CENTER
COSTS FOR ON-SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SYSTEMS
Problem
Area No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Scattered
Problems
Total
On-Site* II Neighborhood**
Capital
103,330
22,950
98,920
155,350
34,850
227,480
100,860
124,950
119,840
41 ,860
53,820
113,850
22,950
2,108,320
3,329,330
O&M
5,110
540
4,270
1,280
2,550
7,840
2,410
6,040
3,450
1,110
1,670
2,900
1,100
279,060
319,330
Present Capital
Worth I
156,940
28,610
143,720
169.500
50,440
143,120
168,780 I! 174,415
61,600 82,370
309,740 327,230
126,150 150,780
188,320 219,540
156,040
53,500
71 ,340
144,280
34,490
5,036,190
6,679,710
153,665
57,900
93,320
149,545
50,110
2,108,320
3,930,255
O&M
1,500
270
1,470
1,008
850
2,934
950
1,838
1,370
405
665
895
450
279,060
293,700
Present
Worth
157,550
46,475
145,430
169,495
79,740
322,755
. 144,740
192,810
156,820
54,340
93,470
145,600,
49,965
5,036,190
6,795,380
* Includes all present and future problem systems
** System serves all present and future households in service area
6-3
-------
Table 6.2-2
COSTS FOR CENTRAL COLLECTION/TREATMENT SYSTEM
Item
Collection System
Interceptors and
Pump Station
Treatment Plant
House Connections
Total
Initial
Capi tal
19,908,800
19,587,100
9,994,600
5,346,100
54,836,600 -
Annual
O&M
85,850
85,850
171,700
-
343,400
Present
Worth
20,372,600
20,074,400
13,101,100
4,955,500
58,439,600
6-4
-------
Table 6.2-3
COST FOR TOWN CENTER SERVICE AREA OPTIONS
Type of
System
Small Service
Area*
65,000 gal/day
Large Service
A y*oa
125,000 gal/day
On-S1 te
Capital
570,000
-
O&M
19,310
-
Present
Worth
772,600
-
Collection
Capital
1,001,150
1,424,200.
O&M
35,925
41 ,448
Present
Worth
1,353,172
1,811,330
Total
Capital
1,571,150
1,424,200
O&M
55,235
41 ,448
Present
Worth
2,125,775
1,811,330
Ol
en
1 . Includes the cost of on-site repair/replacement of all problem systems Included In the large service area.
2. See Appendix D for breakdown of treatment costs for each alternative, Including eligible and Ineligible costs.
-------
Table 6.2-4
SUMMARY COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
ON-SITE
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTRAL COLLECTION/TREATMENT
Item
Problem Areas
1-13 and
Scattered
Non- Problem
Systems
O&M Construction
of Future Systems
Town Center Area
Large Service
Area
Septage
Treatment
Management
System
Totals
Small Service
Area Option 1
Large Service
Area Option 2
Capital
3,329,330
0
1,517,775
1,424,200
343,100
5,000
5,194,205
5,195,205
5,101,630
O&M
319,330
237,190
55,435
41,448
34,990
31,720
678,555
678,555
664,678
Present
Worth
6,679,710
2,378,160
2,125,773
1,811,330
707,000
352,803
12,243,448
11,929,003
Capital
3,930,233
0
1,517,775
1,424,200
343,100
5,000
i
5,796,130
5,702,555
O&M
293,700
237,190
55,235
41,448
34,990
31,720
652,835
639,048
Present
Worth
6,795,380
2,378,160
2,125,775
1,811,330
707,000
352,803
12,359,118
12,044,673
Capital
54,836,600
*
O&M
343,400
Present
Worth
58,439.600
a>
-------
Table 6.2-5
AVERAGE PER HOUSEHOLD COST OF OPTIONS
Outside Problem Areas:
On-site Systems Option 1
a) Problem Systems
b) Non-problem Systems*
Neighborhood Systems Option 2
a) Problem Areas
b) Non-problem Areas
Problem System
Non-problem System
$27.05
.80
27.05
.80
O&M
$48.60
9.60
68.60
9.60
Total
$95.65
10.40
30.13 178.80 208.93
95.65
10.40
Central Collection/Treatment Option 3 89.78 90.37 180.15
Ratio of *
Household Cost
vs. Median
Income (%)
0.77
0.08
1.69
0.77
0.08
7.08
Town Center Problem Areas;
Large Service Area Option 1
Small Service Area Option 2
Central Collection Treatment Option 3
16.15 106.00
19.37 130.56
89.78 90.37
122.15
149.93
180.15
0.99
1.21
7.08
* For septage treatment facility, annual O&M of on-site system.
r Median Income $12,380
"* Includes equipment replacement
6-7
-------
presents the average per household cost of each option. The least cost
option in terms of present worth and average per household cost is the
On-Site System Option 1 for the 13 problem areas and the large sewer service
area for the town center collection/treatment system.
6.3 Impact Analysis of Alternatives
The major impacts of the three alternatives for the problem areas out-
side of the town center and the impacts of the service area alternatives for
the town center were discussed in detail at the plan alternatives public
meeting. Table 6.3-1 summarizes the major impacts for the areas outside the
town center and Table 6.3-2 presents the major impacts of the town center
alternatives.
6.4 Summary of Selected Plan
The Town Council voted to select the On-Site System Option 1 for the
areas outside the town center and the Large Sewer System Service Area
Alternative 1 for the town center problem area. The following are major
elements of the selected plan for Woodrock.
On-site rehabilitation of all problem disposal systems
outside the town center
t A septic tank effluent collection system for the large service
area for the town center with a 125,000 gal/day capacity, rotating
biological contactor treatment plant/leach field disposal system.
The proposed treatment plant location is a 25-acre site next to the
Woodrock Elementary School.
A septage composting facility located at Site B a 15-acre site in
the town's industrial park
Table 6.4-1 presents the total cost of the selected plan. All costs of
the selected plan are eligible for 201 Construction Grants funding except the
pipe that connects the household plumbing to the septic tank.
The environmental impacts of the selected plan which are of concern are
the impacts of on-site systems and the town center leach field on ground and
surface water quality. Because the direction of groundwater flow from the
town center treatment plant is southeasterly, there are no surface water bodies
or town water supply areas that can be adversely affected by the leachate from
the disposal site. On-site rehabilitation of individual problem systems and
the mitigating measures presented in Section 9.5 are expected to adequately
address the minor adverse impacts of continued reliance on on-site systems out-
side of the town center.
6-8
-------
Table 6.3-1
OUTSIDE TOWN CENTER IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
a\
i
to
Qn-S1tc Systems Option 1
GROWTH: Restricted by site conditions
to meet State on-site system
requirements. Provides little
flexibility for growth.
SYSTEM Operation of systems monitored
RELIABILITY: by homeowners only. Regular
maintenance should minimize
problems. Very sensitive to
overloads and abuse.
SURFACE & Effluent disposal 1s dispersed
GROUNDVIATER: through separate leach fields.
Nutrient removal by septic
tanks Is not as effective as a
secondary treatment plant.
Nutrients from densely develop-
ed areas can adversely affect
groundwater quality.
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE:
Negligible effect on recharge
CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS:
Construction of individual sys-
tems would impact private pro-
perties only.
neighborhood Systcns Option 2
Restricted by capacity of common
leach fields. Provides slightly
more growth flexibility than on-
site systems.
Operation of systems monitored by
trained personnel. Less sensi-
tive to overloads and abuse than
on-site systems.
Effluent disposal is dispersed
though nutrients are somewhat
more concentrated at common leach
field site. Not as effective as
a secondary treatment plant.
Option does not significantly
affect recharge.
Construction would impact streets
in problem areas and in vicinity
of common leach field. Some dis-
turbance of private properties to
replace septic systems when neces-
Ccntral Collection/Treatment
Option 3
While growth can be
controlled by zoning
and treatment plant capa-
city, option provides
considerable flexibility
for growth. Provides for
growth in unsuitable areas.
Treatment plant managed by
Middletown Sewer District
personnel. System can
withstand overloads and
abuse.
Water quality would be
improved since the waste-
water Is removed entirely
from Woodrock and treated
at Mlddletown treatment plant.
sarv.
Majpr impact on groundwater
recharge since most water used
would be removed for treatment/
disposal in Mlddletown. May
affect town's water supply
wells particularly In drought
periods.
Major Impact on the streets of
the entire sewer service area
which includes most developed
areas of the town. Some dis-
turbance of private properties
t.n install sent'ir tanks.
-------
Table 6.3-2
TOWN CENTER IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Small Sewer Service Area
Option 1
GROWTH: Would minimize commercial
expansion to existing
commercial area.
Large Sewer Service Area
Option 2
Provides for expansion of
commercial area as suggested
in town master plan and
greater flexibility in types
of allowable commercial uses.
Central System
Option 3
Provides for expansion of
commercial area as suggested
in town master plan and greater
flexibility in types of
allowable commercial uses.
SYSTEM
RELIABILITY:
GROUNDWATER
QUALITY:
CT>
SURFACE:
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE:
CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS:
Leach field disposal should
minimize odor problems.
Rotating biological contactor
treatment 1s proven tech-
nology.
Concentrates nutrients In
common leach field area
and could deteriorate water
quality down-gradient.There
area no town or private wells
down-gradient. Requires water
quality monitoring.
Surface water quality in town
center would be improved.
There are no surface water
bodies down-gradient of the
common leach field.
Does not significantly affect
groundwater recharge. There
are no town or private wells
that will be impacted by
sewering.
Construction would impact
streets in service area and
in vicinity of common leach
field. Some disturbance of
private property to replace
septic tanks when needed.
Same as Option 1
The volume of flow is almost
two times greater and could
deteriorate water quality
down-gradient significantly.
Groundwater flow 1s In a
southeasterly direction and
there are no town or private
wells downgradient.Requires
water quality monitoring.
Surface water quality in town
center would be improved. There
are no surface water bodies
down-gradient of the common
leach field.
Does not significantly affect
groundwater recharge. There
are no town or private wells
that will be Impacted by
sewering.
Construction would impact
street in service area and
in vicinity of common leach
field. Some disturbance of
private property to replace
septic tanks when needed.
Treatment plant in Middletown
has functioned satisfactorily
and additional flow expected to
improve plant operation.
Improvement of water quality
throughout the town by transporting
wastewater to Middletown treatment
plant.
Surface water quality would be
improved by sewering and trans-
porting wastewater to Middletown.
Major impact on groundwater recharge
since most water used would be re-
moved for treatment/disposal in
Middletown. May affect town's water
supply wells particularly in drought
periods.
Major impact on streets of the entire
sewer service area which includes
most developed areas of the town. Some
disturbance of private properties
to install sewer connections.
-------
Table 6.4-1
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS FOR SELECTED PLAN
Annual Present
Capital O&M vWorth
Problem Systems
Rehabilitation, O&M of
present and future systems $3,329,330 $ 319,830 $6,679,710
Non-Problem Systems
O&M of present & future
systems 0 68,700 688,347
Construction of future
systems 0 168,490 1,689,347
Town Center
Collection/Treatment Plant 1,424,200 41,448 1,811,330
Septage Treatment 343,100 34,990 707,000
Management System 5.000 31.720 352.803
Total $5,101,630 $664,678 511,929,003
Funding Source:
*
Federal Share - 4,234,350
State Share** - 425,340
Local Share - 441,940
* 75% of eligible costs for conventional treatment components; 852 of
eligible cost for Innovative/alternative (I/A) treatment components.
i
**10% of eligible costs for either conventional or for I/A treatment component.
6-11
-------
7. MANAGEMENT, FINANCING AND PER HOUSEHOLD COSTS
7.1 Management System
The continued use of on-site disposal systems requires that the following
management functions be performed by the town:
1. Enforcement of regulations concerning the installation, repair, and
maintenance of disposal systems. A total of approximately 50Q hours of Health
Agent's time will be required to supervise on-site system repairs and install-
ations, for a total cost of $9000/yr.
2. The impact of on-site disposal systems on local water resources is
of vital concern because of the eutrophication potential associated with septic
systems and because the town.relies on groundwater for its water supply. For
these reasons and in compliance with EPA regulations, regular surface and
groundwater monitoring is necessary. The locations of surface and groundwater
monitoring stations are shown on Figure 7.1-1. The total estimated cost of
this program is estimated to be $14,520/year.
3. In addition to the technical supervision and monitoring needed to pro-
perly manage on-site systems, a number of administrative/clerical functions
must also be performed. These include the filing and recording of septic
system pump-out/inspection reports from septage haulers, the compiling of sampling
results, the preparation of user fee bills, and public information. Capital
cost of a computer to manage this record keeping function is $5,000. The total
estimated annual cost of the administrative program is $8,200.
Table 7.1-1 presents the capital, O&M and present worth costs of the
management program.
7.2 Financial Arrangements
Federal and State funding are available through the 201 construction grants
program for the design and construction of the town center treatment plant,
septage treatment plant and the repair/replacement on-site systems. Available
funding includes:
Federal - 75% of all eligible conventional treatment components
85% of all eligible innovative/alternative (I/A)
treatment components
State - 10% of all eligible conventional or I/A treatment
components
While funds may be available from FmHA and HUD for certain components
of the facilites plan, it is unlikely that Woodrock would meet the eligibility
7-1
-------
7-l-j
WATER QUALITY
MONITORING SITES
STREETS
HOUSES
i
ro
O 'SURFACE WATER MONITORING
'GROUND WATER MONITORING
-------
Table 7.1-1
COST OF ON-SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Function Capital O&M Present Worth
Enforcement of On-site $ 0 $ 9,000 $ 94,430
Regulations
Water Quality Monitoring 0 14,520 152,340
Administration 5,000 8,200 101,530
Total $5,000 $31,720 $348,300
7-3
-------
requirements of these funding sources. It 1s recommended that the Woodrock
Town Council apply for 201 Step 2 and Step 3 funds as suggested In the
implementation schedule in Section 8.4. The local share of the facilities
plan will be funded by a municipal bond amortized at 9% (current market rate)
over twenty years.
Under State law, the-capital, and operation and maintenance costs of
any treatment works must be paid for only by those who benefit by the system.
Thus, the user charges will cover the local share costs of thev town center
collection/treatmemt system, the septage treatment facility and the repair/
replacement of on-site disposal systems will include the initial capital cost
of constructing the facility amortized at 9% for 20 year planning period.
User charges for the town center treatment plant will be assessed on the basis
of wastewater flow. A betterment charge will be assessed to those property
owners that received on-site system repairs. All homeowners will pay a uniform
user charge for the septage facility use and commercial property owners will
be charged on the basis of septic tank design capacity.
7.3 Average Per Household Costs
The average per household costs of the selected wastewater management plan
are shown on Table 7.3-1 for homeowners outside of the town center and in the.
town center sewer service area. These average per household costs are calculated
on the basis of State and Federal assistance as specified in Table 6.5-1. EPA
201 planning requirements suggest as a rule of thumb that the total user charge
for wastewater treatment Including debt service and operation and maintenance
charges for the average user should not exceed 2.5 percent when the median
income is over $10,000. With a median income level of $12,380 in 1975, the
maximum user charge should not exceed $310/yr. As shown on Table 7.3-1 the user
charges for any homeowner in Woodrock is well below this level. It should be
noted that the town bonding of the initial capital cost of the treatment facilities,
helps to minimize the impact of this high capital investment on the facility
users.
7-4
-------
Table 7.3-1
AVERAGE* PER HOUSEHOLD COST
Components
Wastewater
Treatment/
Disposal
Septage
Treatment/
Disposal
Management
Program
TOTAL
Town Center Problem Area
Capi-
tal** .
$15.35
0.80
.03
16.18
Annual
O&N
$96.40
9.60
8.17
114.17
Total
$111.75
10.40
8.20
130.35
Problem Areas and
Scattered Problems
Capi-
tal**
$26.25
0.80
.03
27.08
Annual
O&M
$59.00
9.60
8.17
76.77
Total
$85.25
10.40
8.20
103.85
Non-Problem Systems
(Outside Town Center)
Capi-
tal**
0.80
.03
.83
Annual
O&M
--
9.60
8.17
17.77
Total
10.40
8.20
18.60
* Average household - 3 bedroom house
** Amortized at 7-l/8^for the 20-year planning period
-------
8. PRELIMINARY- DESIGN/IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
8.1 Town Center Collection/Treatment System
The 125,000 gpd wastewater treatment plant for Woodrock town center
will produce secondary treated effluent through a rotating biological contactor
process. The treated effluent will be disposed of via a leach field. Figure
8.1-1 shows the extent of the collection system, pipe capacity, treatment plant
and leach field location. Figure 8.1-2 presents a schematic diagram of the
proposed treatment process. Table 8.1-1 presents the expected organic, solids,
ammonia and phosphorus removal rates for each process unit in the treatment
plant.
8.2 Septage Composting Facility
Figure 8.2-1 presents a schematic of the compost treatment process proposed
for the 2,025,000 gal/yr septage treatment facility to be located at Site B.
Table 8.2-2 presents the suspended solids balance for each unit process of the
septage treatment facility.
8.3 On-Site Disposal System
Figure 8.3-1 presents a schematic of the on-site disposal systems that will
be used to replace problem systems. Final design of each on-site disposal system
will be included in the Step 2 phase of the study. Table 8.3-1 presents the
expected organic, solids, ammonia and phosphorus removal rates for a septic tank.
8.4 Implementation Schedule
Nov. 15, 1980 Final Facilities Plan Submitted
Step*2 Grant Application Submitted
Feb. 1, 1981 Facilities Plan Approved Step 2
Grant Application Approved
Nov. 1, 1981 Step 2 Design Complete
Step 3 Grant Application Submitted
Jan. 1, 1981 Plan and Specification Approved
Step 3 Grant Application Approved
March 1..1981 Open Bids for Construction
Apr. 1, 1982 Commence Construction
Dec. 1, 1983 Construction Complete
8-1
-------
r
rn*
o
^
m
r
o
e©«
0
0
to
z
o
SIPHON
T)
c
T)
STATION
2
z
X
o
1
1
1
TJ
O
r "n
mo
2
^
-o
"o a)
o
GRAVITY
O
CD
rn
S
to
5
n
e to
Z
m
<:
<;
m
31
to
to
-i
m
o
c
m
o»
-------
FIGURE 8.1-2
FLOW DIAGRAM-SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
RAW
WASTEWATER ^
SEPTIC TANK
min. 96 hr. Detention
N
S
EQUALIZATION
TANK
6 hr. Detention
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
CONTACTOR
40,000 tq. ft.
- 90% BOD Removal
LEACHING TRENCHES
19,225 L.F.
^ - -
%
DOSING PUMP
STATION
300 gpm
s
OZONE
CHAMBER
Dote 10 mo/I
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
3.O.R. eOOgpd/lt"
SLUDGE TO SEPTAGE
TREATMENT FACILITY
-------
Table 8.1-1
EXPECTED ORGANIC, SOLIDS, AMMONIA AND PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL RATES
Town Center Treatment Plant
Process Unit
Rotating Biological
Contactor
Average Influent
Characteristics
(mg/1)
BOD,
SS "
NH.
POT
143
73
33
8.0
Average Effluent
Characteristics
(mg/1)
150
4.8
2.4
Secondary
Clarifier
BODe
SS 5
NH.-N
PO*
30
150
4.8
2.4
15
25
4.8
2.4
Leaching
Trenches
BODe
SS 5
NH.-N
POj-P
15
25
4.8
2.4
* 1
4 1
0
0.1
8-4
-------
FIGURE 8.2-1
FLOW DIAGRAM -SEPTAGE TREATMENT-FACILITY
RAW SEPTAGE
SCREENS
20 MESH
SOLIDS
SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT SLUDGE
ACID /LIME
SOLID!
DEWATERING
HORIZONTAL
BELT FILTER
SUPERNATANT
NEUTRALIZATION
V
TO INFILTRATION
PERCOLATION BED
SOUDS
_v
COMPOSTING
7£40 yds."
8-5
-------
Screens
Table 8.2-2
SUSPENDED SOLIDS BALANCE FOR EACH UNIT PROCESS
SEPTAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
Average Influent
Characteristics
rag/1 (Ibs/day)
TSS
Acid/Lime
TSS
Dewa taring
TSS
Composting
TSS
15,000
(694.0)
4,075
(181.4)
13,060
(180.4)
233,560*
(692.6)
Average Effluent
Characteristics
ragA(lbs/day)
4,075
(181.4)
13,060
(180.4)
145,775
(180.0)
* Includes solIds from screens
8-6
-------
FIGURE 8.3-1
FLOW DIAGRAM-ON SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
SEPTIC TANK / PUMP / MOUNDED LEACH FIELD
SLUDGE TO SEPTA6E
TREATMENT FACILITY
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
t
WASTEWATER v
FROM HOUSES '
SEPTIC TANK
mln. 36 hr. Detention
-*
PUMP
a
PUMP CHAMBER
->
MOUNDED LEACH
FIELD
INFILTRATION
-------
Table 8.3-1
EXPECTED ORGANIC, SOLIDS, AMMONIA AND
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL RATES FOR SEPTIC TANK
Ave. Influent Characteristic Ave. Effluent Characteristic
(mg/1) (mg/D
BODs 395 143
SS 412 73
NH4 13.5 33
PO 10.0 8:0
"8-8
-------
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The assessment of environmental Impacts Is an Integral part of the
facility planning study. A summary of the environmental conditions of the
study area and the impacts of the alternatives and the selected plan pro-
vides a clear definition of these considerations for public reference. The
EPA booklet, "Environmental Assessment of Construction Grants Projects,"
January 1979 and 40 CFR 6, "Regulations on Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements" provide the guidelines for preparation of the EIA summary.
9.1. Current Situation
The following environmental conditions are described in detail in the
Community Profile and in the Problem Identification sections of the draft
facilities plan:
Approximately 17 percent of the existing housing units in Woodrock
have on-site disposal system problems.
Approximately 60 percent of the Identified disposal system problems
are located in 14 clustered problem areas and 40 percent are
scattered throughout the town.
The number of disposal system, problems and the development density
in the town center is responsible for the pollution of nearby
Linden Canal.
On-site disposal system problems are caused by high groundwater, high
bedrock, poor soils, surface water flooding, lack of maintenance and
system overloading. High groundwater conditions are the most common
problem cause.
The density of development in the Cold Brook and Lake Linden watersheds
has caused the eutrophication of Homer's, Windsor and White Ponds,
located in these watersheds.
There are 18 small manufacturing companies located in Woodrock some
of which dispose of potentially hazardous process wastes in their
on-site disposal systems.
t Woodrock relies on groundwater for its drinking water supplies. Water
quality in the town's existing wells meets all drinking water standards.
t Over 50 percent of the undeveloped land in Woodrock is unsuitable for
development due to poor soils, high groundwater, high bedrock, steep
slopes, wetlands or floodplain restrictions.
There are no archeological or historic sites that will be impacted by
construction of the town center treatment/collection system or the septage
treatment facility.
No rare or endangered species have been identified in Woodrock.
Economic development of the town center is severely limited by high ground-
water and poor soil conditions for subsurface wastewater disposal.
9-1
-------
9.2 Future Situation
With no action to correct the existing wastewater management and water
quality problems in Woodrock the following future conditions can be expected:
Future development of undeveloped areas will be limited by zoning',
wetlands, floodplain and on-site disposal system regulations.
t The town's population will increase from 10,200 in 1980 to a
projected population of 14,600 in the year 2000, v
t The density of development in the Cold Brook and Lake Linden
watersheds is expected to degrade surface water quality causing
further eutrophication of Lake Linden, Windsor, Homer's and White
Ponds and the potential of eutrophication problems in College Pond.
t Future development is not expected to cause groundwater contamination
below drinking water standards in any of the watersheds.
Commercial development of the town center will be severely limited
due to high groundwater and high bedrock conditions as well as
limited space for adequate on-site disposal system.
Additional disposal systems will fail in the town center area causing:
increased pollution of Linden Canal. There will also be a growing
number of on-site disposal system problems in the problem areas and .
scattered throughout the town without proper disposal system maintenance.
9.3 Impacts of Alternatives
9.3.1 Impacts of Wastewater Management Alternatives
Table 9.3-1 summarizes the impact of the three wastewater treatment
alternatives for the 13 problem areas. For the town center, the large service
area is assumed to be the selected option for this analysis since the impacts
of the larger facility would be more significant than the impacts of the smaller
facility. For both On-Site System Option 1 and for Neighborhood System Option 2,
a septage composting facility located at Site B is assumed.
9.3.2 Impacts of Septage Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
The environmental impacts of the seven alternative technologies are presented
on Table 9.3-2. In the alternatives evaluation phase of the study, Site B was
selected as the proposed septage treatment facility location. Figure 5.4-3
illustrates the environmental considerations for the selection of Site B from
the potential facility locations.
9.4 Impacts of Selected Plan
The selected plan is On-Site System Option 1 and Large Service Area Option 2
which includes:
9-2
-------
t On-site rehabilitation of all problem disposal systems in the
13 problem areas outside of the town center and all of the scattered
system problems.
Central collection and treatment for the town center with the large
service area.
t Septage composting facility on Site B.
As shown in Table 9.3-1, the selected plan is expected to have either
no impact or beneficial impact on all of the factors considered. How-
ever, it should be noted that in the area of water quality impact,
Option 1 does not have as beneficial an impact as the central sewer
option. The continued reliance on on-site disposal systems outside the
town center will degrade water quality, particularly in the Cold Brook
and Lake Linden watersheds.
9.5 Mitigating Measures
The selected plan includes the following mitigating measures to help protect
the water quality of surface and groundwaters in Woodrock:
The town should implement an on-site system management program
which requires that every septic system to be pumped out at three-
year intervals.
t The town should conduct a water quality monitoring program to assess
the impacts of on-site systems on surface waters, particularly within
the Cold Brook and Lake Linden watersheds where development density
is the highest and in groundwater aquifer areas (see Figure 7.1-1).
t Septic systems located within 50 feet of town ponds should be moved
away as far as possible from the pond shore (state health code requires
50 feet minimum distance to pond). Systems near ponds that may be
in the water table or can be identified as contributing excessive
nutrients to the pond should also be rehabilitated if possible.
t The town should acquire available open space around Lake Linden to
minimize eutrophication problems in the future.
Alum addition is recommended for all septic systems located within
300 feet of a surface water body.
The town should adopt a health regulation prohibiting on-site disposal
of hazardous substances by businesses or homeowners and providing for
the inspection of industrial on-site disposal systems to assure
compliance. The Board of Health should also have the authority to
require industries using hazardous substances to maintain records of
the disposal of these materials.
-t The town should adopt non-point source control measures recommended
by the regional 208 plan including improved control of underground
gasoline and oil storage, road salt storage, erosion and sedimentation
and storm drainage.
It is recommended that the town adopt these measures to minimize the adverse
environmental impacts of the selected plan.
9-3
-------
Table 9.3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES*
Category of
Impact
Population
Growth Rate
Maintenance of
Community Character
Economic
Development
Water
Quality
Groundwater
Hydrology
Agricultural /Open
Space Preservation
Wetlands/ Floor
Plains
Wildlife
Historic/
Archeological
Air
Quality
Energy
Consumption
On- Site
System
Option 1
LU
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
s°
C£.
§
*H
ce.
a
i
+
+
+
+
|M«
§
II
I/I
Nei ghborhood
System
Option 2
LU
|
0
0
0
0£
i
0
0£
LU
a
i
+
h
+
ff
i
co-
Central Sever
System
Option 3
LU
0
C£
<
t
t
C£.
S
i
N^
-------
Table 9,1-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SEPTAGE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
VO
CJI
Category of
lopact
Population
Growth Rate
Maintenance of
Comunlty Character
Economic Development
Mater Quality
Groundwater
Hydrology
Agricultural/Open
Space Preservation
Hetlends/Flood
Plains
Wildlife
Historic/
Archeo logical
Air Quality/
Odors
Energy Consumption
Resource Recovery
Aerobic
Lagoons
1
0
o
o
0
0
o
i
e
e
t
i
.
5
I/I
ubsurface Land
Application
iaJ
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
^__w
e
e
t
£
»«
t
Composting
UJ
i
0
o
o
0
0
0
i
e
e
e
e
e
i
*
i
Line
Stabilization
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
X
e
e
e
e
e
i
i
ss
0
Chenlcal
Oxidation
S
0
0
o
0
0
0
i
£
e
e
1
e
e
i
M
Co-disposal
i
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
e
*
i
e
S
51
Treatment
i
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
i
X
e
e
e
e
1
i
M
e Adverse Impact
t Beneficial Inpact
o No Inpact
Options are assessed In Unas of expected tracts on the future conditions -Ithout the project (I.e. no action option).
-------
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
The public participation program for a specific 201 project will depend
on whether it is designated as a basic or full-scale program. The require-
ments for both types of programs are defined in 40 CFR SS. Essentially the
full-scale program differs from the basic program in requiring the establish-
ment of a Citizen Advisory Committee and the designation or employment of a
public participation coordinator. Public participation efforts are noted
in the introduction to each of the major section of the model ^facilities plan
for Woodrock. The following is the final responsiveness summary as required
by 40 CFR 25.8 and SS.917-S.
10.1 Introduction
The public participation program C9nducted for the Woodrock 201 facilities
plan was a comprehensive program involving:
work plan and fact sheet
. t citizen advisory committee
t local public participation coordinator
t information materials
t public meetings/consultations
responsiveness summaries
t media contacts
public hearing
These activities were developed according to the requirements of a
full-scale public participation program under EPA's regulations (40 CFR 25 and
35). The program provided ample opportunity for citizen involvement in the
development and selection of the final facilities plan. There was substantial
involvement in the program by citizens throughout Woodrock and it is expected
that the referendum vote on funding Step 2 of the facilities plan will be
successful. The following summarizes public participation in the 201 facilities
planning study:
10.2 Public Participation Work Plan
The public participation work plan was drafted by the project team in
coordination with the Citizen Advisory Committee during the first month of study.
The work plan was based on the budget allocations and program tasks defined in
the consultants' plan of study and modified by the priorities of the Advisory
Committee members. The work plan includes the following:
10-1
-------
goals for public participation program
list-of target groups and individuals
project issues and potential conflicts for resolution
during study period
t public participation techniques to be utilized
program schedule
budget allocations
The work plan and a fact sheet on the project were distributed to the
interested groups and individuals identified in the plan.
10.3 Citizen Advisory Committee
The Town Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee composed of 16
members from the following four citizen groups..-- private citizens.
representative of public interest groups, public officials and citizens or
representatives of organizations with substantial economic interests in the
project. Selection of committee members was based on an advertisement and
personal contacts with specified groups. The Advisory Committee met on a
monthly basis with a representative of the Town Council and with members of
the project team. The following major responsibilities were carried out by
the committee members through these meetings:
1) Maintain information on project progress;
2) Assist in planning and implementing public participation
program activities;
3) Review public information materials developed by the
public participation coordinator.
Throughout the project, the Advisory Committee took a major role in
implementing the public participation program by monitoring community attitudes,
directly soliciting citizen involvement and providing information about the
study project to outside groups. The Advisory Committee was particularly
helpful during the Alternatives Development and Evaluation phase of the project,
assisting in obtaining public input on the acceptability of the alternatives
under consideration. The Town Council maintained a close working relationship
with the Advisory Committee with a member attending each of the committee's
monthly meetings. Formal recommendations by the Advisory Committee were accepted
without revision concerning the conduct of the public participation program and
the selection of the recommended plan.
10.4 Public Participation Coordinator
The Board of Health secretary was designated as the local public participation
coordinator by the Town Council and her activities were coordinated with the
10-2
-------
public participation specialist employed by the engineering consultants.
The local coordinator handled all of the Citizen Advisory Committee meeting
arrangements, and the maintenance of the local project office where background
information materials were made available to the public. The public partic-
ipation specialist met on a monthly basis with the Citizen Advisory Committee,
managed the public meetings, and developed all the public information materials.
The public participation specialist also made presentations to citizen
interest groups and met with interested individuals.
10.5 Public Consultation/Meetings
The Town Council sponsored the following public consultations during the
201 facilities planning study and made the following decisions based on the
input received at the meetings:
Preliminary Meeting
Prior to receiving the grant award from EPA, the Town Council held a public
meeting on the proposed plans of study submitted by two consulting engineers.
Public comments on the plans of study focussed on the proposed level of effort
involved in the problem identification phase of the study. Many citizens emphasized
the need to carefully identify the specific on-site disposal system problems,
particularly in the town center. Based on these comments and the professional
qualifications of the competing firms, the Town Council selected the consulting
engineers that proposed extensive field investigations for problem identification.
Public Meeting #1
The first public meeting of the study was co-sponsored by the Town Council
and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The consulting engineers provided an over-
view of the community profile Information and of the wastewater management
problems identified through field investigations and community survey. Residents
attending the meeting provided additional Information on septic system problems
and confirmed the problem systems Identified by the project team. The project
team also presented the preliminary alternatives for outside the town center and
for the town center problem area. A responsiveness summary issued by the Town
Council following the meeting."
Public Meeting #2
The purpose of this meeting was to present the results of the cost-
effectiveness analysis of the options and to obtain public comments on the
plan alternatives. Detailed cost and Impact analysis information on the
alternatives was presented by the project team. The cost of the central collection/
treatment system eliminated this option from serious consideration. While costs
of the On-Site Systems Option 1 and Neighborhood Systems Option 2 for Outside
Town Center were comparatively close, there was no overriding impact consideration
that would cause the Town Council to select neighborhood systems in these areas.
10-3
-------
The Large and Small Area options for the Town Center were also close
in cost. There was considerable public support for the Large Service Area,
the least cost alternative. There were some minor modifications to the
service area boundaries based on citizen comments. The Town Council made
its selection of the draft plan following this public meeting based on the
public comments and on the advice of the Citizen Advisory Committee. A
responsiveness summary was issued after this meeting.
Public Hearing
*
A public hearing was held on April 14, 1980 on the draft facilities plan
and environmental impact summary. The comments on the draft plan were pre-
dominantly positive and suggest that there is adequate public support for a
favorable referendum vote on funding Step 2 of facilities planning study.
Appendix E is the responsiveness summary for the public hearing.
10.6 Information Materials
The public information program included dissemination of project information
through the local project office, leaflet distribution, newsletters and media
coverage.
Information materials were made available to the public at the local
project office on the following subjects:
1. The Clean Water Act and relevant EPA facilities planning and
EIS regulations.
2. Background information on wastewater management technologies
including innovative/alternative technologies.
3. Interim study reports and project information such as the
Community Profile report, maps and lists of identified problem
systems, cost and impact Information on the plan alternatives
and the findings of the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Information on the preliminary plan alternatives costs and impacts and
the cost-effectiveness analysis was presented in the form of leaflets and visual
presentations distributed throughout the town at public places and through the
involvement of various civic organizations.
10.6.1 Newsletters/Final Plan Summary
There were two newsletters sent to each household in Woodrock that announced
public meetings and reported the progress of the study. A summary of the final
plan was also be sent to each household in Woodrock prior to the public hearing.
10-4
-------
10.6.2 Media Contacts
The public participation coordinator employed by the consulting engineers
maintained close media contacts throughout the study. There was consistent
coverage of the study progress in all of the four newspapers that cover the
town Including extensive feature and articles. Radio news coverage was also
consistent throughout the study. The project manager, public participation
coordinator and members of the Citizen Advisory Committee appeared on several
radio talk shows to discuss the study progress and plan alternatives.
10.7 Town Council Evaluation
Appendix F 1s a memorandum from the Town Council to the consulting engineers
stating their evaluation of the effectiveness of the public participation
program.
10-5
-------
Appendix A
Component Costs for On-Site Systems
The following pages list the capital and operation and maintenance
costs for each of the components used In making up the various on-site
wastewater disposal systems. These component cost sheets also list energy
requirements, chemical requirements, equipment replacement and quantities
of material needed. Depending on site conditions, two of more* system
components may be required. The following example illustrates how these
component costs can be used to develop a total cost for an on-site
system.
Type of Problem - three bedroom home
groundwater at 2' depth
percolation rate 20 min/inch
Type of System Required and Cost -
Components
Costs
One 1500 gallon septic tank
Pump, pump chamber and controls
Mounded SAS 2 FT mound
Capi tal
$560
970
3286
Operation & Maintenance
$25
38.70
Total
$4816
$58.70
A-l
-------
Treatment System Components
1. Compost. Toilet
SmalTUnit'
Small Cost $845
Installation Cost $145
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (Includes removal of compost 4 *
times a year and Infrequent replacement
of mechanical parts) $ 45
Energy (2.0 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $ 43.80
Equipment Replacement None
Large Uni t
Capital Cost $2495
Installation Cost $1000
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (Includes removal of compost
1 time a year and Infrequent replacement
of mechanical parts) $ 10
Energy (1.1 kwhr/day) $ 24.20
Equipment Replacement None
2. Oil Flush Toilet
Two Toilet Unit
Capital Cost $4000
Installation Cost $1225
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes replacement
of exhausted absorbent, disinfection
and filtration media; make-up of loss $260
flushing oil)
;
Energy (0.625 kwhr/day) x $0.60/kwhr $ 13.70
Equipment None
A-2
-------
3. Biological Toilet
Capital Cost $ 399
Installation Cost $ 100
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes addition of
chemicals and periodic cleaning) $ 20
Energy (none)
Equipment Replacement None
4. Incinerating Toilet
Capital Cost $ 699
Installation Cost $ 150
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes weekly removal
of ash, routine cleaning and replace-
ment of bowl liner, and cleaning of
heater elements, vent blower and line) $ 25
Energy (6.0 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $ 131.40
5. Low Flow Toilet - Holding Tank
Low Flow Toilet (includes air compressor)
Capital Cost $ 622
Installation Cost $ 100
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes infrequent
repairs of air compressor) $ 5
Energy (0.07 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $ 1.50
Equipment Replacement None
Holding Tank (four month's storage) 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom
1000 gal. 1500 gal. 2000 gal.
Capital Cost $270 $405 $540
Installation Cost 80 120' 160
A-3
-------
2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (pumping of holding tank
contents)*
*Does not Include disposal cost $180 $270 $360
which Is estimated at $15/1000 gallons v
Equipment Replacement None
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (pumping of holding tank
contents)*
*Does not Include disposal cost
which Is estimated at $15/1000 gallons $180 $270 $360
Equ1pment None
6. Aerobic Unit
Capital Cost $1600
Installation Cost $ 400
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (Infrequent replacement
or repair of mechanical parts) $ 50
Pumping of sludge* (once a year)
*0oes not include sludge disposal
cost which is estimated at $15/1000
gallons $ 60
Energy (8.5 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $.186.15
Equipment Replacement None
7. Septic Tank 1000 gallon 1500 gallon
Capital Cost $270 $425
Installation Cost $ 80 $135
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes sludge removal
once every three years)*
*0oes not include sludge disposal
cost which 1s estimated at $15/1000
gallons $ 20 $ 20
Equipment Replacement None None
A-4
-------
8. Greywater Treament/Reuse for Toilet Flushing
1 toilet unit 2 toilet unit
Capital Cost $1500 $2000
Installation Cost $ 500 $ 500
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes replacement of
filter cartridges, disinfectant and dye) $ 42.50 $ 42.50
Energy (0.15 kwhr/day) x $0.06 kwhr $ 3.30 $ 4.40
Equipment Replacement None None
9. Pump, Pump Chamber and Controls
Capital Cost (bronze pump with 10' hear $895
70 gpm) $ 75
Installation Cost
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes infrequent repair
of mechanical parts and cleaning of
controls and chamber) $ 25
Energy (0.625 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $ 13.70
Equipment Replacement - 10 year service life
10. Ultraviolet Disinfection Unit
Capital Cost (ultraviolet disinfection unit
with 25 watt lamp and 20 gpm operation) $1050
Installation Cost $100
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance (includes lamp replacement
and radiation chamber cleaning) $ 40
Energy (0.625 kwhr/day) x $0.06/kwhr $ 13.70
Equipment Replacement None
A-5
-------
Unit Costs ($)
11. Intermittent Sand Filter
Size Requirements and Costs
L2
2 Bedroom - 44 ft
3 Bedroom - 66 ft
4 Bedroom - 88 ft'
Component
Excavation
Sand
Gravel
Filter Pipe
Tank
Insulated Cover
& Splash Plates
Total
Capital
0.73/yds3
3.00/yds3
5.50/yds3
1.30/LF
i.oo/ft3
1 20each
Instal.
1.57/yds3
1.80/yds3
3.10/yds3
0.95/LF
0.87 /ft3
40each
Quant.
6.7yds3
4yds3
2.2yds3
33.3LF
178ft3
1
Cost O&M* Quant. Cost O&M* Quant. Cost O&M*
15.
19.
18.
76.
332.
160
623.
41
20
92
60
86
00 44
10yds3
6yds3
3.3yds3
50LF
267ft3
1
23
28
28
112
500
160
850
.00
.80
.40
.50
.00 66
13.3yds3
8yds3
4.4yds3
66.7LF
356ft3
1
30.
38.
37.
150.
665.
160
1082.
59
40
84
08
72
63 88
*Annual Operation and Maintenance (includes raking of sand
surface, periodic replacement of top 2 to 4 inches of
sand and periodic removal of weeds from surface)
-------
12. Soil Absorption Bed
Unit Costs ($)
Size Requirements and Costs for a 10 minute per inch percolation rate
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
Component
Excavation for
Trenches
Gravel for
Trenches
Peas tone for
Trenches
Distribution
Pipe
Distribution
f Boxes
-sj
Header
Pipe
Grading &
Supervision
Layout &
Supervision
Total
Capital
0.73 /yds3
5. 50 /yds3
5.50/yds3
1.30/LF
143 each
1.70/LF
Instal.
1.57 yds3
3.10/yds3
3.10/yds4
0.95/LF
32 each
1 .30/LF
0.065/ft2
1.00/LF
trench
Quant.
11.4 yds3
4.3 yds3
1.4 yds3
i
154 LF
1
50 LF
616 ft2
154 LF
Cost($)
26.22
36.98
12.04
346.50
175.00
150.00
40.04
154.00
940.78
(564.47)*
Quant.
17.1 yds3
6.4 yds3
2.2 yds3
231 LF
1
67 LF
1155 ft2
231 LF
Cost($)
39.33
55.04
18.96
519.75
175.00
201.00
75.08
231.00
1315.16
(789.10)* '
Quant.
22.8 yds3
8.6 yds3
2.9 yds3
308 LF
1
108 LF
1364 ft2
308 LF
Cost($)
52.44
73.96
24.94
693.00
175.00
324.00
88.66
308.00 .
1740.00
(1044.00)*
*40% decrease in SAS size when segregated systems used.
-------
13. Mounded Soil Absorption Bed 2 FT Mound
Unit Costs ($) Size Requirements and Costs for a 20minute per inch percolation rate
Component
Excavation for
Trenches
Gravel for
Trenches
Peas tone for
Trenches
Fill
Material
^* Distribution
00 Pipe
Distribution
Boxes
Header
Pipe
Grading &
Supervision
Layout &
Supervision
Total
Capital Instal.
0.73/yds3 1.57/yds3
5.50/yds3 3.10/yds3
5.50/yds3 3.10/yds3
3.00/yds3 1.80/yds3
1.30/LF 0.95/LF
143 each 32 each
1.70/LF 1.30/LF
0.065/ft2
1.00/LF
trench
2 Bedroom
Quant. Cost($)
19.5 yds3 44.85
7.3yds3 62.78
2.4 yds3 20.64
331.4yds3 1590.72
264 LF 594.00
1 150.00
82 LF 246.00
4820 ft2 313.30
264 LF ' 264.00
3286.29
(1971.77)*
3 Bedroom
Quant.
29.3 yds3
11.0 yds3
3.7 yds3
429.3 yds3
396 LF
1
124 LF
6000 ft2
396 LF
4 Bedroom
Cost($) Quant.
67.39 39.1 yds3
94.60 14.7 yds3
31.82 4.9yds3
2060.64 559.2 yds3
891.00 528 LF
150.00 1
372.00 184 LF
390.00 7140 ft2
396.00 528 LF
4453.45
(2672.07)*
Cost($j
89.93
126.42
42.14
2684.16
1188.00
150.00
552.00
464.10
528.00
5824.75
(3494.85)*
*40% decrease in SAS size when segregated systems used.
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPONENT COSTS FOR SEPTAGE COMPOSTING FACILITY
B-l
-------
Septaqe Composting Facility
Capital Costs
Tanks
Mixers (5)*
Pumps (5)
Aeration Equip (5)
Solids Screens
Chemical Feed System
Plumbing, Piping, Elec.
Conveyors (10)
Solids Mixers
Composting Pad
Inf/Perc. Site Work
Building
Fencing
Front End Loader (10)
Access Road and Unloading Area
Engineering
Total Initial Capital
Cost
$ 53,600
11,200
22,000
3,300
14,200
9,500
23,200
6,700
38,500
5,000
1,400
30,000
11,500
40,000
5,400
55,600
$330,600
Land
Land 2J5 acre site at $5,000/acre
Total Initial Capital
Cost with Land
**Total Annual Amortized Capital Cost
(without Federal and State Funding)
***Total Annual Amortized Capital Cost
(with Federal and State Funding)
$ 12.500
$343,100*
$10.40/1000 gal ,
$2.70/1000 gal
Yearly O&M Costs
Labor
Acid
Lime
Electricity
Vehicle O&M
Site Maintenance -
Woodchips G> 3.00/ycT
10,000
1,800
1,000
4,000
3,000
1,000
2,600
B-2
-------
Lab Analysis
Contingencies
$ 1,500
5,000
Total Annual O&M Costs $29,900
Revenue
Sale of Compost @ $3.00/yd*
Total Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual Costs
(without Federal and State Funding)
Total Annual Costs
(with Federal and State Funding)
Total System Present Worth
.$ 2.600
$27,300
$13.50/1000 gal
$23.90/1000 gal
$16.20/1000 gal'
$707,000
*NumLer in parentheses indicates the life of that item - if no parentheses
item assumed to have a 20 year life
**Interest Rate of 7 1/82 used
***Federal and State Share is 9456 of Initial'Capital Cost
+Does not include the cost of improved liquid effluent treatment
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPONENT COSTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SYSTEMS
The component costs for Problem Area No. 1 and Problem Area No. 10
are presented to illustrate how the total costs for each communal system,
presented on Table 6.2-1, were calculated.
C-l
-------
Description of Cosnunal System
House Sizes
2 Bedroom
14-3 Bedroom. '
1«« Bedroom
Nunber of Problem Septic Syste
>9 Present
a Future
Comma! System
Problem Area no. 1
location: Sunset Rd..Brook La, Linden St.. Coach Rd.
Collection System
Type 4- PVC Gravity
Site 7546 FT
Disposal Site
Size U780 FT2
Graundwater Depth j FT
Percolation Kate W HIN/INOI
Unit Costs (S)
Capital Installation
Present
Future
Street Hook-up
Present
Future
Collection
Gravity
Pressure
Manholes
! Sipnon/Ooslng System
! Leachfleld
purchase land
clearing land
excavation
1 gravel
i
peastone
pipe
distribution boxes
header pipe
. grading I shaping
layout I supervision
Subtotal
1 Total
Equipment Replacement
Salvage (Land)
(concrete structures)
(piping)
425 Each 13S Each
5.00/LF 8.00/LF
6.00/LF 10.00/LF
5.00/LF 9.00/LF
600 Each- 600 Each
3500 Each 2000 Each
10.000/ac
2.000/ac
0.73/yd3 1.57/yd3
5. SO/yd3 3.10/yd3
5. SO/yd* 3.10/yd3
1.12/LF -1.13/LF
143 Each 32 Each
1.12/LF 1.88/LF
0.065/FT2
0,75/LF
Quantity
19
9
30 IF
19
9
4225 LF
.
18
1
1.5ac
l.Sac
559 yds3
210 yds3
70yds3
7546 LF
17
2000 LF.
66.780 FT2
7546 LF
C*ts ($)
Capital Annual 0 1 M Present Worth
10,640.00 380.00
342.00
7,410.00
175.50
67.600.00 . 600.60
21 .600.00
5.SOO.M
15.000.00
3.000.00
1.285.50
1.806.00
602.00
16.978.50
2.975.00
6.000.00
3.440.70
5.659.50
56,747.20
169.497.20 1.498.10 18S.21S.I2
0 o
6.840.23
1.994.33
-18.826.68
Total P.M. 157.553.88
.
C-2
-------
Description of Communal System
House Sizes «
2 Bedroom
8-3 Seoroon
4 Bedroom
Number of Problem Seotle Systems
7 'resent
1 Future
Communal System
Problem Area No. 10
Location: Cell Lane
Collection System
4" PVC Gravity
2100 FT
Type
Site
Disposal Site
Size
Groundwater Depth
Percolation Rate
18.720 FT
>5 FT
20 MIN/1NCII
Unit Costs (S)
Capital Installation
Present
Future
Street Hook-up 5.00/LF 8.00/LF
Present
Future
Collection
Gravity 6.00/LF 10.00/LF
Pressure S.OO/LF 9.00/LF
j Manholes 600 Each 600 Each
! Pump/Dosing System 5300 Each 2700 Each
Leachffeld
i
purchase land 10.000/ac
clearing land 2.000/ac
excavation 0.73/yd3 1.57/yd3
9r«vel 5. 50/yd3 3.10/yd3
Peastone S. SO/yd3 3.10/yd3
P'Pe 1.12/LF 1.13/LF
distribution boxes 143 Each 32 Each
header pipe 1.12/LF 1.88/LF
grading i shaping 0.065/1 FT2
layout * supervision 0.75/LF Trenc
Subtotal
Total
Equipment Replacement
Salvage (Land)
(concrete structures)
(piping)
Quantl ty
7
1
30 LF
7
1
890 IF
450 LF
3
1
0.43ac
0.43ac
2.55 yds3
88 yds3
29 yds3
3168 LF
7
750 LF
18.731 FTZ
3.168 LF
C-3
Costs (S)
Capital Annual 0 & M Present Worth
3.920.00 140.00 i
38.00
2.730.00
19.50
14.240.00 126.00
6,300.00
1.800.00
8.030.00 80.00
I
4.300.00
860.00
540.00
757.00
252.00
7.128.00
1.225.00
2.250.00
1.217. SO
2.376.00
0.905.50
7.395. SO 403.50 62.128.95
0
-1.960.86 '
- 527. JO
'' -5.297.65
Total P.W. 54.343.14 |
I
i
1
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPONENT COSTS FOR TOWN CENTER COLLECTION/TREATMENT OPTIONS
D-l
-------
TOWN CENTER AREA
Small Service Area Ootion 1 (65,000 gpd).
Component
Capital
Cost
Annual
O&M
Present
Worth
Small Service Area Option 1 (65,000 gpd)
PVC Collector Sewers (28,500 ft) 468,000
Sewer Manholes (110) 132,000
* House Hook-ups (193) 9,650
Septic Tanks (193) 53,TOO
Street Hook-ups (193) 23,400
Equalization Lift Station
(15,000 gallon) 32,000
Aeration (80 CFM) 42,000
Rotating Biological Contactor
(20,000 sq. ft.) 48,000
Secondary Settling Tank 35,000
Ozone Disinfection (5 Ib/day)
with Contact Tank 38,000
Dosing Pump Station
(200 GPM) 20,000.
Building 20,000
Emergency Power 30,000
Leaching Trenches 50,000
(6900 ft)
4,048
5,318
1,560
25,000
Sub-Total
Equipment Replacement
Salvage (concrete)
(piping)
1,001,150 35,925
11,000
Total P.W.
1
378,071
5,526
-15,563
-14,562
1,353,172
*This cost is ineligible for 201 funding.
All other system costs are eligible.
D-2
-------
TOWN CENTER AREA
Small Service Area Option 2 (125,000 gpd)
Component
Large Service Area Option 2 (125,000 gpd)
PVC Collector Sewers .(28,500 ft)
Sewer Manholes (110)
"House Hook-ups (370)
Septic Tanks (370)
Street Hook-ups (300)
Equalization Lift Station
(25,000 gallons, 100 GPM)
Aeration (150 CFM)
Rotating Biological Contactor
(40,000 sq. ft.)
Secondary Settling Tank with
_ Weir and Waste Pump
Ozone Disinfection (81b/day)
with Contact Tank
Dosing Pump Station
(300 GPM)
Building
Emergency Power
Leaching Trenches (13,225 ft)
Sub-Total
Equipment Replacement
Salvage (concrete)
(piping)
Capital Annual
Cost O&M
468,000 4,048
132,000
18,500
188,700 7,400
117,000
42,000
54,000
76,000 30,000
60,000
48,000
30,000
35,000
55,000
100,000
1,424,200 41,448
15,000
Total P.W.
Present
Worth
1,859,068
7,536
-35,195
-20,080
1,811,329
*This cost is ineligible for 201 funding.
All other system costs are eligible.
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
201 Facilities Planning Study for Woodrock
Activity: Public Hearing
Purpose: To review draft facility plan and to receive citizen comments
on the pi an recommendations.
Site and Attendance: Meeting, was held at the Woodrock High School at
7:30 p.m. on April 15, 1980 with approximately 100 people
in attendance.
Notification Procedures: Advertised 45 day prior to hearing in Woodrock Times
and Sentinel and through newsletters sent to mailing list. Newspaper
articles on hearing published April 4 and 10, 1980 radio public
service announcements broadcast April 4-15, 1980, posters distributed
at 15 locations in town.
Comments and Responses: A tape recording of the hearing is available to
the public at the Town Hall by appointment with the local public
participation coordinator. The following individuals and groups
made comments at the public hearing:
Identification Number Commentor
1. League of Women Voters
2. Woodrock Conservation Board
3. Woodrock Planning Board
4. Woodrock Chamber of Commerce
5. Woodrock Board of Health
6. Lake Linden Homeowners' Association
7. Highway Dept. Supervisor
8. Plainfield County Planning Dept.
9. Woodrock Taxpayers' Association
10. Jane Murdock, homeowner, Problem
Area #1
11, Richard White, business property
owner, Town Center Area
12. Martha Hanson, business property
owner, Town Center Area
13 David Small, homeowner, Problem
Area #5
14. James Howard, homeowner» Town
Center Area
E-l
-------
The following table summarizes the opinions expressed at the public
hearing, the Individuals or groups that expressed the opinion (noted by
identification number) and the response of the Town Council to the comment:
Comment
1. Supports recommended
draft facilities plan
2. Large Town Center Ser-
vice Area is needed
for future growth
3. Lake Linden may have
severe algae problems
if development continues
4. Compost from septage
plant will only be
adequate for town use
5. Wants a central sewer
to serve home
6. Town center wastewater
flew should be treated
at Middletown Treatment
Plant
7. Woodrock Facilities
Plan is in compliance
with 208 areawide water
quality plan
Commentor
1. 2, 3, 4, 5,
7, 11, 12, 13
3, 4, 5, 8, 9,
11, 12
3, 4, 5, 6
10
14
8
Response
No response needed.
No response needed
Recommendation for increased
town acquisition of land
around Lake Linden as miti-
gating measure added to final
plan
Priority will be given to--
town highway dept. but if?
there is excess, it may be
sold to nursery growers
Not cost-effective plan
alternative
Not cost-effective plan
alternative
No response needed
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F
Memorandum
TO: Program Manager
201 Facilities Plan for Woodrock
FROM: Woodrock Town Council
RE: Evaluation of Public Participation Program
The public participation program conducted for the 201 Facilities
Plan has provided Woodrock citizens with many opportunities to actively
participate in selecting a comprehensive wastewater management plan.
The Town Council has observed the following program accomplishments:
1. Public meetings have been well attended with lively discussions.
2. Consultants have been responsive to meeting with concerned
citizens and groups.
3. All of the major concerned interests have been involved at
some phase of the study and no major controversies over
the study findings have developed:
4. There appears to be general agreement among the interested
parties that the selected plan will, receive adequate public
support for a positive referendum vote on Step 2 funds.
F-l
------- |