SCARBOROUGH
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
T
/
I
^e0 SUK
U. S. E N VI RON M E N TAL
^ PROTECTION AGENCY
ussy
% ' p-
New England Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts ^proi*-0
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND
TREATMENT FACILITIES
SCARBOROUGH, MAINE
PREPARED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Regionai^dmitiistrator >
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR SCARBOROUGH SEWERAGE SYSTEM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
1. Type of Statement: Draft ( ) Final ( ) Supplemental Final (X)
2. Administrative Action
3. The Federal action which is the subject of this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is the awarding of Step II grant funds to the
Scarborough Sanitary District for the design and construction of a
sanitary sewerage system in Scarborough, Maine. Throughout the EIS
process, several alternatives were under review. In May, 1977> EPA
published a Final EIS which recommended Alternative G as the preferred
alternative. However, subsequent studies by the applicant (the
Scarborough Sanitary District) have shown that that alternative is not
feasible. Ipon review of the information, EPA has determined that
Alternative A is the most cost effective, environmentally acceptable
alternative now available. This alternative involves a 1.8 MGD
wastewater treatment facility near Prout's Neck with a discharge to the
ocean off Prout'3 Neck.
4. The present total estimated project cost for Alternative A is
$17,566,000. The EPA grant is $4,804,000 and the Maine DEP grant is
$961,000. These costs are shown in Table 3.8-1 of EPA's Final EIS. The
proposed user fee is approximately $l60/year for the average household.
5. The proposed project will:
(a) eliminate existing failing septic systems adjacent to surface
water bodies;
(b) discontinue raw sewage discharge at Higgins Beach;
(c) reopen closed clam growing areas in Scarborough;
(d) guide and direct future growth in an environmentally acceptable
manner; and
(e) be responsive to enforcement orders issued by the State of
Maine.
-1-
-------
6. hajor environmental impacts are:
(a) The effluent will discharge into SB2 and SA waters, thus
establishing a limited potential for degradation of water quality near
the outfall.
(b) State laws require that a limited closure area for shell fishing
and swimming be established around the point of discharge.
(o) The wastewater treatment facility will be located In an area
adjacent to a barrier beach which is subject to flooding. Temporary
environmental impacts will occur to the barrier beach during
construction of the facility.
7. Mitigation Measures.
This supplement to the Final EIS suggests mitigation measures to
reduce the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action.
(a) It is extremely important that action be taken to eliminate the
potential of system overflows or bypassing of sewage into old lines
during instances of flooding or plant malfunction. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Sanitary District remove or render inoperable all
old sewer outfalls. It is anticipated that the installation of the
proposed treatment facility will enhance water quality and cleanse
shellfish areas that are currently closed.
(b) It is recommended that the Town of Scarborough give high
priority to the development of a growth management plan structured
around the moderate growth scenario set forth in the Final EIS. While
preparing this planf the Town should consider adopting interim
development controls regarding new residential growth in order to
provide the protection of natural resource areas.
(c) Because of the unique character of the marshlands in the Town,
some of which are in close proximity to the project area, development in
these areas must be carefully regulated under authority of Title 38
to.R.S.A. S471-1J78 (1975) which allows permits for certain activities in
coastal wetlands. In addition to this wetlands protection authority
which the Town may assume from the Maine Board of Environmental
Protection, one planning recommendation is to establish a "green belt"
or buffer zone with strict performance criteria which would control and
define the permissible uses in districts adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas, tising environmental performance standards as general
regulations for all developments, provides the most important type of
controls for resource management and protection. Another possibility is
to develop stronger controls for regulating development as described in
(e) below. Essentially, these local controls would supplement the
existing regulatory provisions under the Maine Shoreland Zoning
Ordinance.
-2-
-------
(d) It is essential that the Sanitary District require in their
contract specification that contractors employ mitigation measures to
control soil erosion and sedimentation problems resulting from
construction activities. Enforcement of these mitigation measures is
essential to preserving water quality. Detailed suggestions on
mitigative measures during construction are included in Chapter 6 of
EPA's Final EIS.
(e) Since there is a potential for limited development in areas that
are protected under the mandatory Shoreland Zoning and Subdivision
Control Act, Title 12 M.R.S.A. Sections 4811—U814, it is essential that
the Town strictly enforce the provisions of its ordinances enacted
pursuant to this authority to control and minimize any such development.
The offer of federal assistance will include a special condition
emphasizing the need for strict enforcement of shoreland zoning
ordinances. It is recommended that the Planning Board and Conservation
Commission consider the need to strengthen its shoreland ordinance while
preparing its new growth management plans.
(f) Because of the potential for significant detrimental effects
from a failure of the proposed ocean outfall, a review of previous
current studies will be required during the design phase. This review
will be required to help insure adequate knowledge of the ocean bottom
environment in order to allow for an outfall design such that shifting
and failure of the pipe will not occur. Design of the outfall and the
pipe anchoring systems will receive special attention during EPA'a
review of the final design documents.
-3-
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SCARBOROUGH WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
SCARBOROUGH, MAINE
I. Background
In early May 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Scarborough,
Maine. The Final EIS recommended a new 1.8 million gallon per day
wastewater treatment facility to be located adjacent to the existing
facility at Oak Hill. The effluent from this secondary treatment plant
would be pumped from the Oak Hill plant to the Fore River (Alternative
"G"). The Final EIS suggested several options for routing the outfall
to the Pore River with the most direct route being along the old
railroad grade to the Portland Terminal tracks and then to the Fore
River. Included as part of EPA's recommendation to discharge to the
Pore River was a requirement that a detailed study be prepared by the
Scarborough Sanitary District when evaluating alternative routes to the
Fore River which would determine easement costs and analyze the economic
impacts of these costs to users of the proposed system.
In the Fall of 1977, EPA issued a newsletter to inform citizens,
State and Federal agencies of EPA's request to the Scarborough Sanitary
District to provide additional information on Alternatives A and
CAppendix A). In order for a decision to be reached on which
alternatives could receive grant funds, EPA must weigh the total costs
and environmental impacts of the alternatives.
Specifically, EPA requested the Scarborough Sanitary District, in
a letter dated September 28, 1977, to submit estimates of easement costs
supported by documentation sufficient to allow EPA to understand the
assumptions, methods and calculations used in arriving at the final
costs.
Following EPA's letter to the District, a meeting was held at
EPA's Regional Office on October 4, 1977 between Whitman & Howard, Inc.
representing the Scarborough Sanitary District, and EPA. At the
meeting, it was agreed that three specific issues required additional
study. These were:
A. The feasibility of using the existing railroad right-of-way
through South Portland for an outfall route under Alternative Gj
B. Rigorous cost estimates for easements under both Alternatives
A and G; and
C. Substantiation for the extent of the proposed collection
system in accordance with EPA's Program Requirement Memorandum 77-8.
-4-
-------
On November 4, 1977, EPA received from Whitman & Howard a letter
dated October 31, 1977 addressing the above requests (Appendix B).
During the review of that material, EPA was informed that Hunter &
Ballew Associates in Portland, Maine had been retained by an
organization of Scarborough homeowners known as the Coastal
Environmental Association (CEA) to evaluate the feasibility of land
disposal in Scarborough. In previous documents EPA provided an analysis
of this alternative which concluded that land disposal was not feasible
in Scarborough. One reason for this conclusion was the unavailability
of suitable sites. Hunter and Ballew1s report, submitted to EPA on
December 13, 1977, (Appendix C) suggested several sites in West
Scarborough which appeared suitable to that firm based upon preliminary
evaluations. EPA evaluated this report, along with other available
data, and determined that the land disposal alternative would require
additional study. See Section II.
In addition, a second group of homeowners in Scarborough retained
Thomas Griffin Associates of Portland, Maine to evaluate the October 31,
1977 Whitman & Howard material. Mr. Griffin's evaluation was submitted
to EPA on December 22, 1977- (Appendix D).
On December 23, 1977, EPA met with the Scarborough Sanitary
District to address issues raised by the Hunter & Ballew report. At
that meeting Whitman & Howard agreed to prepare an economic analysis of
the land disposal option on behalf of the District. In addition, Hunter
& Ballew were requested by the CEA to prepare a detailed cost analysis
of the same option. EPA also agreed to prepare its own independent
analysis of Alternatives A and G, and land disposal. Whitman 4 Howard
submitted their evaluation on January 6, 1978 (Appendix E) and Hunter &
Ballew submitted their report on January 30, 1978 (Appendix F). EPA's
technical analysis was completed about March 6, 1978.
With respect to the availability of rights-of-way through South
Portland, Whitman & Howard reported contacting the railroad on October
13, 1977, and was again rejected. Whitman & Howard then evaluated two
alternative routings: Route 1 and Highland Avenue (see Appendix B).
Both routes were presented by Whitman & Howard as being more expensive
than going through Prout's Neck (see Table 1 in Appendix B). Due to the
length and cost to the outfall of the Fore River, the Prout's Neck
option was presented as the more cost-effective alternative.
Thomas Griffin Associates also concluded that the railroad would
not accept an easement on their right-of-way. Griffin, however,
suggested a third route adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. This
route, although less costly than the other two studied by Whitman &
Howard, would traverse several privately owned parcels, plus at least
one parcel owned by the City of South Portland.
On December 12, 1977, EPA met with the City Manager and City
Engineer of South Portland to re-evaluate the potential for routing an
outfall sewer through South Portland from Scarborough. Neither City
-5-
-------
Official was optimistic at that time due to a significant lack of
benefit to the City of South Portland. At EPA's request, the issue was
raised with the full City Council of South Portland by the City Manager.
The Council re-affirmed the City Manager's position and their position
was relayed to EPA in a letter dated January M, 1978 from the City
Manager (Appendix G) .
Based upon overwhelming evidence that institutional and political
constraints would prohibit acquisition of easement rights through South
Portland, EPA has determined that Alternative G is no longer feasible
for the Scarborough Sanitary District. Therefore, Alternative A which
was completely evaluated in EPA's FEIS is the recommended alternative.
11. Land Disposal Issue
While the District was preparing its response to the questions
raised in EPA's letter of September 28, 1977, the issue of land disposal
as a treatment alternative was raised by the Coastal Environmental
Association (CEA). Land disposal had been evaluated and rejected in
EPA's Final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, the 1977
Scarborough Newsletter reiterated the reasons for EPA's rejection of
this alternative—the lack of suitable sites to accommodate land
disposal systems (which, by their very nature, require sizeable land
areas for disposal).
The Hunter and Ballew report commissioned by CEA was submitted to
EPA on December 13, 1977 (Appendix C). This report identified six (6)
potential sites in West Scarborough. EPA and Whitman and Howard, Inc.,
the District's consulting engineer, agreed to evaluate the report and
respond to its conclusions.
EPA's analysis of the land disposal alternative utilized the
criteria contained in EPA Report No. 660/2-73-006, entitled "Wastewater
Treatment and Re-Use by Land Application". This report sets forth the
minimum site selection factors such as, soils type, drainability, soil
depth; direction and movement of groundwater, slopes, geology, and
distance from the source of wastewater. For an acceptable location for
a 1.8 MGD rapid infiltration system a twenty-five acre site with a
groundwater table below 15 feet across the entire site would be
required.
Of the six sites identified by Hunter and Ballew, three were less
than the 25 acre minimum size established in EPA's criteria document.
In addition, these sites were In close proximity to surface wasters and
were composed of soils of the following types: Windor Sandy Foams or
DeerfieId Sandy Foams.
With respect to the other three sites which are identified in
Appendix C, each site is characterized as follows:
The first site is centered about 2,000 feet north of Broad Turn
-6-
-------
Road and 4,000 feet East of Holmes Road, adjacent to Finnerd Brook. The
site consists of 50 acres of wooded land. The surface elevation is
within 15 to 20 feet above the surface of the nearby stream.
The second site is located 2,000 feet North of Broad Turn Road
and 1,000 feet West of Holmes Road adjacent to Carter Brook and the
Nonesuch River. This site consists of 50 acres of wooded land. The
surface elevation is approximately 100 feet above the Nonesuch River.
The soils on these sites are classified as Windsor according to
the Soil Conservation Service. This soil type consists of deep,
excessively drained, coarse-textured material. A typical profile has a
surface layer of dark rown, loamy sand about six inches thick. The
upper nine inches of the subsoil is brown, loamy sand. The lower eleven
inches is light olive-brown, loose loamy sand. The substratum, at a
depth of twenty-six inches is pale-yellow, loose medium sand.
Permeability is rapid in these soils. Depth to bedrock is five feet or
more. This soil type is described as having moderate limitations for
septic effluents due primarily to rapid percolation and potential
groundwater contamination (Appendix H).
Therefore, based on the above information and discussions with
geologists and soil scientists familar with the characteristics of soils
and groundwater elevations in Scarborough area, EPA believes that none
of the sites presented will meet the EPA criteria for an acceptable land
disposal facility.
A. Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of a land disposal alternative in
West Scarborough can be summerized as follows:
1. Probable contamination of groundwater due to high
seasonal water table which would prevent passage of the liquid through
an adequate depth of soil to meet drinking water standards. There are
many private wells surrounding these sites which could be degraded.
These wells are shallow and draw water from the seasonal water table.
2. Potential degradation of adjacent surface water bodies
(finnerd Brook, Carter Brook, or the Nonesuch River) due to horizontal
movement of inadvertently treated effluent in the water table.
3. The loss of rural residential and farm land in West
Scarborough. Existing and future development would require a public
water supply system. The cost of providing public water to residential
areas surrounding these sites would result in a detrimental impact to
the Town.
-7-
-------
The environmental impacts associated with Alternative A were
discussed in EPA's Final EIS and the Scarborough Newsletter (Appendix
A).
fa. Cost Impacts
With respect to the cost analysis of the various
alternatives, a significant variation in costs can be seen. Please note
the derivation of the unit prices used. Whitman & Howard added a
contingency factor to the unit prices. Both Thomas Griffin Associates
and EPA added the contingency to the final value rather than to the unit
price. Thus, although wide variations may appear in unit prices, the
"bottom line" is comparable among the three analyses. Where significant
unit price differences occur or where assumptions have been made, notes
are appended to the tables to explain them.
Costs of the various options, for the treatment facilities
and outfall only, not including interceptors, pump stations, force mains
and collector sewers considered common to all options, are as follows:
CAPITAL COST COMPARISON
Alternative
G (along RR)
G (along RR)
Whitman & Howard
$ 744,800
(not calculated)
$1,805,950
G (along Highland $2,006,300
Avenue)
G (adjacent to RR) (not calculated)
land disposal $4,561,120
Thomas Griffin
$ 873,300
(not calculated)
$1,416,900
$1,685,000
$1,072,200
(not calculated)
Hunter-Ballew
(not calculated)
(not calculated)
(not calculated)
(not calculated)
(not calculated)
$2,663,900
EPA
$ 910,700
(not calcu-
lated)
$1,525,845
$1,766,910
$1,076,500
$3,248,282
ANNUAL POST CTMPARISON
Alternative Whitman & Howard Thomas Griffin Hunter-Ballew EPA
A $ 16,195 $19,042 $ 19,450
G (along Rt. 1) $ 35,988 $29,414 $ 30,497
G (along Highland $ 32,447 $31,820 $ 27,821
Avenue)
G (adjacent to RR) $23,000 $ 23,263
Land disposal $311,817 $392,454 $239,198
-8-
-------
Ihe capital costs and the annual costs of land disposal are
significantly in excess of the costs for the other options, regardless
of whose figures are used. Even if an aerated lagoon system were used
at Oak Hill in lieu of the proposed modifications to the existing plant,
the annual costs and the capital costs would still exceed the cost for
the other options by a substantial margin.
When viewed from the perspectives of cost and environmental
impact it is clear that the land disposal option is not feasible in
Scarborough.
III. EPA's Summary and Recommendation
In responding to EPA's request for additional information on
easement costs, availability of easements, documentation of need for
collection system, the Scarborough Sanitary District, through Whitman &
Howard, have provided the additional information necessary for EPA to
make a final decision on a wastewater management program.
Essentially this information says:
A. An outfall route utilizing the existing railroad
rights-of-way in South Portland is not feasible. Indeed, no outfall
route through South Portland is feasible.
B. Cost estimates for rights-of-way through Prout's Neck are
included in the total capital and annual cost summaries in the following
tables preceeding the appendices.
c. The extent of the proposed collection system in Scarborough,
as revised by Whitman & Howard in accordance with the growth scenarios
and plant capacity projected in the Final EIS, has been adequately
justified.
EPA's conclusion is that the only feasible solution to waste
disposal in Scarborough is the construction of a 1.8 MGD wastewater
treatment facility at Prout's Neck with an ocean outfall off Prout's
Neck for disposal of the treated effluent.
-9-
-------
AI.TF-nUATTVF. "A" PR0UT5 NtCK OUTFALL
- 1 -
Towns Street
Private Roads
Ocean Outfall
Use 18" Force
lain to Station
61+00 Era
rIty to ocean.
I. COST ESTIMATE PORCE MAIN
WHITMAN & liO'.JATU)
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
Pipe
Excavation
$ 20/l.f.
5.
Pipe $ 20/l.f. (Will)
Excavation 5. (U&Il)
Pipe(*1>
Excavation
(Transite
$15/1.f(Pressure Pipe
CL 100)
3.(4.5X3XlX^l_X6)-3
27
Ledge
Manholes
18.
2(1 nanhole/1.000')
Ledge 18. (Will)
Manholes 1.($2,000 @ 2,000')
Ledge
Manholes(*2)
18.(4.5X3XlX_Lja5)-
27 18
2.(1 manhole/I,000')
Paving
6.
Paving 6.
Paving(* 5)
6. (W&H)
Police
3.
Police 1.
Police(* 6)
1. (T.G.)
Sheeting
0
Sheeting 0
Sheeting
0
Gravel
1.
Gravel 1
Gravel
1
Contingencies
6.
Contingencies 0
Contingencies
0
$ 61/1.£.
$ 52/1.£.
$ 46/1.£.
II. COST ESTIMATE FOR GRAVITY OUTFALL
27 " RC PIPE
Pipe
$ 15/1.f.
Pipe $ 15/1. f. (W&H)
Pipe (*3) $ 16/i.f.(RC)
Excavation
9 (4. 25X10X1Xj^_/6)"9
Excavation 8(3.75X10Xjl_X6)-8
Excavation
10(4.25X10XlX_i.X6).10 ,
Ledge
39(4.25x10x1x57X702 X
35)-39
Ledge 38(3. 75XIOX^ X70X30)-35
Ledge
39(4.25X10X1X^1X70^X35
.'ianholes
5.
Manholes 3($1200 per 400')-$3/ft
Manhole(*4)
3($1200 per 400')-$3/:
Paving
6.
Paving 6. (W&H)
Paving (*5)
6. (W&H)
Police
3.
Police 1*
Police (*6)
1. (T.G.)
Gravel
1.
Gravel 1-
Gravel
1. (W&H)
Contingencies
3.
Contingencies 0
Contingencies
0
$86/1.f.
$ 69/1.£.
?
76/1.f.
III. OCEAN OUTFALL 1
5300/1.f.
$500/1.f.
$600/1.f.
EPA used $600/1.f. assuming that
excavation alone will cost an average
of $275/1.f. after adding Backfilling
and anchorage.. $600/1.f. appear to be
more reasonable.
Cont. - pg. 1A
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST
ALTERNATE "A" OUTFALL
wuit:lu 4 UOUARI)
1. Force ilain 6,1 JO' tjll/X. £.-5372,100
2. Gravity 1,950'J$86/lf.- 167,700
3. Ocean Outfall 600'j^30Q/lf* 180,000
Construction Cost $710 ,800
Uasenents; 2300' along private
road $ 5,000
450' across private
road 20,000
$ 25,000
THOMAS GRIFFIN
1. Force Main 6,100'X$52/lf-$317,200
2. Gravity Sewer l,950'X^69/lf* 134,600
3. Ocean Outfall ftOO'xSsOO/U^gO^OOO
Construction Cost $751,800
Plus 10Z contingencies 78,2QC
Total Construction Coat $330,000
Easecients: 2300* private roads
$10X2300 $ 23,300
450' private land 20,000,
(W&H) $ 43,000|
EPA
1. Force Main 6,100'xS46/lf-J280,6C
2. Gravity l,950'X$76/lf- 148,20
3. Ocean Outfall 600'X$600/lf«360.00
Construction Coat $788,8J
Plus 10% contingencies 78,90
Total Construction CostS867.70
Easements: 2300* private roads $ 23,00
450' private land 20,00'
$43,000"
1. The price for Translte Pressure Pipe, Class 100, was obtained from previous Bid Information.
2. EPA will require 1 Manhole/1,000'. Each Ilanhole must have Automatic Shutoff capability.
3. Price for RC Pipe was obtained from local manufacturer.
4. EPA will require one Manhole every 400'.
5. The cost for Paving appears reasonable.
Ci. Thomas Griffin estimate of cost for Police appears reasonable.
- 1A -
-------
ALTERNATE "G-l" ROUTE 1 OUTFALL
Scarborough: 11,000' along Old Railroad Bed
4,100 along Pleasant Hill Road and Route 1
South Portland: 12,150' along Route 1
River Outfall
Use 18" Force Main to Sta. 200 + 00 in South Portland (Transite Pressure Pipe)
27" Gravity to Fore River (RC)
I. COST ESTIMATE OF FORCE MAIN ALONG
RAILROAD BED
WHITMAN & HOWARD
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
Pipe $20/lf
Excavation 5(6.5X3X1X—L-X&)*5
27
Ledge i Hater 8(6.5X3X1x1 X30U35)-
" $ 8/If
Manholes 2(lmanhole/1,000*)
Paving 0
Sheeting 0
Mlsr. 4
Construction Cost - $39/1f
Pipe $20/lf
Escavation 5 (W&U)
Manhole 1/lf ($2,000 @ 2,000ft)
Paving 0 (W&H)
Sheeting 0 (W&H)
Misc. 0
Ledge & Water 4/lf (6.5X3X1X^X157.X35^H
1 $4/lf
Construction Cost |30/lf
Pipe $15/lf
Excavation 4 (6. 5X3XlXTix£)"4. 33
1' app. 4
Ledge & Hater 10(6.5X3XlXTijW02:x35)-
(H) . ^10
Manholes(*2) 2(lmanhole/1,003'
($2,000ea.)
Paving 0
Sheeting 0
Misc. 0
Construction Cost $31/lf
II, FORCE MAI!) ALONG ROUTE It 1
Pipe $20/lf
Excavation 10(Plus cutting
Paveaent)
Led^e and
or Water ®
Manholes 2
Paving 14
Sheeting i
Police 5
Jtilities 5
Contingencies 7
Construction Cost $72/lf
Pipe $20/lf
Excavation 7(above +¦ $2/ft.cutting)
Ledge and
or Water 4
Manhole 1
Paving 14 (W&H)
Sheeting 0
Police — 1
Utilities 2
Contingencies 0
Construction Cost $49/lf
Pipe $15/lf
Excavation 7(above+$3/£t.cuttinn)
Led|>e and
or V/ater(*3) 8
Manhole (*2) 2(1 raanhole/1,000')¦
0 $2,000
Paving 14 (W*H)
Sheet inc. 0
Police(*4) 1 (T.C.)
Utilities 5
Contingencies 0
Construction Cost $52/1f
Cont. - pg. 2 A
-------
- 2A -
GRAVITY ALO:iG ROUTE 1
;:hit:ia^ & hoivaiid
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
Pipe 515/lf
Pipe $15/lf
Pipe $16/1f
Cxcavation 16(4.25X12X~^tlX6
cutting)-16
Ledge/Water 15(4.25X12*^ X25ZX35)
:lanholes 5($l,000/ea. 3200')
Paving 14
Excavation 10(3.75X10X1X 1X6+S2 cutting)
77 -$10 |
Ledge/Water 12(3.75X10X1X 1X25X35)
77 -$12
Manholes 3($12Q0 0 400' interval)
Paving 14 (W&1I)
Excavation 13(4.25X10X1X 1X6
27
+$3/cutting)"$13
fcedne/Water 14*4.25X10X1X 1X252
27
X35)-$14
ilanholes 3($1200@400' interval
Sheeting 2(10X2X3 X1Q«X300)
Police 3
Sheeting 0
Police 1
Paving 14 (U&ll)
Sheeting 2 (U&H)
Utilities 5
Utilities 2
Police 1
Contingencies 8
Contingencies 0
Utilities 2
Construction Cost $85/lf
Construction Cost $57/fl
Contingencies 0
Construction Cost $65/1f
CONSTRUCTION COST ATERNATIVE "G-l" ROUTE 1
WHIT:iAH & HOWARD
THO'lAS GRIFFIN
EPA
1. Force 'tain along R. R. Bed
$39X11,000 - $429,000
1. Force »lain along R.R.
$30X11,000 - $330,000
1. Force Main along R.R.Bed
$31X11,000 - $ 341,000
2. Force Jlain along RTE. 1
$72X 9,100 - 655,200
2. Force Main along PH Road
and RTE. 1- 9,000X$49 - 445,900
2. Force Main along PH Road
$52X 9,100 - 473,200
3. Gravity Sewer along RTE. 1
$85X 7,150 - 607,750
3. Gravity Sewer along RTE. 1
$57X7,150 - 407,600
3. Gravity Sewer along RTE.l)
$65X 7,150 - 464,750
4.River Outfall
4. River Outfall (5253X2 00')¦ 50,000
4. River Outfall($250X200') - 50,000
$250X200 « 50.000
Construction Cost $1,741,950
Assume no easement
cost, only Road
Opening Permits 64,000
Construction Cost $1,233,500
Plus 102 contingencies 123.400
Total Construction Cost $1,356,900
Assume no easement, only road
opening permit: $ 60,000
$1,328,950
ADD t»Z for Contingencies
.10X1.328.950 - 132.895
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,461,845
Road Opening Permits $ 64,000
* NOTES: 1. The Main Central Railroad verified that a minimum of 18" Top Ballast and 2 to 2 1/2 feet of sub-ballast la
required. In addition, Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, Page 19-12, indicates the same; therefore,
1 1/2* + 2 1/4' - 3 3/4*. 6 1/21 adv. depth minus 3 3/4' - 2 3/4'—J— 6.5 ¦ 422 ledge.
2. EPA requires 1 manhole every 1,000', with automatic shutoff.
3. 3031 Ledge along RTE. 1 appear reasonable.
4. The salary for Police as derived by Thomas Griffin Associates appear to be reasonable.
cont. - pg. 3
-------
ALTERNATIVE "0-2" HIGHLAND AVENUE OUTFALL
Scarborough: 15,900' along old railroad; 450' along Highland Avenue.
Sout Portland: 18,750' along Highland Avenue.
River Outfall: 100'
Use 13" Force Maine Co Station 220 + 00.
Use 27" Cravity to River.
whitman
4 HOWARD
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
1.
Cost along RR
(see previous
and across country
cost S39/1f)
1.
Cost along RR
previous cost
and across countrv(see
$30/lf
1.
Cost along RR
(see previous
and across country
cost S31/If
2.
Along Highland Avenue U'/FU
2.
Along Highland
Avenue
W/FM
2.
Alonr; Highland Avenue W/FM
Pipe
$20/If
Pipe
$20/l£
Pipe
$15/lf
Excavation
Ledse/Water
5(6.5X3X lX6)-5
27"
8
Excavation
Ledge/Water
5
8
(W&H)
(WHO
Excavation
4(6.5X3X1X 1X6)
27
¦4.33 approx.4
Manholes
2
Manholes
1
(T.G.)
Ledge/Water
B
Paving
9 (terap.-3:Perm.-6)
Paving
9
Manholes
2
Sheeting
1
Sheeting
0
Paving
9
Police
5
Police
1
Sheeting
1
Utilities
J
Utilities
2
Police
1
Contingencies
b
Contingencies
0
Utilities
3
Construction Cost $59/lf
Construction Cost $46/If
Contingencies
0
Construction
Cost $43/lf
3.
Along Highland Avenue W/Gravity
3.
Along Highland Avenue W/Gravity
3.
Along Highland Avenue U/Gravity
Pipe
515/lf
Pipe
$15/lf
(W&H)
Pipe
$17/lf
Excavation
11(4.25X12X 1X6)
27
Excavation
9(3.
75X10X1X 1X6J-8
27 (TG)
Excavation
10(4.25X 1X10X1X6)-
27 10
Ledge/V.'ater
15
Ledge/Water
15
(Will)
Ledge/Water
15
Manholes
5
Manholes
3
(T.G.)
Manholes
3
Paving
9
Paving
9
C'411)
Paving
9
Sheeting
2
Sheeting
0
(T.G.)
Sheeting
2
Police
5
Police
1
(T.G.)
Police
1
Utilities
3
Utilities
2
Utilities
3
Contingencies
7_
Contingencies
0_
Contingencies
0
Construction Cost $72/lf
Construction Cost
$54/lf
Construction
Cost $59/lf
River Outfall
$200/If
River Outfall
$200/If
River Outfall
$200/lf
Cone. - pg. 3A
-------
- 3A -
Construction Coat - Highland
Avenue
Construction Cost - Highland Avenue
Construction Cost - Highland Avenue
1. Force Main along RR bed
15,900X39 - $
620,100
1. Force Main along RR and Country Road
16,400X30 ¦ $ 492,000
1. Force Main along RR Bed
15,900X31 • $ 492,900
2. Force Main along Highland
Ave. 6,100X59 -
359,000
2. Force Main along Highland Ave.
5,600X46 -
257,600
2. Force Main along Highland
Avenue 6,100X43 - 262,300
3. Gravity along Highland Ave
13,100X72 -
943,200
3. Gravity along Highland Ave.
13,100X54 -
707,400
3. Gravity along Highland Avenue
13,100X59 > 772,900
4. River Outfall
4. River Outfall - 100'X$200 »
20,000
4. River Outfall-100'X$20> 20,000
100'X$200 -
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $
20,000
1,942,300
CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1
Plus 10% Contingencies
477,000
148,000
Construction Cost $ 1,548,100
10% Contingencies
$1,548,100 X.10- 154,810
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1
,625,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $f., 702,910
cone. - PR. 4
-------
- 4 -
ALTERATIVE " G-3"
ALONG THE PORTLAND TERj'UNAL COMPANY THACK
Scarborough: 11,500' alonft old railroad
Sout.i Portland: 13,500' along RR and across country
1J0 across throat of lUfiby Yard.
1J0' Sroadvay/Evans Street intersection.
7~J' iUver Outfall
Use 13 1 Force lain to otation 174 +¦ 30
27" Gravity to i'ore "iver
THO.IAS GRIFFIN ASSOCIATES
CPA
1. Cost Estimate
Force .Iain - Scarborough/ So. Portland
1. Cost Estimate
Force ?Uin - Scarborough
Pipe
$20/lf
Pipe
$15/lf
Excavation
3
Excavation
4
Ledge/Water
4
Ledfje/Wacer
10
Manlia le
1
! lantio le
2
Paving
Q
Pavinn
0
Sheeting
0
Sheeting
0
Miscellaneous
I
Misce llane-ous
1
Construction Cost $31/lf
Construction Coat $32/If
2. Gravity Sewer
South Portland
2. Gravity Sewer
South Portland
Pipe
$15/If
Pipe
$16/If
Excavation
Manhole
8
3
Excavation
llanholes
10(4.25X11X 1X1X63-9.44 use 10
27
3
Paving
0
Paving
0
Sheeting
0
Sheeting
0
Police
0
Police
0
Utilities
2
Utilities
2
Contingencies
2
Contingencies
0
Construction Cost $30/If
Construction Cost S31/lf
Coat. - pe- ^A
-------
- 4A -
Tiio:us g::iffi:: associates
EPA
3.
RR Crossing Throat of Rip,by Yard
3.
RR Crossing Throat of Riftby Yard (FM)
Construction Cast $ $31/11 from above
Construction Cost $ 32 from above
Protection 169
Protection 169
TOTAL COST $200/lf
TOTAL COST 5 201/lf
4 .
uroaJway/L'vans Street Intersection
A.
Croadway/Cvans Street Intersection
Construction Cost $ 200/lf
Construction Cost $200/lf
5.
River Outfall
5.
River Outfall
Construction Cost $200/lf
Construction Cost $200/lf
CONSTRUCTION COST RAILROAD Ol'TFALL
1.
Force ilain along RR 17,400X31 -
$
539,400
1.
Force Main along RR 17,400X32 -$
556,400
2.
Gravity Sewer So. Portland 7,600X30 -
228,000
2.
Gravity Sewer So. Portland 7,600X31 -
235,600
3.
RR Crossing Rigby Yard 100X200"
20,000
3.
RR Crossing Rigby Yard 100X201-
20,100
4.
Broaduay/Evans Intersection 100X200-
20,000
4.
Broadway/Evana Intersection 100X200-
20,000
5.
River Outfall 700X200-
140,000
5.
River Outfall 700X200-
140,000
Construction Cont
5
947,000
Construction Cost $
972,100
Plus 10a contingencies
98,000
10% Contingencies
97,210
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
$1
,045,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1
,069,310
Casement: Along RR Track, 1U property owners involved (10c
sq.
ft.X 20' wlde-$2/lf)$2X13,600^27,200
cont. - pg. 5
-------
- 5 -
OPERATION S, MAINTENANCE COST
WHITMAN & HOWARD
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
ALT. "A"
ALT. "A"
ALT. "A"
'1 - 1260 spn
TOU - 40'
Use - 20 HP
Operation Cost; S6.000
No maintenance cost has been
determined.
0 - 1260 gpm
TDH - 40'
Use - 20 HP
Operation Cost: S6.000
No maintenance cost has been determined
Q - 1260 gpra
TDU - 40'
Use - 20 HP
Operation Cost: $6,000
No maintenance cost has been
determined.
ALT. "C-J"
ALT. "G-l"
ALT. G-l"
Q • 1260 gpra
TDH- 30'X.172X200 approx. 65
Use 35 HP for average hp requirement
Operation Cost:
35npX.746KWX24X365X4.5e - $11,000.
Q - 1260 gpm (W&H)
TDK - 65' (W&H)
Work done - 1260X8.337X65 - 20.69HP
33,000 (use 30HP)
Operation Cost:
30X.746X24X365X4.5-8,800(use $9,000
Q - 1260 gpm (W&H)
TDH - 65' (W&H)
Work done - 1260X7.SOX.25X2.5-
500 (*1)
20.47HP - 24.08HP use 30
.85 (pump efficiency)
Operation Cost:
30X.746X24X365X4.5-8,800
(use $9,000)
ALT. "C-2"
ALT. "G-2"
ALT. "G-2"
Q ¦ 1260 <;pm
TDH - 68'
Use - 35 HP
Operation Cost; $11,000
Q • 1260 gpm
TDH - 68'
Use - 30 HP
Operation Cost: $9,000
O - 1260 gpm
TDH - 68'
Use - 30 HP
Operation Cost: $9,000
ALT. "G-3"
ALT. "G-3"
ALT. •'G-3"
Wot considered
Q « 1260 gpra
TDU - 60'
Use - 30 HP
Ooeratlon Cost: $9,000
Q - 1260 gpra
TDII - 60'
Use - 30 HP
Operation Cost: $9,000
* 1. Infornation obtained (rm :;ater Well Handbook, Fafje 125. The 30 HP used bv Thomas Griffin appear to be
conservative.
COHT. - pg. 6
-------
- 6 -
ALT. "A"
WHITMAN & HOWARD
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
1.
Construction Cost(*l)
$
719,800
2.
Technical Services
108,000
3.
Lep,al & Fiscal
7,200
4.
Administrative
7.200
5.
Project Contingency
42 , 000
6.
Project Cost
$
884,200
7,
Less DEP 4 CPA Share
795,780
8.
District's Share
88,420
9.
Easements, Permits, Etc.
25.000
10.
Total District's
$
113,420
Snare
U.
Amortization
(6-3/8 % 320yrs)
$
10,195
12.
Operations
6.000
13.
Total Annual District's
Cost
$
16,195
14.
User Charges (2800)
s
5.78
(*3)
1. Construction Co»t(*l)
2. Technical Services
3. Legal & Fiscal
4. Administrative
5. Protect Contingency
6. Project Coat
7. Less DEF & EPA Share
8. District's Share
9. Easements, Permits,Etc.
10. Total District's Share
11. Amortization
(6-3/8 Z 0 20 yra.)
12. Operation
13. Total Annual District's
Cost
$ 830,000
124,500
8,300
8,300
49.300
$ 1,020,900
918.810
$ 102,090
43.000
S 145.090
13,042
6,000
$ 19.042
14. User CharRes (2800)(*3) $ 6.80
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
U.
12.
13.
14.
Construction Cost $ 867,700
(*I)
Technical Services 130,200
Le£al & Fiscal 8,700
Administrative 8,700
Project Contingency 50,700
Project Cost $1,066,000
Less DEP & EPA Share 959,400
District's Share $ 106,600
Easement, Permits.Etc 43,030
Total District's
Share
$ 149,600
Amortization
(6-3/8 Z 9 20yrs)$ 13,450
Operations
6,000
ToCal Annual
District's Cost $ 19.450
User Charges (2800)
(*3) $ 6-95
ALT. "C-l"
WHIT.'lAi; i HOWARD
THOMAS GRIFFIN
EPA
1. Construction Cost(*l)
2. Technical Services
3. Lefial & Fiscal
4. Administrative
5. Project Contingency
6. Project Cost
7. Less DEP & EPA Share
3. District's Share
9. Easement Permits, etc.
L3. Total District's Share
11. Amortization
(6-3/8 * C'20yrs.)
L2. Operations
13. Total Annual district's
Cost
$1,741,950
261,300
17,400
17,400
101.950
$2,140,000
1.926.000
214,000
64.000
S 278.000
$ 24,988
11.000
$ 33.988
User Charges (2800) (*3) $ 12.85
cont. - pn. 6A
1. Construction Cost(*i)
2. Technical Services
3. Le^al & Fiscal
4. Administrative
5. Project Contingency
6. Project Cost
7. Less DEP t EPA Share
8. District's Share
9. Easement Permits,etc.
10. Total District's Share
11. Amortization
(6-3/8 Z 020 yr».)
12. Operations
13. Total Annuel District's
Cost
14. User Charges (2800)(*3)
$1,356,900
203,535
13,570
13,570
8.425
$1,669,000
1.502.100
$ 166,900
60,200
$ 227.100
S 20,414
9.Q00
$ 29.414
$ 10.51
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Construction Cost $1,461,845
(*3)
Technical Services 219,277
Leftal & Fiscal 14,619
Administrative 14,619
Project Contingency 87,711
Project Cost $1,798,071
DEP & EPA Share 1.618,264
District's Share $ 179,807
Easement Permits,etc. 60,200
Total District's
Share $ 240.007
Amortization
(6-3/33 a 20yrs.) $ 21,497
Operations
9,000
Total Ann vial District's
Cost 8 30.497
14. User Charges(2800)<*3)$ 10.89
-------
- 6A -
X. Construction Cost
(*1)
2. Technical Services
3. Legal ^Fiscal
4. Administrative
5.Project Contingency
6. Project Cost
7. Less DEP & EPA Share
8. District's Share
9. Easement Permits,etc.
(*2)
$1,942,300
1.
291,400
2.
19,400
3.
19,400
4.
113,600
5.
$2,386,100
6.
2,147,490
7.
$ 238,610
8.
9.
1U.
10.
n.
12.
13.
Total District's Share $ 283,610
Amortization
(6-3/8 Z J 2(Jyrs)
Operations
21,447
11,000
Total Annual District $ 32,447
Cost
14. User Charge (2800)(*3) $ 11.59
11.
12.
13.
ALT. "G-2"
Construction Cost(*l)
Technical Services
Legal & Fiscal
Administrative
Project Contingency
Project Cost
Less DEP & EPA Share
District's Share
Easements Permits,etc.
Total District's Share
Amortization
(6-3/8 2 @20 yrs)
Operations
Total Districts Annual
Cost
$ l,62i,(J00
243,7 50
16,250
16,250
97,500
$ 1,998,650
1,798,785
$ 199,865
54.000
$ 253.865
$ 22,820
9.000
$ 31,820
14. User Charges (2800)(*3) $ 11.37
1. Construction Cost $1,702,910
2. Technical Services 255,437
3. Legal & Fiscal 17,029
4. Administrative 17,029
5. Project Contingency 102.175
6. Project Cost $2,094,580
7. Less DEP & EPA Share
1,885,122
8. District's Share $ 209,458
9. Eastement Permits
(*2)
10. Total Districts
Share
$ 209.458
11. Amortization
(6-3/8 Z
-------
1.
4 HGD at Oak 11111
Capital Coat
ITEMS
'Jhitman. & [[ouard
(Secondary Treatment
Activated Sludge 852
Reiaoval)
Hunter 5 llal leu
Super-Primary
Treatment Aerated
Lagoon 70S Removal
EPA
Activated Sludge
7031 Removal
EPA
Aerated
Lagoon
701 Removal
EPA
Aerated
Lagoon
ssz
Removal
<*6)
lieadworks
$ 39,697
0
$ 57,283
5 57.2B3
$ 57,283
Influent Purapinfi
201,565
$ 196,000
290,858
290,858
290,858
3.
Primary Clarifier
164,031
0
236,697
0
0
4.
Aerated Fond
0
115,400
0
115,400
252,525
Aeration & Secondary
ClarlEiers
157,887
0
0
0
0
6.
Disinfection
0
*(3) 53,400
0
0
53,400
7.
Sludge Deuatering
191,755
0
0
0
0
a.
Lining
0
275,000
0
161,500
308,222
9.
Administrative 4 Lab
Facilities
0
73,600
73,600
73,600
73,600
10.
Effluent Punping
201,565
*(4) 45,000
291,858
290,S58
290,858
11.
District Office
0
40,030
0
0
0
12.
Flour Equalization
0
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
13.
Miscellaneous
442,492
80,000
110,640
152,174
262,764
14.
EIR ISDEX (1.39 X Base
Capital Cost)
956,500
0
0
0
15.
Total Capital Cost
$ 1,730,000 *(1>
$ 850,000
$ 1,084,936
5 1,166,673
$1,634,510
.4 1GJ - Duns tan
16.
Ueadworks
$ 18,487
$ 0
$ 26,677
S 26,677
$ 0
17.
Influent Pumping
92,703
3
133,770
133,770
0
18.
Lagoon*
47.000
$ 68,000
67,821
67.821
0
19.
Lining
47,000
100,000
67,821
67,821
0
20.
Maintenance Building
45,000
20,000
20,000
20,030
0
21.
Effluent Punping
239,550
0
345,671
345,671
0
22.
lard Work
0
31,500
0
0
0
23.
Equalize Storage Adj.
0
9,300
0
0
0
24.
Ctilorination
0
35,000
0
0
0
25.
Contact Tank Adj.
0
10,000
0
0
a
26.
Wastewater Treatment Cost
Index (Base Capital
Cost X 277;a.30 (*2)
17775"
0
0
0
0
0
27.
Total Capital Cost
$ 880,529
$ 257,000
<*5)
$ 661,760
$ 661,760
0
23.
Total Costs Lilies 15 £ 27
$ 2.610.520
$1,107,000
$ 1,746,596
$ 1,828,433
$1,634,510
5. Itena 1, 17, 18, and 21- yf Co»t» vert derived
EPA has determined to be fron ^ EPA T.ch_
necessary and these coat. nic.l Report. 43019-
•hould b* Included. 75-001, 41019-75-002,
6. OR Index of 1,443 was used 43019-75-003
la order to update all coat.
** JOTESi i anj 2i W & 11 did not ua*
updated Ciilt Index
3: Include Cj_ Contact Tank.
4: Used without Contact Tank.
(Use effluent F.M,)
-------
Operations 4 Maintenance
itl;is
Whitnan 4 Howard
Secondary Treat-
ment 85% Removal
Activated Sludge
Hunter 4 3a1lew
Super Primary
Treatment Aerated
Lagoon - 70"
Removal
EPA
Activated Sludpe
70% Removal
EPA
Aerated Lagoon
70% Removal
EPA
Aerated Lagoon
85% Removal
1. lleadworks
$ 12,281
0
$ 12,281
$ 12,281
$ 12,281
2. Influent Pumping
7,704
0
5,086
5,086
5,086
3. Prinary Clarifiers
16,249
0
16,249
0
0
4. Aerated Pond
0
$ 25,000(*1)
0
19,293
19,293
3. Aerated 4 Secondary
Clarifiers
56,971
0
0
0
0
6. Disinfection
0
0
0
0
6,060
7. Sludge Devatering
33,040
0
33,040
0
0
8. Effluent Punping
7,704
7,700(*2)
8,202
8,202
8,202
9. Administrative 4
Lab Facilities
0
56,000
0
0
0
10. Miscellaneous
0
10%
102
10%
10%
11. Total 0 4 :i Cost
$ 133,951
$ 97,570
$ 82,344
$ 49,348
$ 56,014
.4 MGD - Dunstan
12. Headwords
$ 10,934
$ 0
$ 10,934
$ 10,934
$ 0
13. Influent Pumping
5,646
4,900(*3)
5,646
5,646
0
14. Lagoons
15,697
10,600(*4)
0
10,600
0
15. Maintenance Building
0
0
0
0
0
16. Effluent Pumping
8,503
3,180
3,180(*5)
3,180
0
17. Yard Work
0
0
0
0
n
18. Sludge Devaterlng
0
0
19,044(*6)
0
0
19. Miscellaneous
0
0
102
iox
0
20. Total 0 & :
-------
RAPID INFILTRATION FACICIT¥
CAPITAL COST
WHITMAN & HOWARD
HUNTER i BALLEW
EPA
1.8 MGD 20"/uk loading
723,600 (*1)
436,900 (*4)
432,900 (*7)
Annual 0 & >1 Cost
52,560 (»2)
47,300 (*5)
45,506 (*B)
Land Cost
160,000 (*3)
200,000 (*6)
200,000 (*9)
•NOTES; 1. Capital Cost from figure 12 EPA 430/9-75-003 (400.000X247 X 1.3)-723,600.
2. O & II Cost from figure 12 EPA 430/9-75-003 (.043/1,000 gal.X1BQ0X365X200)-52,560¦
3. Assume $20Q/acre (80X200)»160,000.
4. Cost obtained from sheet 21 of 45 - Hunter & Ballev report dated Jan. 25, 1978.
5. Cost obtained from sheet 3a of 45 - Hunter & Ballcu report dated Jan. 25, 1973.
6. Cost obtained from sheet 14 of 45 - Hunter & Ballew report dated Jan. 25, 197tS.
7 and ». obtained from figure 12 - EPA 430/9-75-003.
9. Asuume $200/acre - 100 acres X $200»$20,000.
177.5
120
-------
Treatment Systems
Alternative Cost
Comparison
ITEIIS
1. Main Treatment
Facility
2. Dunstan Treatment
Facility
3. Rapid Infiltration
Facility
4. Outfall or Trans-
mission Sewer
5. Land & Easement
6. Total Capital Cost
7. Construction Cost
8. Technical Services
9. Legal & Fiscal
10. Administrative
11. Project Contingency
12. Project Cost
13. Less DLP & EPA Share
14. District's Share
15. Easements & Pernits
16. Total District's
Share
17. Amortization
(6 3/3% 320 yrs.)
18. Operations
19. Total Annual District
Cost
20. User Charges (2,800)
'..'hi tnaa & Howard
Secondary Treat-
ment-85Z Removal
Activated Sludge
5 1,730,000
880,520
732,600
1,110,000
208,000
¦S 4 ,661,120
$ 4,661,120
669,168
446,611
446,611
279.667
5 6,503,177
5,852,859
$ 650,318
0
$ 650.318
$ 58,427
253.390
$ 311.817
$ 111.36
Hunter & Eallew
Super Primary
Treatment
$ 850.000
257,000
436,900
920,000
200,300
$ 2.663.900
$ 2,663,900
372,946
26,639
26,639
159.834
? 3,249,958
2.924.962
$ .324,996
0
$ 324.996
$ 17,143
165.418
$ 172.561
EPA
Activated Sludge
70% Removal
,$ 1,084,936
661,760
432,900
868,686
200.000
$ 3.248.282
S 3,248,282
454,759
32,483
32,483
$ 3,553,604
3.198.244
61.63
$ 355,360
0
$ 355.360
$ 31,928
$ 239.198
85.43
EPA
Aerated Lagoon
707. Removal
$ 1,166,673
661,760
432,900
868,686
200,000
$ 3,330,019
$ 3,330,019
46,202
33.300
33,300
199,801
$ 3,642,622
3.278.360
$ 364,462
0
$ 364,462
$ 22,261
207.270
$ 229.531
EPA
Aerated Lagoon
852 Removal
81.98
$ 1,634,510
661,760
432,900
868,686
200.000
S 3.797.856
$ 3,797,856
531,700
37,979
37,979
227.871
$ 4,633,385
*¦170.047
$ 463,339
0 '
$ 463,339
$ 28,689
101,514
S 130.203
46.50
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
EPA
SCARBOROUGH
Newsl/nes
r^
-------
SCARBOROUGH WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM UPDATE
SCARBOROUGH, MAINE
I. Background
In early May 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
released the Pinal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Scarborough,
Maine. The Final EIS recommended a new 1.8 million gallon per day
wastewater treatment facility to be looated ajacent to the existing
facility at Oak Hill. The effluent from this secondary treatment plant
would be pumped from the Oak Hill plant to the Fore River (Alternative
"G"). The Final EIS suggested several options for routing the outfall
to the Fore River with the most direct route being along the old
railroad grade to the Portland Terminal tracks and then to the Fore
River. Included as part of EPA's recommendation to discharge to the
Fore River was a requirement that a detailed study be prepared by the
Scarborough Sanitary District when evaluating alternative routes to the
Fore River which determines easement costs, and analysis of the economic
impacts of these costs to users of the proposed system.
The distribution of the Final EIS ooncluded nearly a two year
effort by the Agency in evaluating ten alternative wastewater management
strategies for the Town. During this two year period, EPA and its
consultants persued an aggressive publio participation program which
oonsisted of five publio workshops and a formal public hearing. In
addition, numerous meetings were held with representatives from all
-------
levels of Interest. EPA has Involved all seotors of the public not only
In defining alternative solutions during the planning phase, but also
responding to the Agency's technical evaluation of these options.
Throughout the course of the 30 day review period following
distribution of the Final EIS, letters were submitted to the Agency
presenting issues and suggesting additional alternatives for
consideration. This newsletter will highlight the significant issues
presented in the public commenta on the Final EI5, present EPA's review
and response to these oommenta.
In summary, the comments on the Final EIS fall within the
following categories:
Alternatives
Population and Growth Projections
Monetary Issues
Environmental Concerns
These oommenta are disoussed in Section II.
ii. laauaa and Raanonaa
A. Alternatives
Although a total of 10 alternatives were evaluated during the
EIS process, several letters again question EPA*a evaluation of the land
treatment option and presented two new alternatives for consideration, a
2
-------
marsh pond natural recycling system and pressure sewers.
Land. Treatment
EPA, in preparing the Draft EIS studied the feasibility of
land treatment. First EPA reviewed a study prepared by the Corps of
Engineers in 1971 which examined many areas in Southern Maine. The
conclusions of the report were that soil limitations and the lack of
suitable land represented serious constraints to a land disposal system
for Scarborough.
To confirm these conclusions, EPA independently performed an
a analysis of a land disposal system utilizing ariteria contained in EPA
Report No. 660/2-73-006, entitled, "Wastewater Treatment and Re-Use by
Land Application". This report sets forth the criteria for selecting a
suitable site for land disposal. Site selection factors Include soils
type, drainability, and soil depth; direction and movement of
groundwater, slopes, geology, isolation, and distance from the source of
wastewater.
The amount of land required for disposal of the liquid
effluent is based upon a nitrogen loading factor of 300 pounds per acre
per year and a water application rate of one to two inohes, per week,
depending upon the method of application. For example, a 1.8 MGD
facility would require 630 acres for spray irrigation 167.5 acres for
overland flow, and 58 acres for infiltration percolation. Each element
would also require and adequate buffer zone.
3
-------
In addition to meeting these land areas criteria the soils
required must be moderately permeable—such as sands, loamy sands, etc.
Scarborough's soils contain leases of clay with shallow depths to
bedrock. Another factor discouraging land application is the required
depth to groundwater of about five feet. In most areas of Scarborough
it is less than three feet to reach what is probably a perched water
table.
With respect to land application systems at Higgins Beach,
Pine Point, Oak Hill and possibly Prouts Neck under the moderate growth
scenario, the land area requirements would be in direct proportion to
the projected wastewater flows. Since all of these areas are centers of
concentrated development, the land is not available. For these reasons
the Final EIS suggested that an outfall from each package plant would be
required. The total costs for this alternative (Alternative B) were
greater than either Alternatives Q or A and the environmental impacts
for three ocean outfalls essentially dismissed this alternative from
further consideration.
Marsh/Ponda
Several letters and a report were submitted to EPA suggesting
that a system consisting of marsh/ponds be evaluated to determine
whether suoh a system was feasible for Scarborough and in particular for
Higgens Beach.
The system was developed by Maxwell Small at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory through a grant provided by the Town of Brookhaven,
4
-------
New York and the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
Since April 1975, the experimental facilities have been used as
prototypes for the purpose of developing natural systems to renovate
sewage to groundwater rechargeable quality.
The report submitted to EPA presented the technical data
obtained from the first year of operation of the marsh/pond system.
Although EPA supports the use of such systems in principal, EPA and the
Maine DEP's technical review of the data raises reservations as to their
applicability in Scarborough.
In arguing the feasibility of the marsh/ponds system the
proposers referred to Chapter V, page 12, of the Pinal E1S
"Environmental Impacts" which stated that "The salt marsh...is believed
to remove 989 of the coliform bacteria." While the Final EIS does state
that it is believed 98$ of the coliform entering a salt marsh are
destroyed in the salt marsh, the statement was made in the context of
discussions on storm water run-off effects and not on treatment plant
effluent effects. The dilution factor is very high with storm water
run-off (except, perhaps during the first flush) when compared to
treatment plant discharges. EPA seriously questions the 98} figure when
applied to treatment plant effluent over a period of sustained loadings.
Assuming, however, that a 98} reduotion would occur even in a
treatment plant effluent, it would appear that this may not be
sufficient by Itself to adequately disinfect the discharge. Figure 13
of the marsh/pond report, indicates that total ooliform counts as high
5
-------
as 4900/100ml have been noted from the experimental units. At this rate
of discharge, the passage of the effluent through sufficient marsh to
reduce the coliform by 98J (and how muoh marsh Is required to do that
has not been defined) would still leave a residual of nearly 100/100ml.
Slnoe the standard for shellfish areas Is a maximum of 70/100ml, it is
dear that any time the plant effluent exceeded 3500/100ml, clam flats
outside the marsh would have to be closed. Thus it appears that
disinfection prior to a salt marsh discharge would have to occur to
insure the safety of indigeneous clan flats.
This raises still a further question as to whether or not a
salt marsh area is appropriate as a wastewater effluent disoharge
location. Salt marshes are unique and very sensitive ecological
entities. It is the policy of EPA "...not to grant federal funds for
the oonstruotion of munioipal wastewater treatment facilities or other
waste-treatment-associated appurtenanoes, which may interfere with the
existing wetland ecosystem."
Studies done on wastewater effeots in marshlands (see
referenoes 2-6) indioate that significant detrimental effeots would
ooour to the salt marsh if a treatment plant effluent were discharged to
it. Examples of speoifio effeots whioh ooour are:
1. Changes in the salinity, temperature, exposure, eto., due
to the dilution by the "fresh" effluent.
2. Change in biota to snail algal forms and siloes with
oonourrent die-off of the indigenous grasses and reeds.
6
-------
3. Destruotion of the animal life in the marsh would be
virtually assured, due to the changes in salinity, pH bacteria counts,
nutrients, plant life, etc.
4. The destruction of the existing biota would affect a much
larger area than just the dumping ground, because the plant and animal
life in the marsh serve as a food source for all other higher life
forms. Plankton and shrimp are food for small and juvenile fish, which
in turn are food for larger fish and man. Clams, quahogs, mussels,
snails, crabs, and sea worms use the muds as a nursery for their young.
Birds nest in the grasses and reeds. Racoon, skunk, mink, etc., feed on
the marsh inhabitants.
5. In addition, even if a 98% coliform die-off did occur, as
discussed in 1 above, their is no reason to believe that similar
destruction of viruses would occur. Therefore, a salt marsh discharge
would put potentially harmful viruses into the water near the beaches we
are trying to protect, or at the least in a location from which they are
most likely to be transported by tidal action to the beaches.
Another issue regarding the marsh/pond system is the
phosphorous levels in the pond effluent. EPA has found no evidence to
support the theory that 0.5 ppm of phosphorous could be attained through
plant consumption and soils adsorption in the reoharge area. The
up-take of phosphorus, and, for that matter, all other nutrients,
depends upon the nature of the vegetation, the residence time of the
nutrient and the relative oonoentration of that nutrient to all others.
7
-------
The carbon up-take rate in a marsh in Maryland was found to be over 225
times the the phosphorous up-take rate. If phosphorous does not happen
to be the growth limiting factor in the specific discharge area, up-take
will simply not occur. Note, too, that normally, little more than 50J
of the indigenous nutrients in a salt marsh are actually utilized by the
biota living there. The rest is washed out by the tides. Thus the
addition of more nutrients would not aid plant growth as all the
additional nutrients would be washed through.
EPA has prepared the following table which sets forth the
area requirements necessary for implementation of a BNL marsh/pond
system in Scarborough. The area requirements are presented for each
consent order area using the three population secnarios discussed during
the EIS process.
AULA REQUir-TOTS - Utf.1 APPLICaTI3:{ (Kit .V?) - SC/JJBCKMUCH. Mt.
ACRES
LOCATION
ci;uvxa
SCu.'/UIi
FLOW
::cj
PflE-IRUT
* ACCCSS
rtARSli
fo:;u
HLOIAKGL
>300 lb/ac
BUffCR
.OTAL
,\rxA
¦ .1" 3 lb/j
'•JiC.IAr.CE
J5O0 lb/»
curnR
TOTAL
0 530 lb/ac
Pine Point
Low-
0.369
2.0
3.7
3.0
7'.. 9
17-5
101.1
44.9
13.S
67.4
&luo Point'4
Mod
0.413
2.0
4.1
3.3
83.2
18.4
lii.o
49.9
14.5
71.8
VttiC Scarboro
ui
0.451
2.0
4.5
3.6
91.5
19.3
120.0
54.9
15.1
80.1
Lov
0.000
Prouc'a Nock
:tcd
o.us
2.0
1.2
0.9
23.3
10.2
37.6
14.0
8.1
26.2
dl&ck Point
111
0.13)
2.0
1.3
1.1
27.0
10.9
42.3
16.2
6.6
I9.2
HlSSlu'i Batch
* LOW
0.105
2.0
1.1
0.8
21.3
9.7
34.9
12.8
7.8
24.5
Mod
0.116
2.0
1.2
0.5
23.5
10.2
37.8
14.1
8.1
26.3
Ui
0.121
2.0 •
l.i
1.0
25.0
10.5
39.7
15.0
8.3
27.5
Oak Hill
Low
0.430
2.0
4.3
3.4
87.3
18.1
115.8
52.4
14.8
76.9
Mod
1.007
2.0
10.0
8.1
204.4
28.3
25TT
122.7
22.1
144.9
HI
1.1*0
2.0
11.9
9.5
241.5
30.7
295.6
144.9
24.0
192.3
k'iliovfUJ*
Low
0.04}
2.0
0.4
0.3
8.7
6.6
18.0
5.2
5.3
13.2
Mod
0.152
2.0
1.5
1.2
30.9
11.6
47.2
18.5
9.2
3-. 4
HI
0.195
2.0
2.0
1.6
39.6
13.0
58.2
23.8
10.3
39.7
All Ar*u
Toealod
Lov
0.947
a.o
9.5
7.'5
192.2
52.6
1(9.8
iii.i
4i;t
lii.o
Mod
1.800
10.0
18.0
4.4
365.3
78.7
486.4
219.2
62.6
j23.6
ut
2.092
10.0
20.9
«.«
424.6
84.4
556.7
254.8
66.3
j6B.8
8
table 1
-------
Pressure s&nsca.
A pressure sewer system is the reverse of a water distribution system.
The latter employs a single inlet pressurization point and a number of
user outlets, while the pressure sewer embodies a number of pressurizing
inlet points and a single outlet as shows in Figure 1 below.
IT
PRESSURE SEWER
WATER MAIN
PRESSURE SEWER VS. WATER MAIN
figure 1
9
-------
The user inputs to the pressure main follow a generally
direct route to the treatment facility or to a gravity sewer, depending
on the application. A primary purpose of this type of design is to
minimize sewage retention time in the sewer.
The two major types of pressure sewer systems are the
grinder-pump (GP) system and the septic tank effluent pumping (STEP)
system. These are depicted in Figures 2 and 3> From these figures it
is obvious that the major differenoes between these alternative systems
are in the on-site equipment and layout, but some subtle differences
also exist in the pressure main design methods and in the treatment
systems required to reduce the pollutants in the oollected wastewater to
an environmentally acceptable level. Neither pressure system requires
modification of household plumbing, although neither preoludes it if
such modifications are deemed desirable.
EPA has reviewed the above systems considering both costs and
technical reliability. The following cost estimates are representative
for both systems. The analysis concludes that the use of such a system
would not reduce the annual user significantly, based on a population of
14,558 people. Please refer to the following Table 2, below for a
oomparison of costs.
10
-------
table 2a
Conventional System
Pressure Sys
torn
Capital
Co 31 s
Town
Share
Annual
Cost (4)
User
Cost (5)
Capital
Costs
Town
Share
Annual
Cost (4}
24
User
Cost (5)
5.89
Potent.
I'C Swings
- a -
'reotment Plant
2/667
267
24
5.89
2.667
267
>ijmp stations (21
399
40
4
0.A6
399
40
4
0.86
- 0 -
tnterceotor Sewers (3)
988
99
7
1.71
9fl8
99
7
1.71
- 0 -
)utfall (21
12
1U
8
1.(16
1.112
111
8
1.86
- 0 -
Collector Sewers (11)
UjISQ. 1 a.QM (i2i _
i
470
113.00
2.922 (6
2.922
284
68.29
59.87
t> . V.
187
44.96
1B7
44.96 ! - 0 -
1
1 Totals
16-32$ j 6-763
594
16R.2A
8.856
2,498
345
123.57
44.71
kdditional Costa to Homeowners
^ewer Connection
1
S2.G00 1 ..
5Qflr9? , , „
$2,600
651.20
bonnoction Maintenance
' i'
- 0 -
51.00
r .
felectricitv
i
j i
- 0 -
1 25.00
Total (1st 5 yrsr(10)
669.20
js49. 77
(1 AO.571
Total (after 5 vrs)
1 . i
I
198.57
'30-29*
j
i
1
i 1 1 1
1
1 I II
1
1
1
|
1
i
1
table 2b
District Buys House Connections (1H8)
Conventional System
Pt«s*ure System
Capital
Crtrf
Town
Share
Annual
Cost '4i
User
Cost (51
Capital
Cost.
Town •
Khar*
Annual
Cost (41
User
Cost (SI
Potent.
I!C S.v/inon
Treatment Plant
2,667
267
. 24
5.89
2.667
267
24
5.39
- (1 -
399
40
4 _]_ O.Rft
399
40
4
0.86
- fl -
Interceptor Sewers (31
988
99
7
1.71
998
99
7
1.17
- (1 -
Outfall f2t
1,112
111
8
1,86
1,112
111
8
1.86
- D -
19,478(7)
16.382(13)
n
M<9.
252.22
13736(71
0 & K
187
44.96
225191
54.10
'9.141
i
307.50
286.34
21.16
1
1
1
- 0 -
i
• 0.00
- 0 -
0.00
Connection Maint.
1 '
0.00
0.00
Electricity
i
1 0.00
25.00
Total 1
1)07.50
311.14
(3.941
1
1
1
!
1
I
!
I11
(
1
i .
, , i
1 1
-------
footnotes for tables 2a.b
All numberp shown ate *n thoj3..-.ds of dollars, except wr cost* and «»wer connection capital coats
Pump station and outfall costs shown ass.'r.c f.r •, t-rcssure out''11 's oul.lt _
Interceptor Coats assume gravity Interceptors
Treatment plant and pump stations capitalized at 6 3/8%, 20 yrs (0.08993)i Interceptors and out-
fall at 6 3/6%, 40 yrs (0.06963) , collectors at 5%, 40 yrs *0.05828)> house connections at 6 3/8%,
40 yrs. (0.06963) .
>. Per dwelling unit at 14,558 people (4159 dwelling units)
>. 147,600 LF of collector at $15/FT times 1.32 (See table 4.3-1), and with no PHtuA Grant.
Assumes $2000 per house to connect to conventional system and $2,600 per house (See table 3) to
connect to pressure system.
S. Requires an easement from each homeowner to the Districtf homeowner pays power costs
). Assumes $3900 per year extra 0 fc M for 1 truck, tools, gas, oil, insurance, spare parts, etc. to
maintain 4,159 pump units._
10. Assumes homeowner pays off loan for full amount at 8%, 5 yrs.
11. Assumesno front foot assessments.
L2. Assumes FHmA Grant such that user charges for collector system debt service do not exceed $113.00
(II of median income)
13. Assumes co»t of house connections not offset by FHmA Grant.
table 3
Present Wcrtb Cot..par ison
Homeowner Buys
House Connections
restrict Buys
House Connections
Conventional
Pressure
Conventional
Pressure
1. All dollar values in thousands
Treatment Plant
2.667
2.667
2.667
2.667
of dollars, except homeowners
Pumo Stations
399
399
399
399
costs
Interceptors
988
938
988
988
2. Assumes 6 3/8%. 20 vrs.
Outfall
1.U2
1.112
1.112
1.112
(USPWF - 11.142)
Collector Sewers
11,160
2.922
19.478
13.736
3. Includes $2000 connection cost
0 & M Costs
2,084
2,084
2.084
2.507
4. Includes $2,600 connection cost
Total
18,410
10,172
26,728
21,409
Homeowner Costs
3,874 (3 )
4,812'4)
3,426 (31
3.469 (4)
table 4
HCMBOWNER COSTS - PRESSURE SFVtER SYSTEM
100', 1 V< PVC service (> $5/ft $ 500
1 Pimp assembly 1,000
1 Air relief valve . . .
1 Clean out line . . • .
1 Check valve
Flunbing Installation .
Electrical installation
Miscellaneous
120
150
100
500
100
130
12
TOOL $2,600
-------
u
EXISTING
GRAVITY
SEWAGE
PIPING
figure2
RESSURE-
SEWER
PVC PIPING
DRAINAGE FIELD
EXISTING
SEPTIC TANK
STORAGE
TANK
OVERFLOW LEVEL SENSOR
ON-OFF LEVEL SENSOR
JUNCTION BOX AND
HIGH HVlLffl
ALARM
TYPICAL PUMP-GRINDER INSTALLATION
figure 3
2" PLASTIC PIPE FOR ELEC.
EXISTING OR NEW
SEPTIC TANK
CHECK
VALVI
PVC PLASTIC MAIN
1-1/4" PLASTIC
SERVICE
BALL OR GATE VALVE
•24" CONC. PIPE WITH FLOOR * LID
-1/3 HP SUMP PUMP
TYPICAL STEP SYSTEM
-------
There are several drawbacks to the use of a pressure sewer
collection system.
1. Eaoh homeowner would have to purchase, Install and
maintain a separate pump unit at his home. The cost of this item would
be about $2,600 per house (see Table 4). A loan, at 9J for 5 years to
pay this off, would cost about $55 per month.
2. Each homeowner would have to absorb additional
electric costs to run his own pump unit. These costs are estimated at
$1 to $2 per month.
3. Each homeowner would have to maintain his own pump and
pressure system. This cost is estimated at $25 to $50 per year.
4. Alternatively, the District could install, own, and
maintain all the pumps and lines, but this would add an additional $153
per year per house to the user oharges. The homeowner would still have
to pay for the extra power and would also have to grant an easement to
the Distriot to permit personnel to enter the property at any time to
maintain the pump and system, inoluding exoavation work as required.
Thus, although use of suoh a system oould reduoe capital costs the costs
to the homeowner would be greater. In addition, if the Distriot owns
all the system components, the user charge would aofcually rise $50 to
$60 above what is now projected. In light of these faots, EPA continues
to support the use of the conventional system in contrast to pressure
sewers.
14
-------
However, EPA could accept a project wherein the District has
chosen to utilize pressure sewers for either the collection system, the
interceptor system, or both. Also, EPA endorses the use of a pressure
sewer outfall.
Acquisition ai Property laUrsata Xar. Alternative £
One of the important issues raised by several reviewers of
the Final EIS was the problem of acquiring the necessary easements to
the Fore River.
EPA in evaluating the feasibility of Alternative G contacted
owners of property where an easement would be required for the outfall
to the Fore River. These owners are identified in the EIS. The
response to our inquiry seemed favorable to the degree that discussions
and options between the District and the property owners should be
explored. These reactions subsequently lead SPA to support Alternative
G with the qualification that additional planning would be required by
the District during design phase to determine the exact location and
cost of these easements.
Subsequent to EPA'a release of the Final EIS the Portland
Terminal Company, one of the property owners contacted, refused to grant
the District the necessary easement within their existing railroad right
of way. It appears that the Sanitary District power of eminent domain
could not be used to obtain the necessary property Interest.
15
-------
Thus, the District might be forced to obtain easements along
state highway and local streets in South Portland to the Fore River.
The capital costs of construction of the outfall, highway and street
re-surfacing would eaculate the costs of Alternative G. These
additional costs for the outfall have to be examined in relation to the
potential environmental impacts of Alternative A.
B. Population and Growth
There are many factors which influence growth in communities
such as Scarborough. The availability of public utilities in areas
which historically have experienced growth pressures is only one such
factor.
The decisions regarding both the distribution and the
management of future growth should be looal decisions. However, it is
the responsibility of agencies, auch as EPA, to Inform looal communities
of the environmental consequences associated with future growth
projections. Further it would be EPA's responsibility to impose
conditions limitations on any federal grant to the community should
these growth projections produoe a violation of an environmental
statute.
It is within these criteria that the Environmental Proteotion
Agenoy evaluated Scarborough *s deoiaion to pursue a moderate growth
management strategy. The alternatives regarding wastewater treatment
16
-------
systems were then designed on the basis of existing and future need
consistent with the accepted growth scenariodeveloped and accepted by
the Town.
Several commenters questioned EPA's selection of the moderate
growth scenario in the Final EIS. Many thinking that EPA had arbitrary
felt it was not the responsibility of a federal agency to develop a
population projection which is already 49> greater than the town wishes.
17
-------
In October, 1976, EPA distributed a supplement to the Draft
EIS in which three population scenarios were presented. These three
different population scenarios were developed by the Greater Portland
Council of Governments as part of their 208 Water Quality Management
Plan. Briefly, these projections were 14,000, 18,000 and 22,290 for
low, moderate and high growth respectively by the year 2000.
The following Table 2.2-1 is taken from the Final EIS and
represents the correct GPCG projections.
Table 2.2-1
Cumulative Population by Area,
By Decade and by Growth Scenario
1980
1990
2000
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
HiKh
Pine Point
1,108
1,114
1,117
"1,135
1,147
1,159
1,159
1,180
1,207
Blue Point
655
685
658
691
751
912
721
823
1,057
Higgins Beach
1,000
1,021
1,033
1,027
1,093
1,130
1,054
1,165
1,233
Dunstan
864
922
949
912
1,083
1,169
960
1,246
1,389
Oak Hill
1,600
2,074
2,256
1,660
3,019
3,624
1,720
4,085
4,989
Willowdale
336
557
644
387
1,043
1,308
435
1,532
1,972
Total Consent Areas
5.563
6.373
6.657
5.812
8.] 36
9.302
6.049
10,031
11.847
Black Point/Prout'a (feck
999
1,029
1,041
1,017
2,071
1,147
1,059
1,147
1,328
Pleasant Hill
927
697
979
993
954
1,227
1,059
1,078
1,312
Oak Hill North
951
1,214
1,310
972
1,758
2,050
993
2,302
2,790
Total Optional
2.877
3.140
3,330
2.982
3.783
4,424
3.111
4,527
5.430
Consent Plus Optional
8,440
9,513
9,981
8,794
11,919
13,726
9.160
14,558
17,277
Other Non-Sewered
1,081
2,527
2,673
3,826
3,101
4,274
4,840
3,242
5,013
TOTAL TOWN PEAK 1
11,240
12,040
12,660
12,620
15,020
18,000
14,000
18,000
22,290
18
-------
During public workshops and in written comments submitted to
EPA during the review of the Draft Supplement, citizens and local
government boards supported the moderate growth scenario. Therefore, a
serviced population of 14,558 is consistent with the present projections
being developed by the Planning Board and does not represent a 4951
increase beyond the desires of municipal officials.
Another issue raised was the capacity of the proposed
treatment facility and the undesirable growth which would be caused by
the proposed project.
The existing population in Scarborough is approximately
11,000. In the last seven years Scarborough has seen an increase from
7,845 in 1970 to about 11,000 in 1977, representing an increase of 3»155
or approximately 450 people per year. This further translates into
roughly 128 new residential units per year. This rate of growth is
occurring for several reasons. The first is Scarborough's georgraphic
proximity to Portland. As a community on the urban fringe with direct
transportation to central Portland, Scarborough will experience growth
pressures regardless of or lack of the construction of any sewer system
or any other utility. By projecting a rate growth of 350 people per
year for the next twenty years, Scarborough will reach a total
population of 18,000 by the year 2000. This figureincludes both the
sewered and unsewered sections of Scarborough and are again consistent
with the projections in Table 2.2-1 presented above.
The second reason for growth pressures la the Town's rural
19
-------
character and extensive natural resources. These factors become
important in selecting a looation for constructing a home. Individuals
can live in Scarborough and easily commute to downtown Portland. The
presence of Route 295 is another factor which will certainly bring with
it additional growth pressures.
Therefore, by projecting historical growth trends and
extrapolating these percentages for the next twenty years, the total
population projections in the Pinal EIS seem reasonable.
Similar to the above issue were oomments questioning the
4,160 residential units projected by the year 2000. Several individuals
stated that this projection represents more than double the existing
units.
EPA assumed a factor of 3.5 individuals per household in
developing the projection of 6,373 individuals in the initial service
(consent order) area (1,821 Dwelling Units X 3<5 persons per household
3 6,373) • The total number of existing units in the Town is 3»143 based
upon a population figure of 11,000. By the year 2000, the entire town
will grow to 5,142 dwelling units based on a population of 18,000. This
represents a total increase of 2000 units or 100 units per year for the
next twenty years.
For the Phase I and Phase II projeots in Scarborough an
inorease from 1,821 units to 4,160 units is projected. This represents
an increase of 116 units per year for twenty years in the service areas.
For Just the Phase I portion of the projeot there will be an increase
20
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
WoH
ASSOCIATES
Robert T. tones, President
PaulC. BucVnam, k, Treasurer
Howard R. Perkins, Manager
Anthony Chiaravekitti
Eliai A. Cooney
Brewster W. Fuller
Robert I. Hickman
Myies F. Howard
Frederick D. A. King, fr,
lames T. McDonough
Steven J. Medlar
Arthur T. Lucchini, Contmffer
James A. S. Walker, Arch. Officer
Whitman & Howard, Inc.
Engineers and Architects
45 WILLIAM STREET. WELLESLEY. MASS. 02181 • TEL: 617-237-5000
October 31, 1977
Mr. Gerald Hopcroft
Municipal Facilities Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA
Gerald T. Carey
T. T. Chiang Ph.D.
Edward R. demons
Robert E. Crawford
John L. Daniels
Donald F. Dargie
Charles C. Ellis
Ernest H. Fagerstrom
Curtis H. Flight
George D. Gustation
Arthur Liatsos
James A. Little
Edward R. Mayer
James F. Murphy
Joseph A. Murphy
Robert I. Wyman
Re: Proposed Sewerage Facilities
Scarborough, ME
Dear Mr. Hopcroft:
In our meeting of October 4, 1977, it was requested
that three items be more thoughly investigated before EPA
makes a final decision concerning the treatment alternatives
for the Scarborough Sanitary District. The items were, (1)
the railroad easement for the proposed outfall in Alternative
"G", (2) cost estimates for the outfalls in Alternatives "A"
and "G:, and where possible, easement costs, and (3) substan-
tiate the need and size of the treatment facility with
reference to EPA Program Requirements Memorandum No. 77-8.
On Thursday, October 13, 1977, Mr. Al Keene, Mr. Ray
Field, and the writer met with Mr. J.R. McFarlane, Manager-
Industrial Development, Real Estate, and Taxation, of the
Maine Central Railroad-Portland Terminal Company. During
that meeting Mr. McFarlane emphatically restated the railroad's
position which was to reject Scarborough's request of an
easement for the outfall. This position was also made clear
to EPA by Mr. McFarlane. On two-ncasions in earlv August.
Mr. M^Fay1ang ui-t-h if^on voiiay of EPA and reiterated
the railroads position. Thus, from "Information previously
received by EPA and as a result of the October 13th meeting,
the possibility of an easement within the railroad right-of-
way must be disregarded.
Our 108 tk IJear of C^ontinuouA i
wu*
-------
-2-
In comparing Alternatives "A" and "G" it should be
obvious that the collection systems and treatment plants are
very nearly identical, and the only significant difference
is the outfall. We have, therefore, further investigated
the outfall alternatives and prepared cost estimates.
The outfall for Alternative "A" is a combination
land/ocean outfall using both force main and gravity sewer.
The effluent from the treatment plant will be pumped through
a force main along Ferry Road and Black Point Road to Whittier
Street, and along Whittier to Library. On Library Street
which is the high point along the route, the outfall will
change to a gravity system along Library Street and southeast
along Winslow Homer, and then across country for approximately
450 feet to the ocean. The ocean outfall will extend about
600 feet into the ocean. A plan of the outfall route is
attached. This outfall consists of approximately 6100 feet
of force main, 1950 fpet^Qf gravity sewer, and 600 feet of
ocean outfall. The ^stimaEfed. project cost for the outfall
in Alternative "A" iav$884,2&j).
Easements for approximately 2750 feet along private
roadways and 450 feet across country would be required from
the Prouts Neck Association and a homeowner, respectively.
In a discussion with Mr. Paul Frinsko, Attorney for the
District, it was concluded that exact easement costs could
. not be determined at this time. Thus, we have assumed
yv conservative estimates of $5000 for the roadway and $20,000
% for the cross country easements. The total cost for this
X alternative is $909,200, and the District's share, as shown
in Table 1, is $113,420. Based upon an interest rate of 6-
3/8% for 20 years and the calculated operational cost for
the outfall, the total annual cost to the District would be
$16,195 or $5.78 per user. A copy of the cost estimates and
calculations has been attached.
Two possible outfall routes were investigated for
Alternative "G". The "Route 1" outfall included a force
main from the treatment plant on Oak Hill along the old
railroad bed north to the Portland Water District easement,
west along the easement to Route 1, and along Route 1 to the
Fore River. This route involves about 20,000 feet of force
main, 7150 feet of gravity sewer, and 250 of outfall into
the river. We have assumed there would only be minor ease-
ment costs involved in this route if the outfall is kept
-------
TABLE I
COST COMPARISON OF OUTFALL ROUTES
Alt."A"Outfall
Rte#lOutfall Highland Ave. Outfall
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Const. Cost*
Tech. Services
Legal & Fiscal
Admin.
Project Cont.
Project Cost
less EPA &
DEP grant
8. District's
share
9. Easements ,
Permits, etc.
10. Total District
Share
11. Amortization
(6-3/8%@20yrs)
12. Operation
13. Total Annual
District Cost
14. CO'St/User
(2800)*3
$719,800
108,000
7,200
7,200
42,000
795,780
$ 88,420
25,000
$113,420
10,195
6,000
$ 16,195
5.78
$1,741,950
261,300
17,400
17,400
¦am, q'sg
,$2 j,
140,000
1,
926,0ffir
$
214,000
64,000
$
278,000
24,988
11,000
$
35,988
$
12.85
$1,942,300
291,400
19,400
19,400
¦ f -113,600 s
$2,386,100 \
^7i
-------
within the Route 1 right-of-way; however, there would be
extensive non-eligible costs for road opening permits from
the Maine Department of Transportation. These were estimated
to be $64,000. The estimated project cost for this outfall
route, including permits, is $2,204,000 and the total
annual cost to Scarborough, including operation, is $35,988
or $12.85 per user.
A second outfall route along Highland Avenue was also
investigated. This outfall included a force main north
along the old railroad bed to the Portland Water District
easement, east along the easement to Highland Avenue, north
along Highland Avenue to Anthoine Street, east along Anthoine
Street to Broadway, north along Broadway to Waterman Drive,
east along Waterman Drive to the river. This route involves
approximately 22,000 feet of force main, 13,100 feet of
gravity sewer, and 100 feet of outfall into the river. We
have not assumed any easement costs for this route. The
project cost for this alternative has been estimated to be
$2,386,100 with a total annual cost to the District of
$32,447, or $11.59.
It should be stressed that there are many factors
involved in this route and the previous Route "1" alternative
which can not be determined at this time but could signifi-
cantly increase the costs of these alternatives. These
include any potential restrictions and/or requirements
placed upon the outfall construction by either the City of
South Portland or the State, the restricted construction
area, utilities, etc.
A summary of the costs is presented in Table 1, and as
may be seen, the outfall for Alternate "A" is substantially
less than the outfall routes for "G".
The last item was to substantiate the size of the
facility in reference to EPA-PRM 77-8. There was certainly
sufficient information presented in the EIS to substantiate
the anticipated population expected in Scarborough, and in
particular, the general service area for the proposed facility.
Therefore, the size of the facility which was based upon
the population must be considered reasonable. What will now
be presented is substantiation of the need for sewers in the
areas in which the populations have already be determined.
-------
-5-
The areas for discussion will be limited to the proposed
service areas of the treatment facility.
One source consulted on the need for sewers in the
proposed service areas was town officials. Because of the
reluctance of homeowners to inform officials of problems
with their septic systems, or perhaps the homeowners are not
aware of the problems, the only septic system that is usually
reported is one that has completely failed. From informa-
tion supplied by Mr. Paul Lempicki, Building Inspector, and
Mr. Paul Beem, Assistant Plumbing Inspector, there have been
approximately 100 septic systems replaced in the proposed
service area since 1970. It was further noted that "...there
is not one dwelling on Willowdale Road that is not malfunc-
tioning.", and "...the sewerage problems at Higgins Beach as
it is of such a scale that he (Mr. Ernest MacVane) is unable
to trace the numerous sources." In an attached memo from
Mr. Beem to Mr. Charles Anderson, Planner/Engineer for
Scarborough, it was stated, "After consulting the Soil
Survey of the Cumberland County 1974 edition, it appears
that the percentage of marginal soils for the mentioned
areas (Pine Point, West Scarborough, Willowdale, Oak Hill,
Higgins Beach, and Blue Point) is extremely high."
The major source for information concerning the fail-
ures of septic systems was the Greater Portland Council of
Governments Areawide Water Quality Planning Program (GPCOG
208 Plan), of which preliminary copies have been submitted
to EPA. The COG report divided the area into drainage
basins for the three rivers, Scarborough, Nonesuch, and
Libby, and two coastal areas. A non-point source pollution
model was then formulated, primarily to compute phosphorus
and bacterial loads. Thus, through the use of the model,
COG was able to predict, the number of failing septic systems
within each of the basins and project the number of expected
failures for the year 2000, based upon a moderate growth
scenario. The predictions were based upon such factors as
soil conditions, proximity of homes, groundwater, age, etc.
Although the report does not make any attempt to specifically
locate the failing systems within the basins, the information
is sufficient to judge the ability of an area to support
individual disposal systems.
Basin No. 245 is a coastal area, as Shown on the attached
plan, which encompasses a major portion of Pine Point. It
-------
-6-
consists of approximately 100 areas of coastal property with
93% of land usage being urban/residential. Owing to high
groundwater and what many town officials consider "poor
drainage in these sands", perhaps due to saturation, a
significant number of septic malfunctions are predicted.
Based upon an assumption that the sands for one-half of the
dwelling's are saturated, Pine Point would be expected to
exhibit 108 failures annually. This would substantiate
tests conducted by the DEP in 1972 along the oceanside of
Pine Point which showed considerable bacterial contamina-
tion. This was attributed to the saturation of the sands
with sewage and stormwater.
The other coastal area was Basin No. 246 which encom-
passes approximately 1000 acres including Prouts Neck and
Higgins Beach. COG estimated that 45 existing septic sys-
tems are failing in this basin because of location and poor
soils and another 21 due to age, and predicts 99 failures in
the future. There are also several privately owned raw
sewage discharges, most notably the existing sewerage systems\\
at Higgins beach and the Black Point Inn. It was concluded ^
by COG that "...some near shore waters in this area are
contaminated with pathogenic bacteria from these failing
septic systems and that these systems also constitute a |
public health hazard where the effluents remain on the J'
land." The pollutional problems within this basin are well
known and substantial documentation herein is unnecessary.
Basin No. 239 is the area within the Town which is
tributary to the Nonesuch River. It consists of approxima-
tely 2800 acres which were condidered to have significant
bacterial pollution problems. The Nonesuch River is classi-
fied a "C" river, and, as such, is reguired by federal
standards to limit fecal coliform to counts of 200 per 100
ml.; however, the predicted fecal coliform counts for the
Nonesuch range from 200-500 during dry weather. Since fecal
coliforms are known to exist in humans, and dry weather
counts result from failing septic systems, the magnitude for
the failing systems within this basin is very significant.
COG predicts 188 septic systems are failing and 345 will
have failed by the year 2000.
Basin No. 240 is tributary to the Libby River and
consists of about 2300 acres with the vast majority of the
residential population being located in the Pleasant Hill
-------
-7-
area. The Libby River is a coastal stream, and as such is
classified SB-2 which limits the fecal coliform to 14 per
100 ml.; however, the predicted counts far exceed those
allowed. During dry weather periods, the predicted range is
60-200 per 100 ml. Thus, it is obvious that a considerable
number of septic systems are malfunctioning, and COG predicts
130 of the existing systems have failed. This number is
expected to rise to 188 in the future.
Basin No. 241 is also tributary to the Libby River, but
is considerably less developed than Basin No. 240. Of the
approximately 1000 acres in this area, only about 130 are
residentially developed or considered urban, but as before,
significant fecal coliform counts are predicted during dry
weather. The coliform count is estimated to be between 60
and 200 per 100 ml., whereas, the allowable is only 14 per
100 ml. It is estimated that 68 septic systems in this
basin are failing and that 120 will fail by the year 2000.
These fecal coliform predictions were substantiated by
data collected by the Maine Department of Marine Resources
in 1976 and 1977. These samples show a low count of 7.3 and
a high in excess of 1100 with the majority of samples being
around 200 per 100 ml.
Basin No. 243 is tributary to the Scarborough River and
includes about 3400 acres with the principal population
centers being located in West Scarborough and Blue Point.
The basin is approximately 15% residential. Based upon
available soils and land use information, the predicted
number of failed septic systems is 241 with an expected 537
failures in the future.
Basin No. 244 is also tributary to the Scarborough
River. The basin is 15% residential with the primary
Population centers being Oak Hill, Willowdale, Winnock's
Neck Road, a portion of Blue Point, and the "inland" portion
of Pine Point.
The Scarborough River within this basin is classified
SB-2 and is a major potential shell fishing area. Thus, the
maximum allowable "representative" fecal coliform count is
14 per 100 ml; however, the predicted count is between 20
and 60 per 100 ml. under dry weather conditions. Again,
high fecal coliform counts during dry weather can be attribu-
-------
-8-
ted to malfunctioning septic systems. Based upon soils and
land use information, COG has predicted 445 of the existing
septic systems have failed, and 880 are expected to fail by
the year 2000.
Based upon the aforementioned, it is quite evident that
Scarborough is in desperate need of sewers in these areas.
This was obvious to the DEP when it made Scarborough sign a
"Consent Order" for the sewering of most of the above named
areas. The COG report predicts that approximately 2300
septic systems will have failed within the general service
area of the treatment plant by the year 2000, and, therefore,
substantiates the need for sewerage systems within the
proposed areas. Coupling this with the anticipated popula-
tions established by the EIS under a moderate growth scenario
should be sufficient justification for the size of the
proposed treatment facility.
We trust the information presented herein is sufficient
to allow EPA to now make a final and expeditious decision
concerning the treatment alternatives for the Scarborough
Sanitary District. If there should be any questions on the
information presented, please do not hesitate to contact us.
DFD/cmp
cc: Scarborough Sanitary District
Congressman Emery
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr.
Mr. Eric Root, GPCOG
Very truly yours,
WHITMAN & HOWA]
Donald F. Dargie, P.E.
Associate
-------
/ / vK-"v""~ n * hi* \ <{ :s >',v^
-* ' S /#¦'¦'
\ ¦ '^L
'\ T:rprortv'u ^f^v- ''.- * -
'.J— Zu. \*. >$T-y<£:- /
zl- \/
4 .
Utvili
fr M'/o*"C
ryi^nVH'.ll j
-X \ /
A"' /
Q*U Hill-
Thujxsa.
HFTT*C1lJ>t.1l\J t'tll
V
ixk A\V'-' :^5,wiw:h
BPu« fbinf-H
R»m Itltnd
&'i Koail
""A
> Shooting Rock
out* NtHllc
£iv
SStfrtki<)
Kc^AaMiki^
\ % < Hit < uvimni 0
7.\*8
-------
I
-LjjJl QuClUjJ
% cpjrkin. »v^ ^—.
©o ©' oJuu\Ko^ cOiSL. AXJuSuro<^*-m
~ &°°L.+fjASJ^
L*j&
5 * \ y '/i/j < 3o7* * 37 A f C
JJAM^LGuJj
L«*o_
^ 0-
jr£attva °
1 .4
_-wus^<
-------
V
_tj __ 125 *i (
4 I
.....to
wa iw
V
St '-
£*e.
. OMt/^k
f5
uj«iu o
^ vL tijTC^t | |>fl^^-'>vik t * JLA |fll) •
"T6»F . *"
IU
cifc L'fr
du*
I
wu** . *7 , _.
Mv/i,. 4.
I WW .
fc *J1 NL 6_?L_y4f («(«U|_-„3.I£\
M-jtiA+L r
0L^2k*±-»l%. r?u/ZjL
% LS
L^yx*J4"j iv -LojtiiW(|« jju
_j>4 i.TrC XJ.vyJ x '?..
*3 ^ OOP Itg. QJLOQ jw. S"
'4
11 cc S"
Jo* v* I n V V®_!!L
T5o»»
H - cc
ut£tz*
5"
Jr/^x
-------
(Lr& jlte I OuXIoJlJ
%
JL, i^auuA—.. A»l!L% * * 4&j
ccc
1> ^OV^C. vuauLul, ^ (A. oXiOA^JliL J ; 4 t&p x 7 ' &5Cics
A-Ut£l| SfliiOJl/' IAA- ^s, n^i ( * *7>£*0 X. fl^* g _J?0*pC0
I Ug^ CaaT. oJLf 1 - ZCov ZOO ZoccC
Jjtdch^ ^
jJLiU IAU, VVQ.-JEflL»t.^U3A
j£ £*/>f _ K15i-J , ^Id/c.c|. (>Vt. flu |^c. /"Ifr r->T~^)
Lt}«- :
dLf * Jj I oa x 3 X '/^ XJ D f 7lffl * 4vvTx y<| X 10 » __ &4-OOC
-------
rvS> TP OuXjaJj - A4Jh- &t" Av<-
_~^OuuiL $u Z/aJj
c/txej<.
$ C- bs h en L oo ' fi.Lt,-* cj ff£cf~ /tat
*4$l) ' &.(jm Cj I~bjt6us l y_ 4vc
^7" fttAlfuju* (i t fjro 6-Ctsvj ibjt&jucL vf^e.
7Z*g O^t^Q loo'
L(/X£. t f ' J/a LL_ HAaiAsu to $*{-0*. li~e>4-oo
Lhi, ty1 ^VCLAaTi^ Z^O-jpt. ri
&»r/ AsCtA^q /Uu&ro-»J*L.
fil *„!i U ' f
A_
&Cm& -L /)vCi_ <0/ JtAtJL H*
Kju J to ^
Cite. 5
fr S* * 3 x 1 * 'Ai * t, * r
r^^JK. W/h ^<*£1 6 Soft- JOeC./,
^ w>
"hUJLW 1
^Jotsvwtj s 5 Jha^ z &- £&¦«.b ^.^*4
-------
JL (XLwf HtjfC&iMaL Uu/LV
> ¦* -U—
. 'L X M Lx./vj. < 4_
C^u(jiA Ujdfu J ^
*5
1
3_
i£yZuu&
¦£'1
20AL
"7
&«£.. 4i£&~«C.A*. .«_bj^^C^uut-L Xtk. fcloo < ftj * 3f|_occ
^bsvxjjx _ J-LwJ'i jh-frLSu.*. JL Awl /5/oo x 7^ » l&i-oc
,i fa I . -r/ .
^ <\L\KAsr- &luuLjf loo X ^aci.-. . g.gflg.r
^£*dh-_&4> . _..^TT^nr
^T^Wvuv^U lu, jLOsiilA
-------
6
frv.^-4-. ^Tp . d)uX^aJL| — A44 JA"
j^ulcC OuXtjL&JJ
itAAj^, %UjjL,
^T^t-v/vaC* /toa cu-i
£W^ QoXf^ &a»'
_L.
ll«._ i ?" y»\ t c ma u» ^ s . u t+00
(JLvl. V\'f sjra\uL>^ ^Utth a. ~7~al4M.*A<* u>ts*
JjrUif 3 /xtx 7 » 'Ao > A
zhuttKAC, C
.utcL tutt ^
/
.^t &**£_
Li'VL^rJ^tte. L
' %(oltJL-{.
-------
7.
jvna/> Ttj—
fijif _/C _
^ 4-.1-C A to y j ^ _VLi * l \ q
*&:(.*'M *1*%:'^^' ic(
>WUU/t [L 5
htlM M Cj
y
./ul
£
1
tiZtLu tut* £_
r
^» dtS- flux, On_j
1&Aj£
y nr,
_/&£ _/tf < tfuuJL-
" dak
(j*w$ Jh f j£-_ /fLt^-lA '' DiaX^P-
_/ 6/oo (£ .. oe>
Aj>CA-MLva£* ,(&-*-¦ _ *_2opOQ
2S"ooo
-------
.^tAlCUIjZjlo u &>£>
j. OujJom^ J f
{&* - 36 kja V .7^6 ^ >K 3»^ r Uf * •>* >looc
Zi /-hj. Ajjuu tL.
£**c "
A All- VjL Qs^uf-
J73 // -- 3c/ i_ /2±_/ v*~» « 4/
~-*JL*±o
<2jm»c Jl_
• /* / '/?'-*«/ - %tf K Uf * wj & j ^tf^orv'siCp
~JoSh(uMjL /tttottA .-UA\f-j£^j£jha~
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
ZZSN ENGINEERING
WJ PLANNING
£0faU SURVEVINQ
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
REPORT TO
THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION
OVERVIEW - SCARBOROUGH SEWERAGE PROGRAM
DECEMBER 7, 1977
HUNTER-BALLEW ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS
PORTLAND, MAINE
-------
[
Ov
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
PLANNING
HUNTER ¦ BALLEW ASSOCIATES • 94 AUBURN STREET • PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 • 207/797-3420
The Coastal Environment Association
c/o Mr. Daniel E. Boxer, Esq.
Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster
One Monument Square
Portland, Maine 04101
Subject: Scarborough Sewerage Program
Overview of Past Data and Consideration
of Alternative Approaches
Gentlemen:
At the authorization of Mr. Daniel Boxer, we have reviewed the final
Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
for the Scarborough, Maine sewerage program. Past studies, and general
planning data developed by the Greater Portland Council of Governments under
the current 208 Plannlnjg Program have also been reviewed. Upon such review,
we have evolved two alternative system configurations which would utilize
land disposal techniques in areas of town west of the Maine Turnpike.
It should be recognized that budget and time limitations prevent any
detailed evaluations or analysis of the suggested alternatives for comparison
with previously studied system configurations. However, it does appear that
further evaluations may be warranted when one considers the complexity and
the economic and social impact of the proposed program.
It must also be emphasized that the suggested alternatives are presented
by IIunter-Ballew Associates as a sincere attempt to resolve a most difficult
and complex waste water management problem. The effort is not simply a delaying
tactic, although it is recognized that some may view it in that light.
We would be pleased to meet with members of your organization, State or
Federal officials as may be appropriate to review this report. We appreciate
the opportunity to be of service to you, and hope the comments and suggestions
herein will be helpful.
December 7, 1977
Very Truly Yours
HUNTER-BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Robert E. Hunter
President
REH:hsc
Encl.
-------
ENGIN££P!NG
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
jsu
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
0:=
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
:~~J " 1 surveying
-------
fe, ,T\ ENGINEERING
P1-ANNINQ
Eir^dPTlj SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM 1
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS 3
GENERAL 3
CONSIDERATIONS OF LAND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES 4
REUSE OF RENOVATED WASTE WATER 7
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT 7
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS...8
Configuration 1. 8
Configuration 2. 10
SUMMARY 12
-------
N ENGINEERING
-J PLANNING
53 SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Scarborough has been, and still is, faced with very difficult
pollution control and water quality management problems. The Town's remedial
efforts began in the early 1960's with construction of a primary treatment
plant at Oak Hill to service the school complex and shopping center in the area.
The treated waste water was discharged to the tidal estuary of the Nonesuch
River. The Oak Hill plant was subsequently expanded to secondary treatment
utilizing the extended aeration method. The tributary sewer system was expanded
to take in certain residential areas, and the industrial area in the vicinity of
Pleasant Hill Road. Design capacity of the extended aeration plant is 0.32 mgd.
Recognizing other water quality problems resulting from point source dis-
charges at Higgins Beach and malfunctioning subsurface systems in several areas
of the Town, the Scarborough Sanitary District accomplished a preliminary design
study of a sewerage system to serve most of the Town east of the Turnpike. This
study proposed a 3 million gallon per day (mgd) secondary treatment plant in the
vicinity of Prouts Neck, with an ocean outfall off the Neck.
Public hearings in the early summer of 1974 revealed a considerable public
concern over the District's proposed sewerage program. The expressed concerns
can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Program costs were high, and their support inherently dictated an
expanded user base.
2. The environmental impact of discharging 3 mgd of treated waste water
off Prouts Neck was questioned.
3. The secondary impact of population growth stimulation appeared to be
of a significant magnitude, and the Town was not well equipped to
cope with such growth.
Because of the expressed concerns over the proposed program, the Environmental
Protection Agency initiated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
A Draft Statement was released in December 1975 concluding that the District's
proposed program was the most feasible of several alternatives. Again, public
objections were raised, particularly concerning the secondary growth Issues.
During 1976 and early 1977 supplemental studies were accomplished by EPA
with Public comments solicited. In the spring of 1977, the Final Environmental
Impact Statement was published. The statement recommended a consolidated pro-
gram with waste water from all developed areas being transported to the Oak Hill
plant site. A new treatment facility would be constructed with a capacity of
1.8 mgd. The treated effluent would be transported via pipelines to the Fore
River in South Portland for discharge.
The proposed sewerage system would service all areas scheduled in the original
District program. The system of interconnecting pumping stations, force mains,
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM
- 1 -
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
and interceptors would be similar to the original program except that waste
waters would be concentrated at Oak Hill rather than at Prouts Neck. A similar
level of treatment would be provided with discharge to Portland Harbor.
The program has addressed the environmental impact of the Prouts Neck
discharge by transferring it to Portland Harbor. The E.I.S. concluded that
the impact on the Harbor would not be severe, and would not violate water
quality standards, although little analysis or documentation is presented.
Since publication of the Statement, it has been suggested that securing
rights-of-way for the outfall line through South Portland may prove difficult
and costly. Alternative routes may be available, but depending on the route
selected may increase costs.
The program has addressed the secondary growth issue by reducing plant
capacity from 3 mgd to 1.8 mgd. This appears to be a relatively arbitrary
loading based generally on a moderate growth level as projected by the Greater
Portland Council of Governments. However, the interconnection of various
areas does open up currently undeveloped sections to potential sewering, and
thus development. As established plant capacity may have some limitations,
early stage growth may thus be promoted. Land owners and developers along
pipeline routes may wish to develop their land quickly to obtain their share
of design capacity before it is utilized by others. The Town should recognize
that limiting design sewer capacity cannot be a substitute for carefully
initiated land use and growth controls to guide the development of the Town in
a way which the residents desire.
The program costs presented in the E.I.S. suggest that by optimising govern-
mental aid, including grants for collection sewers, and by utilizing front foot
assessment techniques, it will be possible to establish a user charge schedule
which will fall within normally expected values for residential service. However,
in the view of many, the cost projections in the E.I.S. are optimistic, and user
costs for any large, consolidated system may be somewhat higher than anticipated.
The higher the user rates required to support the system, the more incentive
for growth exists to promote a large user base on which to spread annual costs.
A brief overview of the recommended program indicates that certain of the
initial concerns have been modified by system reorientation, and by setting an
arbitrary lower design flow level. However, the basic concerns of system costs,
secondary growth impacts, and the interrelation of the two still exist to a
large degree.
- 2 -
-------
ENGINEERING
j I PLANNING
LJ SURVEYING
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS
GENERAL
The Coastal Environment Association retained Hunter-Ballew Associates
to review prior data, and if possible, to suggest alternative courses of
action which may minimize adverse impacts of a sewerage program on the
community. Upon review, several factors become apparent, i.e.,
1. Many of the developed, or developing areas of the Town have sufficient
density, and/or, are located on adverse soil conditions such that a
public sewerage program is a necessity, i.e., individual subsurface
systems will not meet long term needs. The only areas for which it
may be possible, or even desirable, to continue subsurface disposal
via individual systems, or small grouped community systems, are
Pleasant Hill, and the Black Point area which are located on granular
soil deposits.
2. The user costs required to support any sewerage program in Scarborough
will be high, and every effort should be made to minimize both capital,
and operation and maintenance costs of any system adopted.
3. The complex issues of land use and growth control policies as inter-
related with waste water management planning must be realistically
considered prior to project implementation. It is noted that the
Sanitary District is not the proper vehicle for such broad range
community planning functions.
4. All planning to date has limited the study area to that portion of
Scarborough cast of the Maine Turnpike, and because of population
densities, soil conditions, and topography in that area, land dis-
posal of waste waters as an alternative to high levels of treatment
and discharge have not been considered.
If items 1, 2, and 3 above are reasonably accepted premises, one could
question the validity of A above, i.e., should planning consideration be limited
to the area east of the Turnpike thus excluding consideration of land disposal
techniques? Considering the complexities of the Scarborough program, such an
area restriction may be unwise.
Any alternative programs to minimize costs and environmental impact at this
stage of the planning process must relate to questions of the extent of sewer
service necessary, and the potential of land disposal techniques. Under this
premise, Hunter-Ballew Associates has developed alternative programs which may
warrant additional detailed study. It is emphasized that neither time nor
funding has been available to evaluate any of the suggested options in detail,
and none of the suggestions are specifically recommended as superior to other
alternatives considered under the E.I.S.
- 3 -
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
It is also recognized that many may view suggestions of additional alter-
natives at this time as simply a delaying tactic for those opposed to the
District's program. However, from a technical and cost effectiveness view
point, Hunter-Ballew Associates believes that the suggestions warrant further
study, considering the large financial and land use impact that any program
will have on the Town. The decision of whether to pursue such additional studies
at this time must be made by the responsible administrative and political bodies
and not by a consultant.
CONSIDERATIONS OF LAND DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
In recent years, considerable attention has been given to use of the soil,
and/or the vegetation-soil complex as a means of waste water treatment and
disposal. Use of such techniques in lieu of more complex treatment systems
with surface water discharge has proven technically sound and cost effective,
although it cannot be looked upon as a panacea for all waste water disposal
problems. Policy now being developed by EPA will require that all Facility
Plans actively consider land disposal alternatives as a prerequisite to project;
funding. Policy may actually dictate that, other conditions being generally
similar, land disposal be given preferential consideration.
The topography, soil conditions, and population densities in Scarborough
east of the Turnpike essentially precludes successful large scale application
of land disposal techniques. Small cluster systems serving a limited number
of homes may be feasible in eastern sections, but would require detailed site
suitability studies. However, the section of Scarborough west of the Turnpike
has significantly different characteristics, and application of land dispoal
in that area may have somewhat more potential.
The feasibility of land disposal techniques, and selection of the proper
technique must be related to the volumes of waste water to be disposed of.
Obviously, in a suburban community, the lower the volumes, the more feasible
such a system becomes. The currently proposed program suggests a treatment
plant capacity of 1.8 mgd serving 14,558 persons plus local industries. While
this flow volume may be conservatively high, if the new sewer systems strictly
limit infiltration and water conserving appliances are emphasized, our analysis
has accepted this volume if all areas are to be sewered. Isolation of certain
areas from the central system could lessen this amount to some degree.
Land disposal of waste water is accomplished by one of three techniques,
i.e., surface irrigation, overland flow, and rapid infiltration. These tech-
niques are illustrated in the following sketches as reproduced from EPA manual
660/2-72-006A, and are self explanatory. Of the three methods, irrigation and
rapid infiltration has been most applicable to municipal waste waters, while
overland flow has been primarily used in the food processing industry. Only
irrigation and rapid infiltration have been considered in this review.
Surface irrigation with crop harvest is probably the most efficient system
for removing nutrients from a waste water. The Muskegon, Michigan program which
has been the subject of much literature utilizes this system, although under-
drainage for residual disposal is practiced. However, significant land area i3
_ 4 _
-------
EVAPORATION
CROP
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLICATION
V
\S
SLOPE
VARIABLE
ROOT ZONE
DEEP
PERCOLATION
SUBSOIL
(a) IRRIGATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY APPLICATION
GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
SHEET FLOW
SLOPE 2-8*
/-KUHUff
/ COLLECTION
100-300 FT
(b) OVERLAND FLOW
SPREADING BASIN
SURFACE APPLICATION
INFILTRATION
i Qfi > ' , >
~
„ ^ ™*6i **}« TWU
X mHAMfJIMfNft
fwMiwt mmiiiiiiiiHiinti
mm:
HHtmiiHMIIMimM
••••«••••• •¦•••• •
~ •••••• •• • •«••••
-S """"
^ •-Hr+HMJtrr
#• >
.%w.*v.v
OLD WATER TABLE
(c) INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION
FIGURE 1
LAND APPLICATION APPROACHES
13
K6pT?ODUceD
FureUCPsTt ON
FROM EFA
66o/2-^-oo 6 A
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
required to dispose of waste water volumes of the magnitude expected in
Scarborough. At nominal application rates with winter storage for a period
of four to five months, a land area of 300 to 500 acres could be required for
disposal of 1.8 mgd. Review of parcel maps, land use maps, and soil maps
prepared by the Greater Portland Council of Governments through the 208 Planning
Program indicates that the availability, suitability, and costs of such land
areas even west of the Turnpike are probably such as to preclude use of this
technique.
Rapid infiltration techniques achieve much higher loadings, and can be
operated essentially on a year round basis. Depending on soil and groundwater
conditions, it is estimated that the projected Scarborough flow could be handled
with 10 to 25 acres of application area. The availability of this amount of
land would seem realistic.
Effective use of the rapid infiltration technique requires a well drained
soil with a minimum depth of at least 10 to 15 feet, a groundwater level pre-
ferably below 15 feet, and a moderately level topography. While artificial
means.such as underdrainage can enhance a site, certain basically acceptable
conditions must occur naturally.
Review of the Soil Survey, Cumberland County, Maine published by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture indicates that extensive granular soil deposits do
exist west of the Turnpike. These soils are primarily of the Windsor series
at a slope of 0 to 8%. These soils are defined as deep, excessively drained
course textured soila; depth of bedrock greater than 5 feet. A typical profile
is:
0-6 inches - Dark brown loamy sand with roots and organics.
6 - 15 inches - Brown loamy sand with a few roots.
15 - 26 inches - Light olive brown loamy sand, single grain.
26 - 60 inches - Pale yellow medium sand, single grain.
Many areas of Windsor soil wore formerly cultivated but have now returned to
a wooded state. Irrigation is generally required for successful row crops due
to the soil's low water availability.
In many areas of Scarborough the Windsor soils are closely associated with
Deerfield soils which are similar in physical makeup, but are subject to higher
seasonal groundwater levels. This, combined with flat topographic features
in many areas suggest that the groundwater level may be the primary constraint
on application of rapid infiltration techniques.
Review of soils and topographic plans indicates that fairly extensive areas
of Windsor soils exist in the Nonesuch River watershed as terraces well above
stream level. Such areas probably have relatively deep natural groundwater
levels, or groundwater levels could be controlled by appropriate underdrainage.
The attached plan indicates several areas in the Nonesuch River watershed with
such characteristics, and one area in the Finnard Brook area. The latter area
is closer to the sources of waste water, but is probably most affected by high
groundwater.
- 5 -
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OLD ORCHARD BEACH QUADRANGLE
MAINE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
VtJTBsrnLANP DISPOSAL SW/4 PORTLAND IV QUADRANGLE
I'Si ^ 25' j J26 [387 |4400C0 fEET
70*22'30"
43V
697/ W AW
1
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Each of the suggested sites appears to have sufficient area, and is relatively
isolated from current development. However, it must be emphasized that consider-
able geotechnical and hydrologic work must be accomplished to confirm the relative
suitability of any of the potential sites. Detailed site surveys may locate
additional or more desirable sites.
Operation of a rapid infiltration site provides for periodic application
of pre-treated waste water to the charging basins. The flow percolates downward
through the soils and will enter the groundwater regime. It will then flow
laterally in conjunction with normal grounwater migration. Most of the waste
water renovation occurs in the top few feet of soils. This renovation occurs
through filtration, biologic oxidation and reduction, chemical precipitation,
ion exchange and adsorption. The relative significance of each depends on the
soils involved, and the pollutant being removed. The renovative efficiency of
the soil mantle is excellent if the system is properly designed and managed. The
following removal rates are anticipated from a rapid infiltration system:^
Constituent % Removal
B.O.D. 99
S. Solids 99
Nitrogen 30 to 80
Phosphorus 50 to 90
Trace Metals 50 to 90
Bacteria & Virus 99+
From the above data, it can be seen that the residual discharge from a rapid
infiltration system will be essentially free of biochemical oxygen demand, sus-
pended solids, bacteria and viruses. The removal of nutrient constituants such
as nitrogen and phosphorus is somewhat more variable.
Phosphorus is removed primarily by fixation and chemical precipitation in
the soil. The capacity of the soil to remove phosphorus is difficult to predict,
but does have finite limits. Lake George in upstate New York haa used a rapid
infiltration system successfully for over 35 years. Phosphorus removals of 61%
have been observed at the 10 foot soil depth level, although more recent data
suggests that the soil at and above this level has nearly exhausted its ability
to remove phosphorus.2 However, it must be noted that this time span is well
in excess of normal planning and design periods.
Nitrogen removal is the most variable component of a rapid infiltration
renovation system, and in good part depends on soil types and on system operation
*"Asano, Takashi, and Sanks, Robert L., Land Treatment and Disposal of Municipal
and Industrial Waste Water (Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan), p. 69.
^"Waste Water Treatment and Reuse by Land Application," Volume I, EPA 660/2-73-006a,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., (August 1973)
- 6 -
-------
\ ENGINEERING
PLANNING
LJ SURVEVINQ
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
which allows biologic denitrification. A 50% removal rate may be realistic.
The impact of nitrogen entering the groundwater is one of the more significant
considerations in evaluating a rapid infiltration system. While nitrogen com-
pounds are not generally toxic, the relationship of a high nitrate content
of drinking water and the development of methemoglobinemia in infants (nitrate
poisoning) can be a problem. U. S. Public Health Service 1962 drinking water
standards limit NO3 nitrate to 45 MG/L (10.2 MG/L NO2-N). If a 50% nitrogen
removal were achieved in the system, the undiluted residual entering the ground-
water could exceed this limit. However, as the residual waste water is diluted
by percolating precipitation and in the groundwater itself as it travels through
the soil, the nitrate impact is lessened. However, site evaluation and design
must be fully cognisant of this potential problem.
The potential sites indicated in this report are located such that ground-
water migration is most probably toward the water courses draining the area
rather than toward developed areas which may utilize the groundwater as a source
of drinking water. Thus system design to eliminate the nitrate problem should
be possible.
The groundwater migrating from the suggested application sites undoubtedly
serves to recharge the Nonesuch River, or Finnard Brook as the case may be.
The impact of such recharge after 15 to 20 feet of vertical flow through the
soil plus horizontal migration of 100 to 200 feet should be negligible. In
fact, the added renovated flow to the stream during low flow periods may be of
somewhat higher quality than the stream itself, and could serve to enhance down-
stream conditions.
REUSE OF RENOVATED WASTE WATER
In some parts of the country, reuse of waste water renovated through land
application systems can play an important role in overall water management
programs. However, in New England with abundant rainfall and extensive surface
water sources, such reuse is not generally practiced. This is essentially the
case in the suggested land disposal sites in this report. It is noted that
utilization of the renovated waste water after its entrance into the groundwater
regime for agricultural irrigation is a practical concept, should such irrigation
water be required in either Scarborough or adjoining areas of Gorharn. However,
any cost effectiveness evaluations should probably not consider this as a monetary
value.
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
In industrial applications essentially raw, highly concentrated waste waters
have been successfully applied to land disposal sites. However, pretreatment
to some degree is considered mandatory for municipal applications. Such pre-
treatment could consist of primary sedimentation for solids removals, or more
likely a biologic treatment system designed for roughly 70% BOD removal. Aerated
pond systems are frequently used which inherently provide certain equalization
and storage capacity. The cost of treating a waste water for 70% BOD removal is
somewhat less than treating for the 90% or more generally required for direct
surface water discharge. This 70% level of pretreatment has been assumed for
this report.
- 7 -
-------
HUNTER
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
BALLEW ASSOCIATES
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS
Two general assumptions have been made for the generation of alternative
system configurations. Configuration 1. assumes that the population levels,
basic service areas, and the interconnection of service areas would be
essentially the same as that proposed in the current E.I.S., except for treat-
ment plant location and level of treatment, disposal site, and the necessary
transport piping to reach the site. Configuration 2. assumes that the system
would be minimized in scope to the extent possible thus lessening land applica-
tion flows, and to some extent, reducing the potential secondary growth impacts
in certain areas.
Configuration 1.- Under Configuration 1. all flows north of the estuary
would be brought to the Oak Hill treatment plant site. These areas
would include Higgins Beach, Prouts Neck, Black Point, Oak. Hill, Oak Hill
north, Pleasant Hill and Willowdale. This is identical to the currently
proposed system in the E.I.S. The flows from Pine Point, Blue Point, and
Dunstan would be concentrated in the vicinity of Dunstan. This too is
identical with the current E.I.S. program. Design flows would be about
1.4 mgd at Oak Hill and 0.4 mgd at Dunstan.
The current Oak Hill plant is designed for 0.32 rogd in the extended
aeration mode. Aeration capacity is about 54000 cubic feet and final
clarifier surface area is about 1400 sq. ft. Utilization of this capacity
under standard activated sludge criteria as defined in the 10 State
Standards^ so called, would allow treatment of up to 0.98 mgd with 90%
BOD removal expected. If only 70% BOD reduction is required, higher
loadings to the aeration tanks could be considered, although a supple-
mental sedimentation unit would be required. It would appear that if
removal efficiencies of 70% were required, the existing plant could be
utilized to a good degree, although significant modifications would be
required. Modifications to be considered could be:
-Equalization of incoming flows to avoid shock loadings on highly
loaded system components. This equalization would also minimize
costs of transfer pumping of the effluent.
-Installation of primary clarifiers to lessen organic load to
aeration basins. This may have a side benefit of allowing instal-
lation of anerobic digestion units for combined primary and excess
secondary sludge with energy utilization of resulting gas.
-Installation of additional secondary clarification unit.
-Additional Oxygen transfer capacity will be required.
-Additional solids conditioning and dewatering facilities.
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River
Board of Sanitary Engineers, (1971).
- 8 -
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Even with the rather high flows of Configuration 1. it should be possible
to achieve a 70% BOD removal through modifications to maximize usage of
the existing facilities rather than constructing an essentially new plant.
This may result in significant cost savings.
The waste water from the area south of the estuary concentrated at
Dunstan would be treated in an aerated pond plant specifically designed
for 70% BOD reduction. Capacity would be built into the basins via
freeboard to allow equalization prior to effluent pumping. Such a treat-
ment plant should be somewhat less costly than standard activated sludge
treatment. Sludge disposal problems would also be minimized.
Upon treatment, the Oak Hill waste water would be transferred to
Dunstan by forcemain along the old railroad grade. This is basically
the same transfer route utilized in the current E.I.S. plan, except
direction is reversed. At Dunstan the flows would be combined for pumping
to the land disposal site selected in the western section of Town. This
transfer may be accomplished by a single pumping station at Dunstan, or
with a supplemental booster pump if more cost effective.
Land disposal would be via the rapid infiltration techniques as
described in some detail in the foregoing sections.
The length of outfall piping required to reach the land disposal site
would be approximately equal to the length required for the direct route
from Oak Hill to the Fore River, assuming rights-of-way for such a route
could be acquired. Thus, the total length of transfer piping for
Configuration 1. described herein would be essentially the same as the
currently proposed program in the E.I.S. The difference in programs is
then limited to the treatment and disposal techniques.
Evaluating the relative cost effectiveness between the two systems is
beyond the scope of this limited study. However, based on rough cost data
compiled by EPA on land disposal systems, such a system would appear quite
competitive with the current proposals. From an environmental impact point
of view, the land disposal approach would eliminate a direct point source
discharge to any water course. The value of such discharge elimination
cannot be set in monetary terms, and is essentially a judgment decision.
The impact of outfall construction through the urban area of South Portland
must be compared with similar construction in essentially rural areas of
Scarborough, and the potential impact of the land disposal site on adjacent
areas. With proper siting and design of the land disposal area, it should
have no significant impact on the few homes in the vicinity. However, it
must be recognized that opposition to such a site by adjacent property
owners will develop, even though they may be relatively few in number.
- 9 -
-------
7"^ ENGINEERING
{J PLANNING
TJ SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Configuration 2. - Under Configuration 2., the areas 3outh of the estuary
including Pine Point, Blue Point, and Dunstan would be handled in the same
manner described under Configuration 1., i.e., flow concentrated in the
vicinity of Dunstan.
The areas north of the estuary would be individually reviewed in an
attempt to minimize flows to Oak Hill. Areas which could perhaps be
handled individually are Pleasant Hill, Black Point, Higgins Beach,
and Prouts Neck. Potential approaches to these areas are as follows:
Pleasant Hill: Most of the currently built-up area of Pleasant Hill
is located on granular soils where individual subsurface disposal
systems should give reasonably satisfactory service if given proper
maintenance. It is noted, however, that most of the more desirable
soils have been built upon, and more recent developments have been
encroaching on areas with high groundwater. It may be possible to
continue waste water disposal by subsurface means, even in the long
term, in the Pleasant Hill area providing a strict code enforcement
and system maintenance program is set up. This approach would require
rather strict land use controls on adjacent lands where soil conditions
are marginal.
Black Point Area: Similar to Pleasant Hill, many of the currently
built-up sections in the Black Point area are on reasonably good gran-
ular soils, although newer developments southerly of Black Point Road
are not on such soils. For those buildings located on the granular
soils, it may be possible to continue individual subsurface systems
for the long term. Those existing developments on poor soils which may
encounter problems could possibly be treated as group systems with the
effluent lifted to areas of granular soil for disposal. Again, rather
strict land use controls must accompany such an individualized approach
to waste water disposal.
Higgins Beach: The soils at Higgins Beach are not well suited to
subsurface disposal, and long term reliance thereon is not realistic.
Thus, only two options are open—carry the waste water to a larger
central system, or treat in the vicinity and discharge to the ocean.
Configuration 1. of this report provides for transfer to the central
system. If the Black Point area were not to be sewered, local treat-
ment and disposal would seem a realistic option. This option would
service only the concentrated development in the beach area itself.
Undeveloped adjacent areas would not be served, and would have to rely
on controlled individual systems. With this approach, very little
growth would be planned for.
The treatment facility would be an aerated pond system designed
for 85% BOD removal. Operation and maintenance costs for such a
system would be minimal. Effluent discharge from this plant would be
the main environmental concern. It is suggested that sufficient free-
board be built into the ponds such that controlled discharge can be
achieved. Such control would allow discharge only on the outgoing tides
-10-
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEVING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
at the mouth of the Spurwink Estuary. This would maximize diluation
of the discharge. It would also be possible to control discharge to
an outgoing tide during nighttime hours when swimming is not taking
place. Such an approach would avoid a long and costly deep water
outfall. The impact of such treated and controlled discharge on the
coastal waters between the Spurwink River and Prouts Neck would be
very minimal.
Prouts Neck: Existing private discharges in the Prouts Neck area will
dictate remedial action be taken. Soil conditions are such that
individual systems in many areas are not feasible, and public or
community action will be required.
Granular soil is prevalent along the Black Point Road westerly of
the Neck itself. These soils may be suitable for local group subsur-
face disposal, although the low topography may indicate relatively
high groundwater conditions which may inhibit such disposal methods.
If such techniques cannot be adopted the area has the option of local
treatment and discharge, similar to that described for Higgins Beach,
or transfer to the central system.
Transfer to the central system via Black Point is provided in
Configuration 1. If Black Point were not to be served, and Prouts
Neck had to be connected to the central system, a route via Pine Point
could be considered, although crossing the mouth of the estuary would
pose construction problems.
If all of the flow reduction procedures were adopted, the flow concentrated
at the Oak Hill plant would be reduced to about 1.0 mgd or slightly less.
With this reduced flow, the modifications required at the existing plant to
achieve a 70% BOD removal would be somewhat less complex and less costly
than those required for the Configuration 1. flows. Upon such treatment,
the flows would be transferred to the land disposal site via Dunstan. The
transfer lines, and the land disposal system would be the same as Configuration
1.
It is noted that one of the basic assumptions in the current E.I.S. is
that no discharge greater than the District's current license, presumably
in terms of BOD, would be allowed into the Nonesuch River at Oak Hill. This
is set forth as a rather aribtrary assumption without substantiation based
on actual impact studies. It is not at all certain that discharge of larger
volumes of waste water treated to remove 85 or 90% BOD with excellent
disinfection would have any significant adverse effect on the estuary,
especially in light of the major impacts from non point sources.
Plant modifications at Oak Hill tailored to achieve 70% removals at 1 mgd
could also achieve 85 to 90% removals at lower flows. Perhaps consideration
should be given to a staged program such that in the early years discharge
of treated effluent to the Nonesuch River is permitted above the current
- 11 -
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
limit with a concurrent, more intensive, river monitoring program. In
this case, initial construction of the transfer line to Dunstan would not
be undertaken, and the land disposal system would be designed to handle
only the flows from the southern component of the system, although land
should be secured for the projected total flow.
If River monitoring indicated no adverse impact from such higher dis-
charges, the practice could continue for the long term with appropriate
plant modifications. If adverse impact did exist, transfer to land disposal
could be accomplished.
Continued discharge at Oak. Hill would probably be the least costly
system, providing the environmental costs associated therewith are within
acceptable tolerances. Sufficient data is not available at this time to
make such a judgment decision.
The Town of Scarborough, through the Scarborough Sanitary District, must
undertake an extensive sewerage and pollution control program to meet water
quality standards and to be in compliance with the current consent decree
with the State of Maine. This undertaking has the potential for significant
economic and land use impacts on the Town. Although the District, the State, and
the Environmental Protection Agency have conducted extensive evaluations of the
system best suited to the Town, considerable public concern and doubts remain
over whether the most cost effective system, which also minimizes environmental
impact, has been found. The issues concerning such system selection are complex,
are not all subject to precise technical analysis, and in the end, selection
must be a judgment decision made by appropriate public bodies.
Review of past studies suggests that two potential avenues to minimize
costs and environmental impacts may not have been given thorough study. These
are, a. Minimizing the extent of central sewerage facilities through adoption
of more individualized systems serving local community centers, and b. Con-
sideration of land disposal techniques for effluent treatment and disposal.
Limited review studies by Hunter-Ballew Associates suggest that each of the
above approaches, either alone, or in combination with each other, may have
potential for reducing system costs and further reducing environmental impact.
While no conclusions or recommendations can be made from such limited study,
further evaluations by appropriate bodies would appear warranted, considering
the significant economic and social impact of any system implementation.
SUMMARY
- 12 -
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
FRED C SCRJBNER JR
CHARLES W AHPN
JOTHAM D PIERCE
SIGRID E TOMPKINS
WHHAM C SMITH
RALPH I LANCASTER JR
JEREMIAH 0 NEWRURY
DONALD W PERKINS
GERALD M AMERO
DONALD A FOWLER JR
BRUCE A COGGESHAU
S MASON PRATT JR
DANIEL E BOXER
JOTHAM D PIERCE JR
WARREN E WINSLOW Jfl
ALBERT G AVRE
EVERETT P INGA( t S
MALCOLM I IYONS
PIERCE. ATvvOOD, SCRIBNER. ALLEN, SMITH & -ANCASTER
Attorneys at Law
ONE MONUMENT SQUARE
PORTLAND. MAINE 04101
Area Coot 207 / 773-64 M
LEONARO a pierce
1985-1960
EDWARD W ATWOOO
1897-197?
AUGUSTA OffJCF
77 winthrop street
AUGUSTA. MAINE 04330
AREA CODE 207/622-63U
JAMES B ZJMPRITCH
ERNEST j BABCOC.K
JAMES G GOOD
JAMES E PURCFLL
JOHN J 0 LEARY JR
jEFf-MEY M WHiTf
DAVID S WAKE.I.IN
GEORGE J MARCUS
gloria a pinza
DAVID T FLANAGAN
RICHARD E CURRAN JR
LOUISE K THOMAS
JOSEPH M KOZAK
December 20, 1977
Mr. Gerald Hopcroft
Municipal Facilities Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Re: Scarborough Sanitary District
Dear Gerry:
I enclose a report from Tom Griffin analyzing the October 31,
1977 letter from Whitman & Howard to you.
Mr. Griffin has tried to follow the same format as Whitman
& Howard, including the enclosure of worksheets breaking down
the estimates.
My overall impression, after reviewing Mr. Griffin's work,
is that Whitman & Howard has tried to justify its support of
Alternative A, while raising the costs of Alternative G, without
any real scientific basis for doing so.
It would seem incredible to me if Whitman & Howard's
figures were accepted without some thorough checking by EPA.
Mr. Griffin certainly has provided the basis for such a review.
With the submission of this material by Mr. Griffin and the
excellent report prepared by Hunter-Ballew, I believe EPA should
be in a position to rebut any position that Alternative A is the
only feasible alternative.
Since EPA has acknowledged that there is considerable
opposition to Alternative A, I believe that no sound basis has
-------
Mr. Gerald Hopcroft
December 20, 1977
Page Two
been presented for its revival in a favored position over Alter-
native G. Furthermore, before saddling the District with any
monstrous system that will drain the resources of many Scarborough
citizens, EPA should pay attention to the suggestions of Mr. Hunter
and look for a reasonable treatment alternative.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Verv trulv vours.
Daniel E. Boxer
DEB/km
Enclosure
-------
THOMAS GRIFFIN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERS
88 BERKELEY STREET
PORTLAND. MAINE 04103
207/ttKXKX
772-7913
19 December 1977
Mr. Daniel E. Boxer, Esq.
Pierce, Atwood § Scribner
1 Monument Square
Portland, Maine, 04111
Dear Mr. Boxer:-
Pursuant to your request, I reviewed the letter of Oct 31, 1977, written
for Whitman and Howard by Donald F. Dargie.
I differ from Mr. Dargie on several points. Although all estimates of
cost of construction projects are to a certain degree subjective, mine
are based on nearly forty years of total experience in the design and
construction fields, fifteen of which were spent in the Portland area.
As you know, I spent five years as Director of Public Works and City
Engineer of Portland. When I received your assignment, I immediately
rechecked my own estimates against recent jobs contracted by the City
of Portland.
I met Mr. McFarlane and Mr. Born of the Maine Central Railroad and the
Portland Terminal Company. Mr. Dargie is correct in stating that the
railroad does not want to share its right of way with anyone, however
Mr. McFarlane suggested an alternate route along the old railroad right
of way to the Rigby Yard, thence across the yard throat to the south,
thence along the right of way and adjacent to it. That route avoids most,
if not all of the interference, with the road traffic. Between eight and
ten property owners are involved and the land is not inherently valuable.
The Portland Terminal Company, one of the property owners does not ob-
ject, although they want to be compensated. The City of South Portland
will probably not object, according to the Assistant City Manager, the
City Engineer and the Director of Public Works. Ted Wainwright, another
of the property owners, was approached, wanted time to think the matter
over and, at the time that this letter was written, had not answered. His
land is part of the old Rigby Bog on which he grows potatoes, so it can
not be too valuable. The Portland Pipeline Co. and the American Oil Co.
were not approached, but we feel that they will not seriously object.
All the property owners will probably insist on minimum interference with
their activities and protection of underground structures and agricul-
tural activities, by the construction contractors. The City of South Port-
land is concerned about the Broadway/Evans Street intersection, especially
in view of the problems encountered when the City recently installed a
trunk sewer through that area. The Director of Public Works, Mr. Richard
Brado, pointed out that there is an abandoned, weak stone storm drain
that crosses that intersection. It can be used for a conduit for the out-
fall proposed. If such use is followed by backfill of the old drain, the
City would benefit. Mr. Brado is afraid that the old drain might collapse
one of these days. The cost for the total easement is difficult to estim-
ate, but 10$ per square foot for a 20' wide easement seems reasonable.
This means a cost of $2/linear foot. The total distance involved (scaled)
is 13,500' in South Portland and 200' in Scarborough. The total cost should
be about $27,500.
-------
-2-D.Boxer
I reviewed Mr. Dargie's costs for the Alternates "A" and "G" and compared
them with the costs of sewers recently installed by the City of Portland.
(The kindness of Mr. Joseph Beaulieu, Chief Sanitary Section of the City
Engineer's Office, is acknowledged with gratitude.) My review of the Port-
land cost experience leads me to feel that Mr. Dargie's cost estimates
could be modified downward in the case of the "G" alternate and upward in
the case of Alt. "A".
For example, Mr. Dargie estimated excavation along the old railroad right
of way @$5/linear foot and then added $1 for sheeting. Portland practise
is to regard sheeting as incidental to excavation. Indeed, since OSHA
made dragboxes standard for trench construction, sheeting should be un-
necessary. I dropped the sheeting cost to $0 in my estimate.
Thirty percent ledge seems high under the old railroad right of way.
The American Railroad Engineer's Association does not like rock closer
than 3' to the surface of the roadbed, then recommends 2'to 2V of bal-
ast. This means that we can infer that it is highly unlikely that there
is rock (or ledge) closer than 5' to SV to the surface of the old rail-
road. That implies that there the maximum ledge is just under 20%.
(5' + 5.5' i 2 =5.25'. 6.5', average depth, minus 5.25' = 1.25'*6.5' =19+%)
Since it is highly unlikely that the minimum will apply, we would be
safe in assuming that 15% ledge is a better figure.
Portland regards manholes on a force main, 12" or larger, at 2000' in-
tervals as standard, where ever possible. Since the force mains being
considered are straight for fairly long distances, 2000' intervals were
used in this estimate. Since contingencies were covered twice in other
parts of the estimate, the allowance for contingency and miscellaneous
was generally dropped to $0. The revised total for the force main in the
old rail road bed is $30 not $39.
Reference the police item of cost, the rates quoted lead to an annual
salary of over $80,000 for each of the two men involved. This salary
seems excessive. Along Route 1, construction should take about 180 days
(15% ledge §25'/day; 40% moderately difficult digging @75'/day; 45%
easy digging 0125'/day; average 90'/day; length 16,250'*90=180 days.)
180 days x 2 policemen x $4.50/hour x 40 hrs/week (or x $6.75/hr over-
time). If contractorworks 6 days/week. 180 t 6 = 30 weeks. 30x40x4.50x2
+ 30x8x6.75x2 = $14,040. $14 ,040*16 ,250«$0.864 use $l/ln ft.
Allow $2 for utilities. Total cost for the force main along the Pleasant
Hill Road (labelled "along Route 1" by Mr. Dargie) is $49/lf.
Along Route 1, gravity, excavation at a 12' depth seems excessive. 4.25'
payline is too wide, $4/lf for cutting pavement is too high. The average
depth should be 10'. Portland uses a payline of 3' for all pipe up to and
including 18" then increases the pay width inch for inch as the pipe size
increases. If that system is used, a 27" pipe would have an allowed pay
width of 3.75'. An allowance of $2/lf for cutting pavement was used in the
revised estimates. Manholes will cost $1200, according to recent jobs in
Portland, but can be spaced at 400' intervals, for a unit cost of $3/lf.
The total cost is estimated at $69/lf not $85.
As Table I, Cost Comparison of Outfall Routes has been modified in accord-
ance with the changes in individual cost estimates. It shows that, as ex-
pected, Alternate "G" in each of its three routes, is more expensive than
Alternate "A"; it is after all considerably longer. The cost per user,at
the original 2800 user figure, is only a little more than $1 higher^ Its
yf •»
-------
rk sheet
Alternate "Glu Route 1 Outfall
Scarborough 11,000' along old RR
4,100' along the Pleasant Hill Rd 5 Route 1
So. Portland 12,150' along Route 1
River outfall 250'
Use 18" FM to Sta 200+00 in So. Portland
27" gravity to Fore River
1. Cost Estimate of F.M. along RR
Pipe $ 20/ft (W§H)
Exc. 5' (W§H)
Ledge/water 4 (6. 5x3xlxl/27xl5%x35=$4/ft.)
Manhole 1 ($2000 32000')
Pav. 0 (W§H)
Sheeting 0 (W$H)
Misc. 0
Constr. Cost $30/lin ft
2.F.M. along Pleasant Hill Rd $ Rte 1
(above +$2/ft cutting)
(W$H)
(3.75x10x1x1/27x6 +$2,cutting=$10)
(3.75x10x1x1/27x25$x35»$12)
($12000400' interval)
(W§H)
(Sheeting omitted, cost $0/lf)
4. River Outfall $200/lf
Pipe $20/ft
Excav. 7
Ledge/water 4
Manhole 1
Paving 14
Sheeting 0
Police 1
Utilities 2
Conting. 0
Constr. Cost$49/lf
3.Gravity along Rte 1
Pipe $15/lf
Excav 10
Ledge/water 12
Manholes 3
Paving 14
Police 1
Utilities 2
Conting. 0
Constr Cost &5"7/lf
-------
ork sheet -2-
Alternate G1 Route 1 ou't^ll - Construction cost Summary
1.Force main along old RR = 11,000 x $30 =$3j0,000
2.Force main along PH Rd $ Rte 1 = 9,100 x 49 = 445,900
3.Gravity sewer along Rte 1 = 7,150 x 57 = 407,600
4.River outfall = 250 x 200 = 50,000
Construction Cost $1,233,500
Assume no easements necessary, only road opening permits from the DOT 0$lO/sy
Permit cost 9100x3x1/9x10 + 7150x3.75x1/9x10 = $60,125. Use $60, 00
*************** *
Alternate "G2" Highland Avenue outfall
Scarborough 15,900'along old RR
450' across country to Highland Ave.
So Portland 18,750' along Highland Ave
River outfall 100'
Use 18" FM to sta. 220+00 (Wf,H)
Use 27" gravity to river
1.Cost Estimate along RR and across country (see previous)
Cost $30/lf
2. Along Highland Ave w/FM
Pipe $20/lf (W$H)
Excav 5 (W§H)
Ledge/water 8 (W§H)
Manholes 1 (TG)
Paving 9 (W§H)
Sheeting 0
Police 1
Utilities 2
Conting 0
Const Cost $46/lf
3.Along Highland Ave w/gravity sewer
Pipe $15 (W$H)
Excav 9 (3.75x10x1x1/27x6 = $8+ Use $9)
Ledge/watl5 (W$H)
Manholes 3 (TG)
Paving 9 (W§H)
Sheeting 0 (TG)
Police 1
Utilities 2
Contin 0
Constr Cost $54/lf
-------
-3-D.Boxer
greatest advantage, of course, is that it eliminates the principal con-
troversy with the people of Prout's Neck, the ocean outfall off the Neck
in SB-1 water. There is no possibility of fouling the beaches of Scarbor-
ough with undesireable material in the event of a breakdown of a sewage
treatment plant.
Attached are copies of the work sheets, from which Table I was derived.
All the alternates considered so far ("A" and the variations of MGM) are
included, together with the new Alt "G3", along the Portland Terminal
Company's right of way (adjacent to, not part of). All the work sheets
were prepared as Mr. Dargie did his, to ease the task of comparison.
In view of the small difference between the costs of Alternate "A" and "G3",
the manifold advantages of the latter become apparent. We still feel, and
will attempt to prove, that neither of these alternates ought to be built.
We feel that the problems that led to the issuance of the consent order
several years ago, can be better addressed by other means than by a massive
sewer system that will force development to pay the very heavy local costs.
We understand that the BNL Marsh/Pond system has been (nearly) ruled out
because of the "unavailibity" and extremely high cost of land. We do not
agree. We have located, are pricing and will present as soon as possible,
sites and estimates of cost for the M/P system to be proposed foT use at
Higgins Beach, Dunstan and Pine Point (including Snow's.) If time becomes
essential, the gathering of data can be finished in a few days.
Very truly yours,
THOMAS GRIFFIN- ASSOCIATES COMPANY
Thomas
President
-------
TABLE I
COST COMPARISON OF OUTFALL ROUTES
Alt A
Prout's Neck
Const.Cost*l
Tech Services
LegalSFi seal
Admin.
5.Project Conting.
6.Project Cost
7. less EPA a
DEP grant
8.District's
share
9.Easements ,
permits,etc.
10.Total District
Share S
11.Amortization
(6-3/8*320yrs)
12.Operation
13.Total Annual
District Cost $
14.Cost/user
(2800)*2
$830,000
124,500
8,300
S, 300
19.800
51 ,020 ,300
918,810
102,090
45,000
145,090
13,042
6,000
19,042
$6.80
Alt G1
Route 1
$1,356,900
203,535
13,570
13,570
81,425
1,502,100
166,900
60,200
$ 227,100
20 ,414
9,000
$ 29,414
$10.51
Alt G2
Highland Ave.
$1,625,000
243,750
16,250
16,250
97,500
$l,&9fi,650'
1 .798 ,785
199,865
54 ,000
$ 253,865
22,820
9,000
$ 31,820
$11.37
Alt G3
RR
$1,045,000
156,750
10,450
10,450
• 62,700
$1,185^350
1,156,815
128,535
27,200
$ 155,735
13,999
9,000
$ 22,999
$8.22
*1 - Includes construction contingencies of 10%
*2 - Includes industrial and coimercial users
-------
Work sheet -3-
Alternate "G2" Highland Avenue Outfall - Construction Cost Summary
1. Force main along RR and across country =16,400x30 =$492,000
2. Force main along Highland Ave = 5,600x46 = 257,600
3. Gravity sewer along Highland Ave =13,100x54 = 707,400
4 River outfall = 100x200 20,000
Construction Cost $1,477,000
Easements: railroad near Pleasant Hill Rd § across country
16,400-11,000 = 5400 @$10 = 54,000
Assume no road opening permits (may not be a valid assumption: So.Portland
has street opening permits, with charges. On the other hand, these charges
are designed to repair the streets after they are opened and negotiation
may eliminate them, since the streets will be rebuilt after the sewer is in.
Alternate "G3" along the Portland Terminal Company track
Scarborough 11,500' along old RR,
So Portland 13,500' along RR § across country, excl RR Xing Bdwy
100' across throat of Rigby Yard
100' Broadway/Evans St intersection
700' river outfall
Use 18" FM to Sta 174+00 (Size from W§H)
27" gravity to Fore River
1.Cost estimate Force Main - Scarborough/So Portland
Pipe $20/lf (WflH)
Excav 5 (W§H)
Ledge/wat 4 (15% ledge,3' payline, 6.5' depth)
Manhole 1
Paving 0
Sheeting 0
Misc 1 (Crossing streets, rubbish relocation)
Constr Cost-$31/lf
2. Gravity sewer South Portland
Pipe $15/lf (WSH)
Excav 8 (3.75xl0xlxl/27x6»$8 + Use $8)
Manhole 3
Paving 0
Sheeting 0
Police 0
Utilities 2
Conting 2 (Police @ 3 road crossings.underwater line
Constr Cost $30/lf in Barberry Creek)
3. RR Crossing throat of Rigby Yard (FM)
Constr Cost $31 from above ^
Protection $169
Total Cost $2'00/lf
-------
jrk sheet
-4-
Alt "G3" (cont)
4.Broadway/Evans Street Intersection
Construction cost $200/lf
5. River outfall
Construction cost $200/lf
Construction Cost RR Outfall
1. Force main along RR
2.Gravity sewer So Portland
3.RR crossing Rigby Yard
4.Broadway/Evans Intersection
5. River outfall
(TG)
CTG - high)
17,400x31
7 ,600x30
100x200
100x200
700x200
Construction Cost-
Easements: Along RR track, 10 property owners involved
(10*/sq ft x 20' wide =$2/lf) 2x13,600
No permits required
=$ 539,400
228,000
20,000
20,000
140,000
$ 947,000
= $ 27 ,200
Scarborough - Prout's Neck Outfall Alt 'A
11
Town streets 5300' (W$H)
Private roads 2750' (W$H)
Ocean outfall 600' (W§H)
Use 18" force main to sta 61+00; 27" gravity to ocean
1. Cost estimate Force main
Pipe
Excav
Ledge
Manholes
Paving
Police
Sheeting
$20/lf
5
18
1
6
1
0
Utilities 0
Gravel
Conting
1
0
Const Cost $52/lf
2. Cost Estimate - Gravity sewer
Pipe
Excav
Ledge
Manholes
Paving
Police
Gravel
Con Lir.g
$15/lf
8
35
3
6
1
1
0
Constr Cost $69/lf
(W$H)
(W§H)
(W§H)
($2000 6 2000')
(W5H)
(TG) (Needed year round)
(W5H)
(TG)
(W$H)
(3.75x10x1x1/27x6=8)
(3.7 5x10x1x1/2 7x7 0^x55=35)
($1200 3400')
(W$H)
(TG - needed year round)
(W$H)
-------
Ivork sheet -5-
Scarborough -Prout's Neck Outfall (cont)
3.Ocean outfall $500/lf (Open ocean off Prout's Neck with ridges
of rock running SE to NW (from bathymetric
profiles developed by W§H in report on
"Optimum Location of the Proposed Prout's
Neck Ocean Outfall,"March 1974,W§H, Fig 2
§ 3, pp 13 § 14) will cost more than $300/lf
in spite of recent bids received in Rock-
land and Hull, given geological differences.
Construction cost Prout's Neck Outfall (Alt "A")
1.Force main 6100x52 =$ 317,200
2.Gravity sewer 1950x69 ® 134,600
3.Ocean outfall 600x500 - 300,000
Construction cost =$ 751,800
Easements: 2300' along private roads @$10 =2300x10 ¦ $23,000
450' across private land (W§H) 20,000
Total Easements $4 3,000
Note: The Private roads are owned outright by the £rout's Neck Association.
Given the determined opposition of the Prout's Neck Association, top dollar
costs for easements must be expected.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
1. Route 1, Alt "Gl"
Q-1260 gpm (W$H)
TDH = 65' (W§H)
Work done- 1260x8.337x65*33000=20.69 HP Use 30 HP
Operation cost - 30x0.746x24x365x4.5«$8800 Use $9000
2. Highland Ave, Alt "G2"
Q=1260 gpm (W§H)
TDH=68 (W$H) Use 30 HP
Operation cost - $9000
3. Railroad, Alt "G3"
Q-1260 gpm (W§H)
TDH-30-0.172x174 - 60' (mol) Use 30 HP
Operation cost* $9000
4. Prout's Neck Alt "A"
Q-1260 gpm (W§H)
TDH- 40' (W$H) Use 20 HP
Operation cost- $6000
Maintenance cost will be difficult to estimate. South Portland routes will
cost more to clean and repair (longer) and to maintain pumps (higher head)
but protected river outfalls will have much longer life at much lower re-
pair cost than the open ocean outfall off Prout's Neck
f
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
1
EST. - 1S69 INC. 1924
Robert T. Jones, President
Paul C. Bucknam, Jr., Treasurer
Howard R Perkins, Manager
Anthony Chiaravelotti
Elias A. Cooney
Brewster W. Fuller
Robert E. Hickman
Myles F. Howard
Frederick D. A. King, )r.
James T. McDonough
Steven ). Medlar
Arthur T. Lucchini, Contmller
James A. S. Walker, Arch. Officer
Whitman & Howard, Inc.
Engineers and Architects
45 WILLIAM STREET. WELLESLEY. MASS. 02181 • TEL: 617-237-5000
January 5, 1978
ASSOCIATES
Gerald T. Carey
T. T. Chiang Ph.D.
Edward R. Clemons
Robert E. Crawford
John I. Daniels
Donald F. Dargie
Charles C. Ellis
Ernest H. Fagerstrom
Curtis H. Flight
George D Gustafson
Arthur Uatsos
James A. Little
Edward R. Mayer
lames F. Murphy
Joseph A. Murphy
Robert i. Wyman
Mr. Gerald Hopcroft
Municipal Facilities Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA
Re:
Comparison of Treatment Systems
Scarborough, Maine
Dear Mr. Hopcroft:
We have reviewed the December 7, 1977 report from
Hunter-Ballew Associates to the Coastal Environment Assoc-
iates concerning the proposed sewerage system, and have
prepared comparative cost estimates for three alternative
treatment systems; Alternative "A", Alternative "G", and
Configuration 1 from the above report. Although we have
found many discrepancies and areas of disagreement within
the report, the cost estimates cause many of these items to
be immaterial and not deserving of significant discussion.
There are, however, a few points that should be discussed.
Contrary to statements in the above report, the size
and need for treatment facilities has been extensively and
sufficiently documented, and can not be vaguely labeled as
"arbitrary." Based upon the stated desires of the Town, the
EIS, and GPCOG 208 Plan, reasonable population projections
were made and a service area, based upon need, established.
The proposed service areas, including Pleasant Hill, have
experienced severe problems. The GPCOG report predicts that
approximately 2300 septic systems will have failed within
the general service area by the year 2000.
Our f 08 tk IJear of (^ontinuoud Se i
wtce
-------
-2-
It can certainly be agreed that the costs for a sewer-
age system are high, but it should also be pointed out
the cost of construction has increased over 25% since
May, 1975 when the EIS process began. Quite obviously
further delay will only increase the construction costs
and could jeopardize federal funds. It is anticipated
that the next federal census will show Scarborough with
a population above 10,000, and as such, the District will
no longer be eligible for FmHA funding. Thus, further
delay could prove financially disasterous for the District.
Cost estimates were prepared for each of the three
alternative treatment systems using various EPA manuals.
(See Attached). In each case a complete treatment system
was estimated using, where possible, the same formulas
and graphs from the manuals, thereby allowing for reason-
able and valid comparisons. A short description of the
estimating methods used for each alternative is as
follows:
Alternative "AM- Estimates were prepared for the const-
ruction and operation and maintenance
of the proposed 1.8 MGD treatment facility
at Prouts Neck using EPA 430/9-75-002,
and the ocean outfall using our October
31st letter to EPA.
Alternative "G"- Except for its location, the proposed
treatment facility for "G" is identical
to "A" including the construction cost.
The operation and maintenance costs are
slightly higher ($5,000) due to the
length of the outfall routes. The cost
of the outfall was established in our
October 31st letter, and because of its
lower cost, the Highland Avenue route is
being used in this comparison.
Land Application (Configuration 1)-Configuration 1 was
considered to be the only reasonable land
application scheme. Configuration 2 re-
quired multiple treatment facilities
which, as EIS Alternative "B", were elim-
inated based upon costs. Also, it assumed
a sewerage system for Pleasant Hill was
not needed which is contrary to all other
findings. Configuration 2 proposed dis-
charging the effluent from a treatment
facility at Higgins Beach into the estuary
of the Spurwink River on the outgoing
tide which at best is a very questionable
-------
-3-
practice. It was also proposed to serve
Prouts Neck via an estuary crossing to
Pine Point, a system originally proposed
in Alternative "A", but discouraged by
the EIS.
The construction cost and operation
and maintenance costs for the proposed
"overloaded" 1.4. MGD Oak Hill Facility
were derived using EPA 430/9-75-002.
The construction cost and operation
and maintenance cost for the proposed
0.4 MGD aerated lagoon in Dunstan were
derived from formulas in EPA 430/9-75-00
and graphs in EPA 430/9-75-003. For
discussion purposes this facility was
located off Broad Turn Road near the
Dunstan Cemetery.
The combined effluent from the
Dunstan and Oak Hill facilities would be
pumped to the land application site,
assumed to be adjacent to Finnerd Brook
near West Beech Ridge Road. The force
main costs established in the October 31st
letter for Alternative "A" were used in
estimating the construction cost of the
transmission sewer from Dunstan to the
land application site.
Using the proposed application rate
and loading cycles for maximum denitrif-
ication the total land area required
for rapid infiltration is approximately
80 acres. This concurs with Table 10 of
EPA 430/9-75-016. The construction cost
and operation and maintenance costs were
acquired from EPA 430/9-75-003.
It should also be pointed out that
should this alternative be further consid-
ered, it would reqire extensive tests,
studies, and reports, and delay the Step 2
as much as a year, thereby, increasing the
ultimate construction costs for the entire
project by approximately 8%.
The capital costs for each of the alternatives are shown
in Table 1, and as may be seen, the cost for Alternative "A"
is approximately 30% less than the land application system
and 42% less than Alternative "G". Table 2 presents the
total annual cost for the three systems, and Alternative "A"
is 35% less than the land application system, and 8% less
-------
-4-
than Alternative "G". The present worth costs for
Alternative "A", "G" and land application are $5,992,240,
$7,554,740., and $7,925,920, respectively.
Based upon the aforementioned, it is apparent that
land application in Scarborough is not a cost effective
means of disposal and additional consideration of such
methods is not warrented.
We trust the information herein submitted is sufficient
and will now allow the EPA to make an expeditions decision
on this matter, and permit the District to move ahead with
its long delayed project.
Very truly yours,
WHITMAN & HOWARD, INC.
/
¦ / * L /
/ if i £./' <' - " ;/ '
Donald F. Dargie, P.E.
Associate
DFD/dfb
cc: Scarborough Sanitary District
Dennis Purington
-------
Table X
TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Cost Comparison
Scarborough, Maine
1. Main Treatment
Facility
2. Dunstan Treatment
Facilty
3. Rapid Infiltration
Facility
4. Outfall or Trans-
mission Sewer
5. Land & Easements
Alternate "A"
$2,667,000
884,200*2
25,000*2
Alternate "G"
$2,667,000
2,386,100*2
21,000
Land Applicatio
$1,730,000
880,520
723,600
1,110,000
208,000
6. Total Capital Cost $3,576,200
7. Less EPA + DEP Aid
3,196,080
$5,074,100
4,547,790
$4,652,120
4,143,710
8. District's Share
of Capital Cost
$380,120
$526,310
$508,410
*1 Highland Ave Route
*2 From October 31, 1977 letter to EPA
-------
Table z
Comparison of Annual Costs
TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Scarborough, Maine
Alternate "A" Alternate "G" Land Application
1. Annual Amortized
Capital Cost *2 $29,500
2a. 0+M for Main
Treatment Facility 160,900
2b. 0+M for Dunstan
Treatment Facility
2c. 0+M for Rapid
Infiltration Facility
2d. O+M for Sewerage
System 26,100
2e. Total 0+M Cost $187,000
3. Total Annual Cost $216,500
$40,850
165,900*3
26,100
$192,000
$232,850
$39,460
133,950
40,780
52,560
26,100
$253,390
$292,850
*1 Highland Avenue Route
*2 6 5/8% for 30 years
*3 Pumping to Fore River costs $5000/year more than ocean outfall
in Alternate "A".
-------
1 V^ccf VWP«.*(* (-Ouj^aveA
A If." A"
+-2-©l->b
k! et Ic. ^TP
Oc-ecx. o o
V^OL ll
.A\kicri
I a u *.(. AuC..
O* Ic. i4 < U
StP --
cl |w»f I (v«(io^\
-V-o^-ce. nAo<\> a(ov^| /ylpem^ ou *iL ^..
(t>v- +Cm\ Appv-O^.
^a.pi(w£ I fvo fiD^ 'lor* i.tq
-------
z
i'. tt QH /^\ £o-r. fs s ^ ^
h/, A" A-»' /_ £*T
(2oiJ fc>ll< s,' n [t ~ryea n f /?t'< l< h*j u$iuCj SPA
£PA4iolf-lc -DO ~i- " Cent £"//-/ OC. k,
'a/tf cud f*is- / rfiv A* /"if S f?vi->)
A.
U
3. tf/as, /^f
7
S -
/¦ -t-/j>a dujo * J ' ~-lov/M u t*. AA +'
/. /* //u/S) / fy'-np > 4
A t -
£ / -
/f •
Or '
A 6 -
derfiioy Joy* L s i
{?/o r>
5. x^)/j / >7 jCr/>& j
6. Jlvcfrj c d?use /(y/>)^
7. £///;?Si/ fo>wp>*>f
rt(,h-j o»/y (/•'"tqeD
SZSSiQ'*'
. i 2
7i3&/z $
/ 31752+ /J3Z7 +
'7611.7
5/23LO
7/ Vv?
ZOLllO ¦
— / %J Ui ¦
X(c fif.4/ 4/ » * '^7^7
i-
/fi/df ^ojoJvf CjJ f ' (2c
•*1^
cue Lo/>/
*5
\/s//^ \ /,0G + itr\^
'V-5 ){'
160
/1> TA
* / , /) / ? I Coir* /&
>/¦ / 'bo*t-> /06/c. %'f ^/oMiSof £PA 7S""OOl
¥ 2 fr/oj/r ojo fpv /ren/>v)fi)/ f^/o >¦)¦/ /(>¦!//t,it/fijL ^ l/se 2^7 <3/>/>'0k- /nArk- ttS'd fosiD'.
/»0rf r /(*V , y /sf/Q / Asm/
-------
J.
>?/
/
7~~ / *'
-T/>( fiff COJ fj
7J77-1-7 'te/P' ^ 2 7
73f.zJd * *p ' A8
{Say,&&Jt /:
7it>^
yr
4
to
S/o
137>
£960
K&
Jf<£^
£&o.(>-H+1.7Q =
/} c-
3/f >
70 33/
(.ZZ/lQ
p
• OOOfti'7-6000 HQ /?V(
X^/p Mt /frit /c 3 L '£.*>
(zmc)(¦%£]* am x
/OOO /
^)//£'C J r ** f/i/ aoMs A /* ,/&- srp
S / / * ~ * / J /
CJ'/*y>a/*// ?&c&£) ror -faJ<*i-i¦>*>->r ?ej£t
» ' j •#*
/V*w £ Jt66 *- ?/e>&a
*
s/
6>l/006 (e>j/ ^/e / '
if I 'TabU %-t £pA 4ia /(i'lS-OOi.
if-2 Ma* Jiovf &n/
*5 M/^oftSaU Prut, /it/fix
f if Af-f- (-1 feyutr'S Art «f7d,<£b*e*{ SCOO^* e/fftj**/- fat* p t»y
^ S //*/ £"// a t £/c /Jf/7
/ C £/,C r*A)
-------
6.
fly??*'# X? y /Cr? and ZajX o/^ /¦^iO
/. /*/. '*y>/>>*p '< 57 73/. /¦
l/&ri 6 /j/(
Slot-tin. i l>OOllQ
3rfc
17 2-/
/ 2^
Z3/
«/^7to
//// JT/3 AjjI ^~/7lJF/
/H-caur/ £04 A
*
£oyttf /*>*• SfP 5ac-i/fj (£ 3e>c>o — /Sooo
a/o Sajpjvfi/ /art7 O'jrumf'"/'
m f/ eoi/ tOof ,£r a / {/"
-------
$, s\ -ess a tJL. Lt
V
I
- (Loo o o o ^ ^
lC«. I
\
)0 $ IW1
/ I
\^S{_ A 00
l/rtJTOW.
Oo 6 1 U» ^ — Z-OCJ
«i c?o la_ ¦=• Mr <5 (l. 1-0 cv?) €m,iL~
I oo ' -i-a~f~o-.{ Oss-col. .~ l> ac^j
uj \L (rk*- "Zrov- C- <= -£- i oo
Loco. f>ofj CtSfuwcf ~fo 6c /}roat( /fist) ^oost
ylPdv^ -fo k? 7^ry
(^O^iiol Cm~f
^. Aecci ioc L s A A = U3H Q'fc
2 . i-* (fofM.i Auvjoui ) AlS - \ (. ^ fo i ~l Q
.61.
. Loq
Cjoo IA^
Ow ]
*1
*'
>(• Go^^o (U
•. 1 u. (j ¦
*« -A \bb<0\ tQ
t v-
1
(8 4*7
h( @jQff *- ^4,7^°
/ofo( Cofrrtof &>*{ • iffl* 74-0 X * <• 2. - &&D5ZO
*( \(o GPir o [<\_7S"-oo s -~3> qoL^ COS \ \At CufCl ^\v>»vt£j
* ^ (2&vvlvej( (^-Crfrj £d(, ( COu(yo(i ( (3 C f tM i't* . «¦ f<- bO* (sL^O^ {¦ * 4r°C>&
¦**o &¦((¦ I -(tp "^tJptrC ( W £> l(v*fi0i^ ^ n.fi'fej C ' " < Lj,e(f)
^e»"Jo ^«( VTP)
-------
°z pi/obo^ ^ a I n I* a a l> t (t_ fo^ ?4 «a-a f<. b
/• ujorlcj'-^^ ¦=-
•Afr - 75?. I f 3^ 0 -
Z.
I n /V¦'.
tc
y >V/2111
¦V /
3. L. 0 4 0 0 'S~
4~- £ffl
IclO
2>to
~t>M(-( = ^Z-o
ZasrtoUh- £ot Is
SGO-6+ ~L±l-7 Q = 4 6C
CP
.OOOff-T-f-OOSO Z-1Q~
¦'oooSi £ -+ -ooooz •>»^LP cL Of Co sf - hirto ' ~ -
iJortoh4 0^/ &\t - IC^Zox
£3 6S0
LOO __
I ZO
- /7zfo
(Lo H 6,(1 do'j~
~J\t'/L'}'rcL ^-Orjoo it O* f-f &)*(% 40 1 So
K d( :4*v S r/7 //£?/: *"°r (2 v500<3
a/o/ £7,f,6/t /£is /4 > tZ
//a
*3 3 OoO
*' %r\o*L 't> 410 11-15-00$ (^lioohjy K y
* 1 ^oujSir r >^-o Lp V ^(1 Y !>/ l(H5"x .0+ X & kboo
MuS tMoj-UVlfl 0^ •'• (.Ca^. * looo
-------
'/* ^r>?tss?? P/Zj>
/ocaAiTy 3f^acss) / A) p/h *) e^g/ $re>oA. rtrar Iosj /¦ ^nec/j
J?/e/jC / tC
(p- /. f ly^J td/ /ood/yj Zo" /cuL. - »/"
-A £P4 LZf/ -77- OOP /TOAk.- f/<>
0j?pt>i
y /v//^r #o>ie %¦ /t/' a. t-ffs ' *• *4sra^ * So ac^s
C/JqrtPj ui/ /able. 10 EPA 4-^0 J9- 75~Ct(> )
(?&/>//&/ &>i/ C7* om 4 isrt /Z £j°A /io/
' r r/ft
f*j/ (Tv-Of 7 rf'jose /z £~PA /i - 74f/ooi,j*C > /UbXSL? x jj~- * f 2 $6 o
"^artcf £oj / C. 2000 /a Cf*^)
(f>01 f "" O Y ZOOO- /iOCOO )
(_*•/ /J rtSJve>?'f( /antC u)0o/r/ e /*Jf U)i>s/7vr/>/?//. c^)
/r/> >ij /r>> J J' o fp *j*u)ey~ /^o/y>s£
/rl^/baA^'p jbci/tttf " trr*'U> <**>/i*ft?/ soj/ cs/i/'
vJ
so* sCj . a,/or, p '/Zyrtt Xoadj /$eee.A zfii/fc f£o*t€
Qticf ^Ofj/ c£ /£oocC A> S/& {/fiyrr**, S^oco
*-/
^ . / ¦*[ V
"^4/ /^oco 'x 6>//£ y/ S - ///0 0&6
' 7^-j^7 ftj/$ /?'fS'y>/t>f/ ,*4 &./J/ /Q77 A//**" A £/% ~ S*j/ 41
Ji»ii//af f6SA sue urvf*C 4/0*1^ "%/af£.
//'f /)//. yf " -¥¦ Z ron 4«r //<• + A..
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
(. ^ ENGINEERING
I PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BAILEW ASSOCIATES
REPORT TO
THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION
PRELIMINARY COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
SCARBOROUGH SEWERAGE PROGRAM
January 25, 1978
HUNTER-BALLEW ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS
PORTLAND, MAINE
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES • 94 AUBURN STREET • PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 • 207/797-3420
The Coastal Environment Association
c/o Mr. Daniel E. Boxer, Esq.
Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen,
Smith, and Lancaster
One Monument Square
Portland, Maine 04101
Subject: Scarborough Sewerage Program
Gentlemen:
As a follow up to our December 7, 1977 report, Overview, Scarborough
Sewerage Program, we have conducted a preliminary cost effectiveness
analysis of alternative system configurations for the Scarborough, Maine
sewerage program. The systems considered were Alternative "A", Prouts
Neck plant and outfall, Alternative "G", treatment plant at Oak Hill with
Fore River discharge, and three configurations utilizing land disposal
for all, or a portion of, the flow generated in the town. It should be
recognized that all analyses to date have been based on general published
data on soil conditions and do not have the benefit of on-site studies.
Such detailed studies will be necessary before any final decisions are
made on system selection.
The following report presents the results of the preliminary cost
analysis, and describes the criteria on which the cost projections were
based. It should be recognized that, at this stage of the planning process,
cost estimates and projections are limited in their accuracy due to lack
of specific field data and design work. In this situation, a good deal
of judgment decision making must be exercised by the person preparing the
analysis. Differing opinions on the complexities and costs of certain
project elements are bound to exist. To minimize questions which may arise
concerning the procedures and data base on which the cost analyses of this
report were prepared, we have attached a full set of computations conducted
by this office as an appendix to this report. These computations will
allow the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency to fully analyse
our procedures, data assumptions, etc., and upon doing so, can apply their
own judgment factors as necessary to assure an equitable system comparison
to the extent possible with the current data base.
January 25, 1978
Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Analysis
-------
I ^ ENGINEERING
'T")] I PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER • BALLEW ASSOCIATES
The Coastal Environment Association
January 25, 1978
Page 2
We would be pleased to meet with you, membfers of your organization,
or E.P.A. staff members as may be appropriate to review the cost effect-
iveness analysis.
Very Truly Yours,
HUNTER-BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Robert E. Hunter
President
REH:hsc
Encl.
-------
c—r\
.©0
HUNTER
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
BALLEW ASSOCIATES
REPORT
-------
I .X ENGINEERING
I PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 3
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES A
GRAVITY SEWER CAPITAL COSTS 4
FORCE MAIN CAPITAL COSTS 4
PUMPING STATION CAPITAL COSTS 5
AERATED POND TREATMENT CAPITAL COSTS 5
LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS 5
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT CAPITAL COSTS 6
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 6
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS EVALUATED 6
ALTERNATE "A" 7
ALTERNATE ^G" 7
LAND DISPOSAL ALT. 1. 7
LAND DISPOSAL ALT. 2 ...... 8
LAND DISPOSAL ALT. 2A 8
COMPARATIVE COST PROJECTIONS 8
CAPITAL COSTS 9
OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS 9
COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC EVALUATION 9
-------
mJ
\ ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
The findings of this preliminary cost effectiveness analysis comparing
two tidal discharge alternatives and three land disposal alternatives can
be summarized as follows:
1. The five alternatives subjected to the comparative cost evaluations
were:
- Alternative "A" - Prouts Neck Plant - Ocean Outfall.
- Alternative "G" - Oak Hill Plant - Fore River Outfall.
- Land Disposal Alt. 1 - All Flow to Land Disposal
- Land Disposal Alt. 2 - Higgins Beach & Prouts Neck with
individual plants - Remaining flow to Land Disposal,
- Land Disposal Alt. 2A - Higgins Beach, Prouts Neck and
Oak Hill with individual plants - Remaining flow to
Land Disposal.
2. The cost projections have been based in part on unit cost data presented
in EPA 430/9-75-003, in part on costs carried in the Environmental Impact
Statement, and in part on costs for similar facilities in the Greater
Portland area.
3. A range of costs has been developed for the rapid infiltration land dis-
posal system for loadings ranging from 12 to 20 inches per week. Costs
with and without underdrains for groundwater control have also been
developed.
4. The estimated capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and the
average annual cost per user unit for the land disposal alternatives are
lower than either of the tidal discharge systems, ranging from 12% to
16% depending on site conditions.
5. The estimated capital and operating and maintenance costs for land dis-
posal Alternatives 2 and 2A are less than Alternative 1. However, with
the lower number of units served, the annual cost per unit for Alterna-
tives 2 and 2A are not as favorable as land disposal Alternative 1.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the preliminary cost effective-
ness analysis.
1. Based on the limited preliminary design data available at this time,
land disposal utilizing rapid infiltration techniques appear to offer
potential savings over treatment and tidal water discharge.
-1-
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
2. While the viability of land disposal techniques will depend greatly
on site suitability, the preliminary cost data contained herein
suggests that reasonable sums could be expended to develop a less
than ideal site while still being competitive with tidal water
discharge.
3. The preliminary cost effectiveness evaluation based on assumed site
conditions would appear to fully warrant more detailed on-site
geophysical investigations to confirm site suitability, and to
refine design criteria.
-2-
-------
I ¦ „ ^ ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
INTRODUCTION
On December 7, 1977, Hunter-Ballew Associates issued a report to the
Coastal Environment Association entitled, Overview, Scarborough Sewerage
Program. This report reviewed the current status of the Scarborough Sewerage
program as presented in the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
Impact Statement dated April 13, 1977, and made a preliminary technical eval-
uation of the possibility of adopting land disposal techniques for all, or a
portion of, the waste water generated within the town. The preliminary tech-
nical evaluation of land disposal, which was conducted without the benefit of
on-site geophysical studies,, suggested that land disposal through rapid
infiltration techniques may be a viable alternative to tide water discharge,
providing soil conditions proved reasonable. Time and funding limitations
did not permit any economic comparisons as part of the December report.
Upon review by the Environmental Protection Agency staff, the Administrator
of Region I determined that the current emphasis on land disposal as national
policy dictated that the potential of such techniques be more fully explored
prior to making a final system selection in Scarborough.
At the December 22, 1977 meeting of the Scarborough Sanitary District,
Mr. Hopcroft of the Environmental Protection Agency outlined the following
program to the District to resolve the question of land disposal application.
Step 1 - A preliminary cost effectiveness analysis should be undertaken
on alternative systems, including land disposal via rapid
infiltration techniques in the areas suggested in the December
7th report.
Step 2 - If the preliminary cost evaluation of Step 1 above indicated
that land disposal was economically competitive with tide water
discharge, a preliminary on-site geophysical study would be
made to further evaluate the suitability of various sites for
use of land disposal techniques.
Step 3 - If the preliminary on-site geophysical studies indicate the
sites do, in fact, have reasonable potential for land disposal,
a detailed geophysical and hydrologic study would be made to
fully confirm the suitability of sites, and to establish
detailed design criteria.
It was suggested at the December 22nd meeting that the District, through
its engineers, conduct the preliminary cost effectiveness analysis of Step 1
above. Recognizing that such cost evaluations at this stage of the planning
process, with limited firm survey or design data, required many judgment
decisions be made, it was suggested by E.P.A. that its staff and the Coastal
Environment Association conduct similar independent evaluations. In this
manner, an array of cost data representing the best thoughts and viewpoints
of various interested parties could be made available to the Administrator
-3-
-------
m
HUNTER
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
BALLEW ASSOCIATES
for review and evaluation. Upon review of this cost data, the Administrator
would determine if Step 2 above should be implemented.
On January 4, 1978, the Coastal Environment Association authorized
Hunter-Ballew Associates to undertake a preliminary cost effectiveness
analysis on various land disposal options in comparison with currently pro-
posed tidal water discharges. The data presented in this report is the result
of this study and cost evaluation.
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
At the present stage of system planning, no field survey, soils, or
detailed design data is available to serve as the basis for cost estimates.
Thus, the preliminary cost effectiveness analysis must be based on somewhat
general cost data compiled by various agencies for similar work, and upon
the ability of the engineer to reasonably relate such general cost data to
the specific problem being evaluated. With such procedures, differing judg-
ments will be made concerning the complexities and costs of each system config-
uration being studied. However, it should be possible to arrive at a reasonably
sound comparative cost evaluation by utilizing such procedures.
One of the best tabulations of typical capital and operating and maintenance
unit costs of various system components is contained in the E.P.A. publication
EPA-430/9-75-003, Costs of Waste Water Treatment by Land Application, published
in June 1976. This publication was used as the basis for many of the unit costs
adopted for this report. In each case, however, the impact of expected local
conditions on each unit cost was evaluated with costs adjusted as appropriate.
Costs in EPA 430/9-75-003 are of February 1973. Thus, the costs of this
report have been updated to January 1978 by assigning an Engineering News Record
Index of 1850 to February 1973 costs and an index of 2671 to current costs.
Procedures for establishing unit estimating costs for various system com-
ponents are summarized in the following paragraphs.
GRAVITY SEWER CAPITAL COSTS
Figure 18, of EPA 430/9-75-003 was utilized as the basic estimating guide
for gravity sewers. A matrix was established for the various factors which
would influence variations from the standard curve costs. These included pipe
depth, paving repairs, rock excavation, water conditions and traffic control.
This matrix provided an estimating range of costs for pipe sizes of 8 inch to
27 inch diameter depending on the assignment of weight to the variables. The
cost range was then evaluated by the estimating engineer in light of actual
expected conditions along each section of sewer. The estimating matrix is
shown on Sheet 2 of the computations appended to this report.
FORCE MAIN CAPITAL COSTS
Procedures for estimating the range of costs for force mains were similar
to that for gravity sewers, except that all pipe cover was assumed at 5 feet.
-4-
-------
I . ENGINEERING
.. | PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
The force main cost matrix for various pipe sizes is shown on Sheet 4 of the
computations attached to this report.
PUMPING STATION CAPITAL COST
Figure 21 of the EPA 430/9-75-003 was utilized to establish pumping
station capital costs. For each station basic cost adjustments were made
for soil conditions expected, i.e., ledge or water problems, and for standby
power requirements. It was anticipated that standby power would be required
at each station.
AERATED POND TREATMENT - CAPITAL COSTS
Figure 16 of EPA 430/9-75-003 was utilized for the basic costs of aerated
pond pretreatment systems. The EPA curves provide a 7 day detention time which
should achieve a BOD5 removal of from 70% to 75%. Such levels of treatment
should be adequate for land disposal.
For aerated pond options requiring 85% to 90% BOD5 removal, the actual
design flows were multiplied by 2.57 to represent 18 days detention for use
with the standard cost curves.
Effluent chlorination was assumed necessary in all land disposal systems,
although such a requirement could be questioned for rapid infiltration. Figure
17 of EPA 430/9-75-003 was utilized for basic chlorination costs.
The basic curve costs of the aerated ponds and chlorination systems were
adjusted to reflect anticipated site conditions. In all cases, an impervious
pond lining was assumed necessary. Where the pond effluent was to enter a
long transmission main, it was assumed that a separate chlorine contract tank
was not required. Equalization within the pond freeboard was assumed to ease
effluent pumping problems.
It was also assumed that the District's main control building, laboratory,
etc. would be established at the Oak Hill plant rather than at each pond site.
However, an allowance was made at each pond site for a maintenance and storage
building. An amount of 14% of basic costs was added for yardwork as suggested
on page 120 of EPA 430/9-75-003.
LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM - CAPITAL COSTS
EPA publication 430/9-75-003 relates the costs of land disposal system
components to either total daily flow or to application field area. The area
requirements were determined for various flow levels utilizing Figure No. 3 of
EPA 430/9-75-003.
It was assumed that year round use of rapid infiltration systems would be
possible in Scarborough. Areas were computed for loading rates ranging from
12 to 20 inches per week. The actual rate must be determined by geophysical
studies. However, the range of 12 to 20 inches per week should be reasonable
for preliminary evaluations.
-5-
-------
m
HUNTER
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
BALLEW ASSOCIATES
Capital costs for the land disposal systems were computed utilizing Figures
23, 32, 34, 39, 40, and 41 of EPA 430/9-75-003. Figure No. 34 covers costs of
underdrains for collection of renovated water, or to control naturally adverse
groundwater conditions. Such facilities may or may not actually be required
depending upon groundwater conditions found at the application sites. A cost
array of rapid infiltration systems was established considering no underdrains,
underdrains at 400 foot spacing, and at 100 foot spacing.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANTS - CAPITAL COSTS
Non land disposal options will require construction of standard activated
sludge plants at either Oak Hill or at Prouts Neck. The capital costs for such
facilities were determined from review and updating of costs carried in the
final EIS statement, earlier report data compiled by the District, and bid costs
of the Westbrook, Maine plant now under construction by the Portland Water
District. From such varied data sources, it was possible to establish a realistic
cost for the Oak Hill and Prouts Neck plants.
Expansion of the existing Oak Hill plant to achieve 70% BOD removal for
various design flows was more difficult to estimate as comparative data is not
readily available. One approach was to utilize the EPA cost curves assuming a
basic new aerated pond system with chlorination, then adding estimated costs of
laboratory facilities, office space, and influent pumping. If modification to
the existing plant were found less costly than a new pond system, such modifi-
cations would be accomplished. If modification were more costly, a new pond
system could be installed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Operating and maintenance costs for all system elements except for activated
sludge treatment were estimated utilizing the cost curves of EPA 430/9-75-003.
Again, all curve data was updated to January 1978 by application of ENR indexes.
While not strictly applicable to operation and maintenance costs, the use of
such an index should be compatible with the accuracy limitations of a preliminary
evaluation of this nature.
Operating and maintenance costs for the activated sludge treatment plants
were determined through updating of EIS data plus comparison with recent detailed
estimates of the South Portland, Maine treatment plant. Good correlation between
the two approaches was found.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SYSTEMS EVALUATED
Five separate system configurations were considered in the current cost
effectiveness evaluations. To allow a realistic comparison of the alternatives
it becomes necessary to consider all major system components including all
pumping stations, interceptor sewers, force mains, treatment plants, and outfalls
or disposal systems. As sizing, location, etc. of various internal transport
system components will vary depending on disposal methods, any analysis which
ignors such internal system components will not be reflective of true conditions.
-6-
-------
ENGINEERING
I PLANNING
J SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
In all configurations, however, collector sewer systems will be similar and
the costs of such facilities are not included in the comparative cost analyses.
The systems studied are described and illustrated in the following paragraphs.
ALTERNATE "A"
Alternate "A" is the designation carried in the EIS statement for the
system utilizing an activated sludge treatment plant in the vicinity of Prouts
Neck with an ocean outfall extending some 600 feet off the Neck. Design flow
at the plant would be 1.8 mgd. The flow from all sections of town to be
sewered would be carried to Prouts Neck via a transport system of pumping
stations, force mains and interceptor sewers.
A schematic system diagram is shown on Figure No. 1.
ALTERNATE "G"
Alternate "G" is the designation carried in the EIS statement for the system
utilizing an activated sludge treatment plant at Oak Hill with an outfall through
South Portland to the Fore River. Design flow would be 1.8 mgd. Again, all flow
would be transported to Oak Hill via a system of pumping stations, force mains,
and gravity sewers.
A schematic system diagram of Alternate "G" is shown on Figure No. 2.
LAND DISPOSAL ALTERNATE 1
Land Disposal System 1 would serve all areas considered for Alternatives
"A" and "G". The flow generated north of the Scarborough River estuary would
be concentrated at Oak Hill for treatment. All flows generated south of the
estuary would be concentrated at Dunstan for treatment.
The Oak Hill plant would be modified to provide treatment to a level of
70% BOD5 removal for a flow of 1.3 to 1.4 mgd. Equalization of flow would
most likely be a component of plant modification which would ease effluent
pumping problems. The treated effluent would be pumped to the Dunstan area
in a force main located in the old railroad location.
The flow from the area south of the estuary would be treated in an aerated
pond system located in the vicinity of Dunstan. The pond would be sized for
achieving 70% to 75% BOD5 removal. Equalization would be provided in pond
freeboard to ease effluent pumping problems.
The treated flow from Oak Hill and Dunstan would be pumped to the land
disposal sites west of the turnpike in the vicinity of the Nonesuch River.
About 23,000 linear feet of transmission main would be required to transfer
the flow to the disposal site or sites.
The effluent would be disposed of via rapid infiltration basins installed
in the granular soil deposits. Underdrains for groundwater control may or may not
be required depending on conditions actually found.
-7-
-------
WIGGINS
R5.i
ZSO G.pt-1
Ei
r
--0"
W XG&JNS
RS. 1
SO G»P«-*
«9
9
&
i
£
if
*
6*35 G.P.M
e'ir E _Q_C_&'^ a.
©UUE PT. P. fli Pljte F
GOO &PW
pwe *»r «?v t
iSocpm
ufT
wrr-t
Dun vtam
p. %. &
VOO&PM
SCVteMACTtC %VST£H D\ AGR&M
^UXfeRK/NTlVe. "A"
NO
pig wo i
-------
OuTFVNUL. TO TCAVlitS.
t-
jl
*1
,1
L
CO
o
OutT/M_l. p.
?.Soo
Hl&G»>4S
^5 ^ftPM
rl
"I
J2
9"
I
r[
1£'
y
i
i
i
V
*»
*1
£J
r~-0
UVGGIMS
R«». i
I So &PH
EfKP.S
&Soa<;pM
S'Tm ^
Q.
»Z*
¦iTEWQ^
8" V
V OINWHIU.
T.P.
^•9MC.P
\
\
\
A
. S
boogpm
v\rs*3V \
KW&TSV.S. .
¦^•30 6PM ¦ \ (J
<>.
\
sO^
.5 NECK
isstcipm
\
\
oonvdvh
v.s, t
naoc
\
*i
O TX>tfCT*vw
ToS oVm
INT
C*JMJ)TAH
83S CPM
eH f:**.
<^11111 *•*
OUJ&PT
W 6
&00 6TM
¦ <-y Q" ^
PlNtJPT.
P.S. 2_
34o&S»h|
Pl»4fcFT
ttS i
SCHEMATIC S^fST&M OvAOrej\M
/\uren;K» ati ve "g"
ho
F*VG NO Z
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
The disposal areas would be fenced with appropriate service roads installed.
A maintenance building would be provided at the disposal site.
A schematic system diagram of Land Disposal Alternate 1 is shown on
Figure No. 3.
LAND DISPOSAL ALTERNATE 2
Land Disposal Alternate 2 is identical with Alternate 1 except that the
Higgins Beach area and the Prouts Neck area would be served by smaller aerated
pond systems with ocean outfalls rather than being transferred to Oak Hill.
The small aerated ponds at Higgins Beach and Prouts Neck would be designed
to achieve 85% to 90% BOD removal. Freeboard would be provided in the ponds to
allow controlled discharge of disinfected effluent on appropriate tide cycles.
Land Disposal Alternate 2 would not provide sewer service to the Black
Point area or the Pleasant Hill area. These areas would rely on individual or
group subsurface disposal systems. It is noted, however, that Pleasant Hill
could be served if desired through the existing interceptor serving the Pleasant
Hill Road.
Under Alternate 2, flow to the land disposal site would be about 1.3 to 1.4
mgd. A schematic system diagram illustrating Land Disposal Alternate 2 is shown
on Figure No. 4.
LAND DISPOSAL ALTERNATE 2A
Land Disposal Alternate 2A is identical with Alternate 2 except that the
flow concentrated at Oak Hill would be treated to 90% BOD removal and discharged
to the Nonesuch River through the existing outfall. The flow from the area
south of the estuary would utilize the land disposal system.
Use of Alternate 2A over the long terra would be dependent upon detailed river
water quality monitoring confirming that undue adverse impacts did not exist.
Provision would have to be made tp, allow future transfer of the Oak Hill flow to
the land disposal site. Land would be purchased at the land disposal site to
accomodate the total flow in the future. Figure No. 4 is illustrative of Alter-
nate 2A as well as Alternate 2, except for the piping between Oak Hill and Dunstan.
COMPARATIVE COST PROJECTIONS
Based on the cost estimating procedures described in prior sections of this
report, each of the five alternative systems were subjected to a comparative
cost evaluation. This evaluation included consideration of capital costs, oper-
ating and maintenance costs, and salvage values where appropriate. The full set
of computations developed in this analysis is appended to this report. The
reader is referred thereto for backup of the summary costs presented in this
section.
-8-
-------
HiGfciHS
RS.2.
t SO OpM
r
b:
*
\6
9
I
I
g
5)
p. a i
| Q 'SOC.PM
< Q" Y
O^H»W-T.P
t-ioD»nc4
t.i- **" a- (^ tfS' V
0/^ Vr v
- LIQ^j WtVcft „
p.S.-VSocpi-i \
N0K£tt"JcH
r.\vfcv*. p.s,
600&Pt-\
W
J
S
£o
I?
V
-v err. p. c.
\ {CCOC*f1
\
\
t X
V
\C*
\A
¦*
b
PI30UT5 N6*T?$
VCS C.PM
MAIN
I
1
I
OyuiWMRi? V pujsiTAn P. ft
\
-JO
DyKiiTAw T?A|
^joosprt
I2.V.06PT
P. ?>.
GOOCPM
PMNtPT
P.J2
3^ oGrPM
<0
"TT?Awirer*.
\"300
-------
UlG&tMS _
0.09a nap
a"
Q „
" CSCV.6 CONTPM*-
*!
6
H»«mns
FtS 2.4oC>pt-t
*!
55
•r°*
I*
UP
OAv\•
PrtawTS NtSOC
/^ere^reo pats©
t>U»»sTAM
P. & N» £
2oo /""N
Hmm Ojr
t". 1» I - tOOCpM I J
CK'-je^L
• (>V_J
rau»e pr
p.%.
6006pm
-O^
PT
tSQGl
^5
Atrcft-re^ Ptoi^p ,-p, p
O.4 M&p,
<70 ^ B.oo uewovAc
Trt^KvsFfera
T"'S. luouftPH
Schematic system o\*e*eAM
/sure«K»vvw6^ U..0S-L02A
I
no ^
-------
.®u
HUNTER
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
BALLEW ASSOCIATES
CAPITAL COSTS
The construction of each component of the alternative systems has been
estimated for comparative purposes. The estimated construction costs of
various system components for each alternative is presented on the schematic
system diagrams of Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Total construction costs for alternative systems is summarized as follows:
Alternate "A"
Alternate "G"
Land Disposal Alt. 1.
Land Disposal Alt. 2.
Land Disposal Alt. 2A
$8,301,000
$8,658,500
$6,881,800 to $7,154,900
$5,786,600 to $6,082,100
$5,743,300 to $5,832,300
The range of costs shown for the land disposal alternatives represents the
range to be expected depending on loading rates, and the necessity to provide
underdrains for groundwater control or renovated water collection. It should
also be noted that land disposal Alternatives 2 and 2A do not provide a service
area equal to the other alternatives, and thus should not be compared directly
with the other alternatives.
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operating and maintenance costs for each alternative system was also
estimated based on procedures previously described. The estimated operating
and maintenance costs for various system components for each alternative is
illustrated on Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12.
The total operating and maintenance costs for each alternative is summarized
as follows:
Alternate "A" $207,900/yr.
Alternate "G" $206,200/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 1 $184,300/yr. to $196,700/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 2 $178,400/yr. to $189,000/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 2A $179,100/yr. to $184,800/yr.
Again, the range of costs shown for the land disposal alternatives relate
to loading rates and the necessity of underdrains.
COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC EVALUATION
A meaningful economic evaluation of various alternatives must consider
ancillary project costs, such as engineering and technical services, con-
struction contingencies, and interest during construction, as well as basic
construction and operating and maintenance costs. For this preliminary eval-
uation, an amount equal to 25% of basic construction cost has been allowed for
engineering and contingencies. Interest during construction has assumed
temporary financing at 4% interest and a two year construction period, although
it is recognized that governmental grants-in-aid may vary this amount.
-9-
-------
UtOOlNS
RS.£
2. SO OPM
* 148,000
£
tL I
"O
W\&&IN5J
PtS. 1
150 C.pt-1
I 8oo'Q30/Ur
4 S^.OOO
• Bcolf^o/lf
**70,000
1*35,00 0
£x»&T(N&. oAte.Htu».T.¥T
d»scont»nvj&
*Z9&,oaa
p/NVCH\\»\.^S
2.3QOC.PM
~
Y Sioo l-F© St/uF
R * ZSlo,4oO
\
\
w
%>\ ? o
» ' w o
«*
g**
U-
0
1
u
o
|±K5-
19« vp® gUW
\C7.aoo
6ao •Soo'-T
=*V6o,ooo
ttPT.H®.
Z-SOO
1 7.U3,COO
pM \
Ow,tO
D
^ioour®4s/tr
¦ e»,ooe
t10 "«T lBg.
«4«.ffoo
G'1 F.M
"..tSooo e **5)j &oo ,,-tj
© w'F.M j!
*~ ^ «xv^?co'iS''
ri
6" J? tCtouF©
r.'9>
'18
6;
»
DUH ST*v«
P.S»
8*35 O-P-M
£ \ 9$, ooo
QlUK |»T. Ft*
G» &PM
41 lei.ooo
p»»Ne pt i
iSOSPi-l
"»I *t3,OQQ
' iffoouF© 3S/lF
_ * e% s"co
'© <1® « 24000
'fN£ FT
|v&
*I6&,oOO
OVNSTAM
V. %. t
lOOGPM
it its",ooo
MM V
ToTAu Ca»avr Coyrr 8,301,000
SCWtMAJTlC «oY»T£M 0\ INGRAM
^vrretfs.NfNTive, *a"
~' CONVT. COfcT t&utuoof*
NO t>Cf\V.e
F\G NO S
-------
Ul
O'JTFi'nuu-ro T3.iV£R.
2-S& zoo/i_r=*50,coo
%v
tfcot-
-? -»
5©
* rS OutVTu-L. p. •5k
LJ ZJ?oociP»-\
a
t*
" z
m N
c*»
WVG6J»4S dt.
.llS
S'Ja \pM
^ 140,000
« I
M X*
S'Su:}
of«J
^ ^'2.38^030
AerKp.s,
IJ Z-SOOCPM
9-
IS
|S
&§•?
I
lb
W*ri \-bS,ooo
t\—O '^gpm
*"-*1 I0ewur<2 3o/ur
°| * S^.ooo
eU
1 800 U=(© <\0/t_F
* n 0,000
1 ^3ooLre t., SOO, OOO •&l'72;O00
v>
Vi
&\
!
\_\©3Y \
KWe«T».&. v
<&o sm i?A &
v*V*
v«> <>v?
'^>«N
g^a\
:ck
O tow*
& i78,ooo
r-A^
i 3PV^
jfb 114,000 £"n&tan
* > N4 I
000
MMNRS,
82£ CPM
ft IS^CW
O HS>NS-T*\>o
V« \
loo qfpM
1.125,000
G>co 34a'ai>M
s ler.ooo 4/ff^cq?
C*M.e
fig no£
-------
U/\NP Dt^po5Au S>TE
P-AncC ihin, sao to
G.51,000
HiggunS
ps.z
Z SO GpM
^14 Q,OCO
Turnt. const cost;
ft G.8&1.3QO To 1,154,9<*»
M>
0/\fcM\U-T.P
t~i o D * Fl CfWl ON
I.** MtO , _
*7o% "&OC3 fi&M,
9-
I
I
<*>8
w ^
Q) o
|82
•8
r
b:
M)
Q" V
r-0
Wl&GtMS «
p-s » Si3s;ooo
150&PM
\&00 Lrft<»o/uf
A To, boo
\ 8O0cF@^o/ur
J* 70, coo
(0
/£5»« Wfiwtt' «S
4SoOLF(*^» ^
v®
9>
3
a" ygff
klSC.oi. £««§£«» s<
*XY
N\
V
OumsTA»JRS2 V
300<^t c>(. >
o
ltS» *i
iA 0" »*r,oec
I i fn Dyt-kiTAw Wat
1 S ^ -JOO&P«
nu ri -*"
jts) ¦«><
^N*/l
£>
prouts> N&a6P$
r^j \<«s &PM
v>^ ft 139,000
f • 99.eoo
ma^n
JpO fssTA^i p&
05S"CpH .,
ft*
lO"
«*ZoocF(£4S/<-P
A 189/>co
4au>cre.*d xSg^a^'ifLr
Zk-d(y+ JL^n.
©uSerr
%oo*upt~\
6 y&£,oQQ &l5B,ooo
PliSfcVC. RSI
,SO^P*«4ft»0
«.vQ
ZSbovr* *S'uF
. . *V?.£oc>
@4es. la,eoc
liH&YT
42
loWM
7". 5. V
fr *29,000
^CntArngp 1*0*0 T.F.
O*
-------
* 2.05,000
UtGG,IHS
AEKATO1 PonD
o.oga noo
P"
&"
disposal g^rfe-
Av*t Z " ^3za,IOO To*QZ3/&cc
t\ UT -Z.A- Rfsra&t r $ ZoS^Qcoro Z34,QCX>
Total cc**«,t coiT
Alt Z. - rt/\tuGe * S^s^soo T& o,o&z, toe
,A(_t M *u/nmci= fc 5,nA$tlou T& S, en^ioo
Alt z. = S So&,ooo
Alt *A= A IiSOOjOOo
"8
©}3»-
h*9V5
i=6
OlTTFJM-U - TtDS.
CScut COMT"^C-
»8o»»-F<@ "»5/«-F= 01,ooe>
+ fcaOLFg. 150/lFs So,oOO
H KS&INS
V=!S E.4o&fVi
•ki <16,000
ow tJOr*G.J»JtH "R,
5
EFF. p.s
£\Lf z.
* I 9S",oao
\*>
X?
*v*v
- v»
9,.
&
P ROUTS N£tV«.
¥?«. ICSGP^
a.»30,ooy
S'r
?!
$
»-o
-tL
£o
UP
t\\V
V\'
" V
tt!3S"ioao \
CWS >TAN ^
Os^Q
* I
OV^PAW. -T\Ofi
Preflyt^ h4£Cl<^ CVCUS CO»NTT4QU 4
AfcCWTBD ZjOOo ur® IS' ^O, OOO
t Z.03,000 + Sao \JTQ \S0ijr- IS.ooo
P. & N.Z
¦Joy
a
i QjS^'iaoco
I u y Ouk*>tjw
~ 1^0 T"! t> looepM
5 ' 9 **
lFfcn
**.S. tboocpit
SZZOiOOO
Nio «>C.PvU.£
M/Mr4 Du^Tism
P. % 8?SG&e\ 4Q&'<3.4t>
**
¦+¦ ; .
rauie pt
'Soo l.F<® 33 fur
ft^S.saw
r*' ET
PVM6. t*T R SI
ISO&PM
^jQH48,«)£>
^ ZSO° soc
¦^Uao'ia 45/lP" *N-^r5oo,@4o s Zo,oae>
\ir
4 l8Sto»
, - II h
¦" «cf
P-S.
600&PI1
it I02-,OOO
VlNS. T»T
3«W> <5p,fv«
K I S9,000
^ looos?
fc 3d
/^CJi/VTEO Ftotvo T,P
£>'4 HCP
Boo R£mc?vai_
ft 257, OCO
SCW£H«T»C. 5YSTE>» P\P«OBAH
/skurexzKAcTiVfc& U0 2-ldza
C&h4ST: Co&T Quiwpup
r\a no 0
-------
W VGG.INS
RS. 1
ISO &PH
I loo/sn-
yt&e»iN5
RS. 2.
25"0 C.PM
<6 I 2.£>o/v(n.
£xt&TtNG» oAfc»nu,T.Tr
dvscomTvnvjS.
" T700/Mrt
2.100GPM
39o/S»l.
9"
2.
\
V
ScyyrL
15 doco/nn.
INF es.
ZSOoGfM
4ou/wn-
PROOTS NECK
T.p. |.BHCP
t tC.Z.,000
_ ..Kfc.
Z.SOO &p*-»
•H^oooAfjt
PM \
Og~kS
No/WiuS^
.to' t*T
^ No/Wo.
* i £
i3
«C$»
6.
M POM p.2»
8 •35 G P^M
Slt.ScoAja
\86AfO.
quue *»r, r*
&oo o>pm
UZ.,tOOA{(l
•-O^*
WJ
l£F
^Vt-»
*\fcOO/HP
PlNt FT «?* I
ISOGPM
*JU w™.
7M«-
PT
Dunvtam
p. <~. &
(OObPM
lleo/mt.
NO bOM-€.
"TbTAu O&IM CoiTi = ZCJ.SOO
Cnowt«D£o)
fcOteMACTlC Warr&H DVAOrSPsM
ANrvfe^NPCriVEL "A"
OiM co4~r r3o\*-ouF3
F\G NO 9
-------
y, OuTFi^nvJ- TO FiDlXG.
*
f?
to
«•
Lh
CO1
a
£
\
so
l*>
cn
OuTTAU- P. "U.
"zsoo c>f»i~\
fc (O^OOO/'Sf^
Wl&GlMS
« \zoo/sa. V 4 \ 5C»Afre.
rl *i
*1:*
9"
i
j
&£
y k
u
r
HVGGIMS
I O
£« d S \ I GO/MR.
•U,$
r
- >•
h
?
~
en^p.e,
aswcpM
lOOOO
e"Fti rx-
r «¦» «m M
\zcu/sn-
DU*«>TI\M
V.& z
3ooce
| OAVstMU.
T.P.
U.0M6O
' IC^oooV Z-OOo'Nr.
\
N*
\
^.gatt-y.?:,-,,1'
a 94/^^ !0S/>
<
r-
to
-4
94/W
v.v*aaY
KweTzv.s.
*\~bO GfM
noo/wn
\
xo
\
"fes-'-A
Sr^«»AffcV'
Jm"1
h>
IO" INT.
394 /Ha
CWNSTT5H
MKifHRS.
035 CPm
•2-50O/WR.
Q" Gl' FM. ~S JB" /
PROkJTS NECK
P-S, tS5G.pT-*
I I 60/4 R.
PlVlfc.PT
RS 1
,„D ,Z4x5/vin-
©ujfcvr
T*. s>
C.co Csj*r-i
Z.IOO/SR.
giKtpr.
If.s. z
3*0 GPM
I tOO/^tl
0
VUW>T*\ ts)
T*'®« \ „
loo aPH
1100 /yn.
SCW&Mi^TlC S^S-O&H W\Gr:*\M
»ve "o"
Totav. oIh costs =¦ ft zoo, too/^
C ttoONOec)
O^H COST 13u»LDuP
NO t,C fiSXJE.
nc NO lo
-------
ZSO C~PM
^izoo/wrz.
r
\c
s
VD
••
r~O
Wl&Gl^S
F.S I
15O0.PM
& \ ixx>Atn.
Q V
154/^rz.
Tota u oflH
rzr\»JC£ * i CH.So^ Aj/i. Tb i9&,ia>Airt
> K\CU> LAnO O*spo«ftu SITC
£'
CO
* 81,000/vin.
O^HiU-XP
MODI FK/VTtON
70^, ^00
d!
<
ro
V)
lO
I*
(0
^p> M Ma «
3
ti6/Wa"C^
V)
J
2?
ks
. err. r s.
\ (aoo&fti
\ 7,nou/na.
\ d
Vr
410U/Sft,\
Oum*TAs»P.SZ V
3O06fM *
NON£sueH
p.s.
6oOe»pr-j
2.«xYWrL
8W
ii
\
p-
a>
l9Z/wal
, GSlVfiS.
?.S. -VSOGPM
noo/vre.
4A
v$\
V
Vv PROOT& N6CKF5
r^i vr
k&S CWPM
IIOO/NR.
*Z.!>OC>/Wn.
£
r
N
T 3
IS
|*
I
rviAfw
z;
Z9. \300 OPM
ig,z.ooA
-------
Tp-r/M. q4m
^ *—T Z. = rz-Af^ide. \7&^qo To V9S.ocv/'Hft<
Au-t^A' uam<;£ I15JOO TV iB^Qoo/Sa
*MCU UAKJD ©I'jpas<\v_ &\T£
* atOoAiru
U\GC»IHS
£\£W/XTfc£> PONP
o.osa t->c.p
Q-
s
a"
too/so. ^
OuTRmJ. - TIDE.
CSC\-£ CO»»-rr«Ot-
M IGG.IMS
P S 2.40G.PH
llou/nn-
ti
Po
.-0-
t-1
UP
\
Aur Z. - 76,oo«Aia
Au-rtAs lO&/OOtf/N(X
O/NWAvut. T.P.
M0 O * F lCi>«T» ON
l.OJr *AGP
'oft rxe.M. a.ut2
rttM a cr S.A
e.x\ s-r o.r.
To HOm£WC« V.
5 err. p. s
\ * csooAirc.
A
^ 4 d
vAi
o
iAr
v\
V\
5
6
P ROUTS NGCK.
RS, ICSCCM
I loO/Mtt
£
Prio^Ti MlcClt
/wsns-^-rcO p»*o®
* 1ocx)Airt
l^OO/v^
OO^JTAH
p. 5 n. a.
3oo
ZOO/in
f. 0?STta»j
r* t>i-lootpM .. -
~^6
TPS^KvsFfept
T*.s. ioooc.f»n
t2.,oouA
-------
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
It must also be recognized that various system components have differing
service lives. Treatment plants, pumping stations, and the land disposal
facilities (except land) are assumed to have a 20 year life. Gravity inter-
ceptors and force mains are assumed to have a 40 year service life. The actual
land at the land disposal site is assumed to be fully salvageable. Salvage
values have been computed at the end of the 20 year planning period. The
present worth of the salvage value has been computed using 6-3/8% interest
over 20 years.
Average annual finance costs for the total present worth of each system
have been computed with 7% interest over 20 years.
Combining the average annual finance costs with the total operating and
maintenance costs equals the total annual revenue required to support each of
the alternative systems.
It should be noted that the total annual revenue costs of the various
alternatives cannot be compared directly, as service areas may vary. To compare
the systems it is necessary to compute the annual cost per user unit served.
An approximate estimate of the equivalent user units has been computed by
dividing the daily flow by 100 gallons per capita per day, and dividing again
by 3.25 persons per unit. The average annual cost per user unit can then be
computed. The overall economic analysis of the alternatives studied is
summarized on Table No. 1.
The estimated annual user unit costs of the alternative systems studied
are summarized as follows:
Alternate "A". $203/unit/yr.
Alternate "G" $209/unit/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 1 $169 to $177/unit/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 2 $176 to $185/unit/yr.
Land Disposal Alt. 2A $176 to $179/unit/yr.
The comparative economic evaluation indicates that of the two tidal discharge
systems, Alternate "A", outfall off Prouts Neck is slightly less costly than
discharge to the Fore River. However, based on the assumptions made for this
report, it appears that land disposal utilizing rapid infiltration techniques
have the potential for considerable cost savings over tidal discharge alterna-
tives. This is true even considering a lower loading level, and assuming that
some costs will be incurred in groundwater control.
Of .the land disposal options, the system which carries all flow to the land
disposal site appears the most cost effective. This occurs primarily because
of the lesser service areas of Alternatives 2 and 2A. Selection between Land
Disposal Alternates 1 and 2 should also consider the land use and secondary
growth impacts of each.
While the accuracy limitations of a study of this nature must be recognized,
the data generated does suggest that, if the land disposal sites are reasonably
-10-
-------
I^ ENGINEERING
I PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
suited to rapid Infiltration techniques, the land disposal systems appear
economically competitive with either of the tidal discharge systems presented
in the E.I.S.
-11-
-------
TABLE NO. 1
SUMMARY - COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
ITEM
ALTERNATE "A"
ALTERNATE "G"
LAND DISPOSAL
ALT. 1
4.
LAND DISPOSAL
ALT. 2
4.
LAND DISPOSAL
ALT. 2A
4.
CONST. COST
$ 8,301,000
$ 8,658,500
$ 6,881,800
$ 7,154,900
$ 5,786,600
$ 6,082,100
$ 5,743,300
$ 5,832,300
ENG. & C0NT. - 25Z
$ 2,075,000
$ 2,164,500
$ 1,720,500
$ 1,788.700
$ 1,446,700
$ 1.520,500
$ 1,435,800
$ 1,458,100
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$10,376,000
$10,823,000
$ 8,602,300
$ 8,943,600
$ 7,233,300
$ 7,602,600
$ 7,179,100
$ 7,290,400
APFROX. INT.
DURING CONST. 1.
$ 415,000
$ 433,000
$ 344,100
$ 357,700
$ 289,300
$ 304,100
$ 287,200
$ 291,600
PRESENT WORTH OF
SALVAGE VALUE 2.
$ - 513,000
$ - 556,000
$ - 500,000
$ - 513,100
$ - 365,600
$ - 375,800
$ - 304,700
$ - 314,900
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
$10,278,000
$10,700,000
$ 8,446,400
$ 8,788,200
$ 7,157,000
$ 7,530,900
$ 7,161,600
$ 7,267,100
AVE. ANNUAL COST
7Z - 20 YRS.
$ 914,700
$ 952,300
$ 751,800
$ 782,200
$ 637,000
$ 670,300
$ 637,400
$ 646,800
ANNUAL 0 & M
$ 207,900
$ 206,200
$ 184,300
$ 196,700
$ 178,400
$ 189,000
$ 179,100
$ 184,800
TOTAL AVERAGE
ANNUAL COST
$ 1,122,600
$ 1,158,500
$ 936,100
$ 978,900
$ 815,400
$ 859,300
$ 816,500
$ 831,600
APPROX. EQUIV.
USER UNITS 3.
5,540
5,540
5,540
4,650
4,650
APPROX. ANNUAL
COST/USER UNIT
$ 203
$ 209
$ 169
$ 177
$ 176
$ 185
$ 176
$ 179
MOTES:
1. 4Z int. - 2 yr. construction period
2. 6-3/8Z - 20 yr.
3. Equiv. User Units * flow -f 100 G/Cap/Day 4- 3.25 persons/unit
4. Land disposal options show low value = Loading 20"/wk. - no underdrains
high value » Loading 12'/wk. - underdrains @ 100' spacing
-------
1 ^ ENGINEERING
-^TN I PLANNING
SURVEYING
HUNTER - BALLEW ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX
COPY OF COMPUTATION WORKSHEETS
-------
Sc Ar*.t3 ortou&Hj pnoopyv-*
Pri£J„VM IKJ AIXH PArwVTlvE COiT AnJ A LV-""
co«MfXfrA-r«oM Wowc SMigerty
MUN-tStt'(3AuUcW ASSOOtATtSS - JAfcJUAp^/ |&7©
SWT I oF45
P^EHHIMAPV UNIT PR^ceS - QreftVlTY 5EWE.K.s
TawgeNcei
coyre Q~ V-*/N^T£W Wgff,TB£RTM£WT
<3N L. At~J P APP UcfsTi OM
Fig, 19 - 'PC* "73
in
ISO
40
l I I l 1
Iwp/wl cosrt
4
J
' 1
/
lc-«
\\
>
atmw**r-cQV€K tn nn
*
S^!,a'
~
::
j
it
10
flfl SUE. INCHES
100
tMOTe.', cotrs = F"fc.*n»
£MIX IKJDE-X e I 850
UPDATE. TO JA*J V, IS>T7 l=KJV£ lNPfc*-? -2.67/
Mvunp*W O I. <143
A^ov£ cost rgfyoc-fci amums.
1 NO L£D<£»£ .£*OW»VnOfv4
Z. MoDenATeuv VA^er $ou-S - n,o ct-o&£ SWEeiOiso,
3, PA x/IMG "iStLPAtrc. KjOT IMCUJOEP
A. e.t-J&.Ju&GfcU-'C-, # Cx3»J"THNGtl-'CIEi& NOT Ifscu^ceo
-------
C.TZ. A>>/ ITV
\»-j
^ITM I «~\p£\c/V
¦S &.W E-TgS - \ «*4~n£J^.C. E.PTO IZ.5
£^T1M'\T£. COST g>vJ\UOUF>
O F \ f\B UES SH OV-^
* A-«*Qg/\Tt Fttrrr
ul
r*
UPD
cost
CuT3
a
"in
ATEP
5 fro
s/E-5
Q
~
UNIT
t-l
a
to
F>A>
£
N/Vtsi
=MO.
' L_F,
C*
w
r
Q.
T
0
X
W A
AsOO
ft
&
P
TE.VZ.
USTV
UF
h
iil
?
CONJP
re.vrr
55
$>
ROC.
U /L
O
~ro
K* 0<£
_F
a
—i
V
\3
0.9
10
i^.is
\&.1C>
ZS.ZS
5
0
\7.
-3
+ 3
+ C.
*3
0
&
IS.15
cnxs"
It
17."52.
Z3.I0
Z.S.H
S-
9
12.
-3
-tz
+ <9
i*5
0
6
17.32.
lo.iq
72, O
H
13.48
ZS.3S
aa.sG
5". 5^
0.S13
a. jo
-3
+3
+6
13
2-4
0
'H
G
'3.46
IC
13.0
1*7.42.
¦31.0-
5.75-
8.1S
12,0 s
*+ 3
+-C
14
•2-5"
0
<
4
ZZ.O
7«.77
18
Zff.ZS"
Z0.86
34.«
C.o
9,0
i3.o
-3
+3
15
-z-c.
0
¦5-
n
7S.IS
31.IS"
3£3o
45.0
&.SO
3.£o
—3
+ 3
•» L
1*7
2-8
0
c
Q
3i.->r
34,S>
27
33^5
44.-73
S7.7Z
7
\0
\4
-3
A3
13
3 0
0
n
a
3AS5"
JIO. 72
•"»
-------
"PRg. H KA 1 K) f\rw UNIT PPUCE-S -Fpgce HMNi.
KE- F&RBNJCE.'
E.PA ^ SO /\3> - 75"-003
p&. nn F"i g. z.o
FOT^-Cg. MrfMNS
CAPITAL COST
FORCE IU INS
I EPAVIHB
H^LT\^<-Y BV 1.445 FOxs. sJAkj »( \^70 C04T5
,Cst>5Ut-vES- -=\.XS" Ft Ce Vfc^ OVfivs. pi p&
M OOt'UM'^/ W\=T £.0*-»DtTtOK~)S
N0 LfcDC£ EXC.
NO pAVUHG TZ-epA»fJ
HO £.W<3(K>£:£rilMG ^ d0fcTlt^G£t>J<:)£S
-------
SH-r ^ oF A£~
fo rz.ce, haikj s
PfZE: V_ VV-AIkj An;-^ £ST>M tNTfe COST BQll-P Qf 4/L-1kji=-AR l-pgr
"CuTtH I h\P^CT of- VAU-IACiUQii SHQVjU
(il >i)
^ M
51
u.
J
u ~-
v>"?£
©T
Nrr\c
MINOfi
eo*-n;
m\joa
coirr
if. /i
FT?tvn
TZt*JC&
-F
TU
C
14 46
0
S
s
IS jio
O
(0
W.«*
4Z,«o
0
1^.60
0
5"
a
1
11 \ lo
*
,70
II
23,15
0
5
c
*~
I 10
I
c
W.I6
5/. fo
1
1
*5,32
0
ase
i
IZ.SK 10
i
0
4
c>
*!T.£&
SU8
lc"
W.8C,
0
s.-k
S.iS
R,->$
iz
0
sr
n
60. C. J
J 10
ii
30,Jo
0
6
5
11 j «3
o
c
G
7&3o
CAp
U6^ TOTAV- COST A^iJMCS OFF ST* UKA'TiO^ ^ NjO U£D^
H I CM tOT'Au COli AS.',')''vV-";5 MA* pAUl? J6y *UiAFTtC + LS%£"
Vorz. ftppucArriOfJ ~TO SCArt^oriov<=M pnrqjiEcr
VAwe. must Be ££L&cr£0 gs sivo&C-MiL^rf ; of vArtMeus
CowDiTIOMi AlowG tEAti-i t-iAJor*. cF Plpisj
SEiU-CTfctJ VAuoiiS A^O pr*Osj &CVZV C(5.ir^ Af^-e SHOVJU
onj A-r-rAcntrP sciiksma-o c. 6V^*reM ova^i^mm-:.
-------
1:
¦v>
... 0-.
J
b-
M
U
1... _..
1
IS.HT.S'iofas i
-'U,
5 0 n4
Sgj -O.
2(3) CD
|1 ¦fi'JiS
m hi 8 0 *
COH^T-*:
&. 0
hvggiks : ::;: [
RS.l' I3S^0<3<3|
»5pgpm ; 1
m.
a-.
I <¦
i -
OUTP/-NU- ?:<».
n
.!... ; r 5.2
i •&> 140,00
*03,033
• • * t "
8
- I | s'
«0 | & £
~|r
... 1 .
om<.wiu- 1
; (mm.coT .; f2-0,000 i 'to.ooo
¦ S" P'H
TP. 4
P. 5 ; .
•es-oo cpn
COUJECTOKS-
£50 CP*
ibcp kf© :i
... -
':,s,7^.eiaQ;.i' Iz7i:'.:
; J .:...
8
- ¦; -i ¦¦
. j_:.. ; ; , 1 .. ; . .;.,
0^
'j r:. !:.r.:.r. ¦.[
.. ... r
..... «j
I (I.0MG? AVfc) 4
7S-- ZSS.QOO I
-t.'. ...
j
iil2
Yi ^$
i-l a to
W
td " - -
NOfSSSuCH
.R.1V&R p,5
;;; .StoOOPM
r* /7X,<5c»
; zioplf"^
l.WVOGPM -
taeVaac*
RIVEK P.S.
; 6PH ¦ • j ,
DDN5TAW '
P.'12, is*wa»
:&1
.... .4 .+
; ¦ i •
1 ,;•••
«ioo Lr^syuF; ^booq^o
09,000 i ttlco, 000
8"KH
to" iNt
-< .-J
4 vJ
. :oun€,tak»
'0 m*mm p.*. 83Scpm
¦ t 193 obo
DUNSTAki P* i ;
loo gph ; :' r .
£ \xff,cpo
.......,.
-i-
:r4JERDUTaiH.eci<..:-i.::L"'1
;:isekike33'/iE::
•M*>,SOO!l-
Fan-
s
t^uoe *pt .
• 'Rja • r:.V;.;
GOO OPH
. . liAfoOM ...
piwepT
pis;!:
;
/
. SOa'Q,
' AO
: cpuvectoas
P.lislC PT za.ooa
L
340GPH
!>ftl$fluOO0 :
. ... t
¦i"'
I
acn-T€x«»^a nrrvtgiGui
Tb^u'PVP
:^ySTfeH p
-------
lShxg oF.'fcr
R5 1
150 &PM
c"*';: #i-jyooo
coll.
HiOGlNS
*5. 2L I
*«ogpm
If V49,ood>
H\Gtf.U^S_.S-E?sCH <5JHEL£K^
3c»ff/^pc>: -
seje Auf -<* ««.
PeT^tu
ri
• j _
OWiHlULTPi
To C3 fc: P\SCOMT\tstu&P
: SjZocj ufg^sz/uF
4 Zto, HPU6>C
¦scREHivinc sysTen oiac»bah
/Sju-Ter^KTjve a
TpTAVFipe pasr ?. f % S*A i oo
v4A.ax)' SfcE JN-T
. ¦ Q» For; 06T
-------
SHTZ7_dHf-!
HIGGINS PSl
ISOGPMi
4 isff/oaa
I4.1GGI.H5.
IRs a.
*1140,000
¦'s's's;
;aut g*' *"orv tsex^'L
;o A.N\ ^
£
Fih«, pr
3exjo wr O I w*f
C " F.M
—02 EH
donvtaw MNHP.A „, ...,,
fjVV BOOGPM T5Uufe.PT
RKfe-p^r;
F6 2; 3^0 GPH
;•# I Ffi 066
HIMN E.
JR*. COO 6PH
1 * i8*,oqg
* Usr.ooo ,
AETt^TEP .POND T.R
70% QOD REMOVAL
•RR0VIOC ©9^M.IZATlCN
t>€s\g+s ^oo.oootfo :
$C¥feH^TiC- SYSTEM 0 \A6T2AH
:\|and Disposfsu 1 ;.
.Tb '
f-UMi
¦ww wiarMafiu.j^w. 1.: ....„:
oTfsf ps^is :<4*r.«^,9;Z3£, »<» - • r:*;:
i59,000 ;±
./.it.
-------
i
.1....
• -i
i
• • i •
.-..j.
- ,_i
T _
.ty
rAsieiZA-TED POND"Tal^tv,
DfeSOvi Q&.OOOGIPO -5t''<3>0<'
.iT"'r?bv'ib6 ?>tOT?pvse"
- Fort CQMTROU ,FP
Dt5CHPv«. m'oovFv/''"£.x\Srh"«J6
To /schv&VE 7o% BOD t^fcMoUAL-
- at uo mcp,
I-
1 -
lsotjajE=sr.!
-OiJTFA.l-l
WIGGINS
3L^o GPM
..-U-
TAC- HIG€.NS
ri::tcHpt£X"rpipe_fr ~
M
..I
. i
i
.b
ci
-: ri.
i.u&
V
... J ^
itiji
"' a *5 3
,;Eop
:: cv Q
- 2 to-
"S|£
11} I Lo
- £ K>~
; lul n1 5
AewKrep pasio
101,600
4 • r
I •
!
•r~
-P-
przouTs Ki ea<- v.^,
ICSGPM
IC5fcrT>1
*^4^7
a, j o-
IIbJ
r-.-
: DfeSwu Cocoo
Prtbvioe ;
i ^rorzAct rare.
; Covj-rr^ouceD...
; D>SCHK«eC60s»
_..Tioe.c^ci.ef-—
-[777
I T-|-
. .1
¦ :.ri:e.' :
... ;..i_X-r:- 3fl» OF«£. W
"i777£
s i: , r v^ocsfHX
i ; ;
i . i :J HMSJ &vT
: :;:z:::^t^:ztaiooo
^
A,§vS
cTr '¦ ^
7:.7.
:7'
TCSTAU FpLpj-rs M fccfc;
COMpLfcx piPt£ :
. ^.za%cco\:
O WA'U,
• I-,
_...( ..
;_.H .
;t; \':"
I-- .. ;-.
P0NST*\hJ
SSSG-PM^tgjj^p^i
lo'' mT 7. " T
¦-li
,._..i.;
U.L. -..:
PlWfcpt.
K&i-.
^<4&,obb.i .:.7
^ A^. c»rn
. :blo'6TT: [Cou:
:. P.^ i :. : PlM&PT. \ ... .
; ;&00 GpM1 1 P-3 Z . :
i*><0^ooc): i . 1340 GPH\
i..
J - f- U
-i .
.^C
; DoNirpiU
; !P-s. 2
L_.... AiMkflW
A&rZKTcP PONP..:
<| 00000 £,PD ; . .
: pravtoe e^OfsurN-nowi [
152^
: >TorcAG£ :,|:.:
t .
^5^:D:tNc,T2A»n:..:i:;i..
UAND 'bi SRkN u Awt 2. i ."'.:: 7':
• ' ; ^ ^ ^ .-.1 '.J
wac pipe1 P'W: \h oMHivj.?.Z*iW,o*. |
serf
*tow,v:p:5 c&yr?+
! - - : |
-------
PTS&.UiMtVvJiKrg.V CO*r-
T^&.peizewce\ epa -feo /s--?.?--^
:SHT 3 oF4S"
C£\PIT*\V_ COSTS - T=UMp(rsl6
CAPITAL COST
g.SJn. \KJDfc.x r 1050
Mu>UTlF*-N GW l'4A^ FDn. JAKJ 1370 Prices
CoaT curz.ve.s (mciup&'.
WfcT Ujfctu- D^l VMCU-. -r^f€. STATIOJ
•oo iieo&e exc.
/Wt= WA-rtsrt tcvrnou
KjO CflMMlNJUTtOM
IS1CJ &T*»sJO<3^ powex.
-------
5uMMftrey >PUMPIKI6 sta. costs
SH"T lo op 45"
^TATicrs) l.D.
CAPACITY
Ad j, ©Ase
CoiT
SOiuS
AOJOJjTMUJJI
/\OD STAwO.
POWtftl
"TOTAL
CC>4T
H«3GJH5 1
»5o GPr-v
105,000
1 0,000
ZO.OOO
12)5", COO
2
2-S~0
lie, ooo
10,000
2-Z-, OOo
14&, 000
PTOUTS
NfcOC
IGS"
103,000
10,00 0
Z.0,
15,000
zsooa
1nz.coo
PiMe p>t i
ZS0
1 l&,000
10,000
ZT-, Ooo
14 3, QOo
pi»je vr z.
33o
izofooo
15,000
z-b,ooo
1 50,ooo
BLUE PT.
GCO
\"J9,ooo
I S.ooo
Z£looa
t 8 z, ooo
DUNiTAM 1
1 oo
100,000
5] 000
ZO, OOu
12-S"/ 000
DUNJT'VZ.
3oo
11&, oOo
10,00CJ
2.1,000
t $*>, ooj
OUMSTAM
M^NsrA.
835"
I 49,ooo
18,000
195, 000
Fofit ti.
OotFtMa.?. s
z.roo
2.38,COO
zo,ooo
AF,Oao
303,000
OAW H\CU
Li\«-P „
t»AP At--r. 1
looo
l5C,ooo
ZOjQOO
Z4tooo
Z10,000
OAKHIU.
lAho P*if>
Au-r ^
100
I 44,OOO
Z.O,00(j
7> 1, OOO
1 9SjOoo
OAttHlU.
Tone. iMvtA-
0.R
zsoo
Zl$,0OO
z.ot OOO
^0, aOa
19&jOO.%<3 paogf
MteCK p^»T*
0.5*00
ZDpCCO
ZQOOO
*\0,0O(f
ICO.OOO
£ACH
TR.Ak.ST)
OUP
»3d>o
113,000
l&OOO
40,030
ZIQ.oao
-------
pRETgarrrpvfcKfr costs;
T^e.n£TZ.eKjc&: £PA *\7>0 ( B - 7&~OQ3
p|<5' u'a
SHT <1. e>r4£
10,too
H 1,111
:< 100
A^^TEP "FblO D -TTZ.EATM E KJT
CAPITAL COST
no
FLOW, MOD
p&st&M r\^>sJtAp-^aKis •'
- DeT-fcKTTiOM = *7 DAYS - n*K«,= -5 es ±-
- wvren. ©epTw= 13" Ft
- F"UO/VTl C» A>t=TXATOI2-S — KJOT61 H GUWJVTe i^iu,OlC"lH-rVff
_ Sy«aiMkiA&£P AsWftSfrf .
- MO LikjIkj6 (O feAS'wj - utKiiwo. M'vw 5e. ne^iR#
- MO ADn fcUDO, CAS E."TC.
«- too \K»r\_s;t>rr ore. c.r-"Fu!1>\vjlS <£ PPOuTS *OfcO£ *
fit 18 DAs/ DEiT^^lOJ - FcJO- CyfWlS
THIS tUOCLJ) iScfUAU A TLa^'tiP
i-£ r Z.57 "TlMSS E?fc£.IO>»-> FUJW5 - nwv- uie ew OJRWisS
; *7
-------
PR.g-ft^.QPKT'M&NJT COSTS — CHlOTMKJ/VTlO-J
fc.F"V=.T2.t= K>c £
¦ fcPA - 745-- 003
Ficr7
kPFUUSMT CH UOT^lbJA-\~vOM
Mill
MP/ml cosr
FLOW. MOD
too
Pt=S.l&KJ fi\j>£wMpT (Qk)J 1
— cut F"eeo <$ v^vi^.(k>(
— COt-TAcT TANJVC.
— (VIeA*VC2.1kj €, •£ CdKTUou DEU«CB5
t=Ma iwpac= ISsra - pf-G \zn?
Mut-irtpv.^ vsy l
-------
SHT l^pr^ST
Pr2.£.Ut M qa&T DATA
A\ fcTC-ATisO pQt~*P CC?HPO"g«-rt5 Q~
3As^c plAwrCOSTS- see C5\=u>w FO«-^DOct ITgXJ"
P0»0 UMIT
Fww
HCP
ypOKTED '
0K5e pOHfl
Cost
UPDATED
<5ASfr C(.j.
COiT
UlMlNfc
ADJ. *¦*
Contact
W5
gfl^AutTis
iTOfCACe
Aoj.*j4*x
total.
CdST
DUMSTA»*J
0.4
S8,ooo
35",ccd
ZOO,COO
— 10,000
3,000
Z02, POO
H\s <3.
.of
(.23)
Oao
zsroa?
10,000
o
nooo
ICo,ocb
Roxrrs M.
.6^
OS)*
50,050
2-3,000
Co,ooo
a
nooo
i sa, ccd
AO J Fuaw rori- yit om pQMD COfU/£i -'&&Z> Q.OP T2.€Ooc.TiO»J
**" <3*SED OkJ ""Hsf^uOM" op. S^VUAt*- MfrcTETUAv-
*f*# - la, n>d D li-poi^vu S'loO M/\im TO JSWg AS CowTAtTu>Mtf
>J£. TMgse FyasCtt-u-nvS'
^Ot;uP gg l><3¦•,OOQ T& DUNJiTA»J
i 6;Oou -ro HlCGi^J 0UVC(C
I"7, OOy Tu 'pCWOTS uucjc
USE '. . DUNiTAki ^ "2.2.5/OOP 114"^* 5 yZ57,QQg Dur»4Ty\K,
* 190,000 it\a*l -- -Log,00? Hvwwi
PflOuTiHH Jf 113,000 4 l "I • £*>3,000 P..M..
* -y^oiAiottK h^ic, ner p& ixo epA /•>--7
-------
30.000
30,000
20.000
10.000 -
— 10.000
100 -
5.000 -
- 3.000
1.000 —
SAMPLE HOT
——J .000 £ __
0 >
Z ?
f £
4
c. *j
3 &
| C
tZ£G?- t.fl Mf,P
o.i -J
i«8 MiCD
55ATo7/ Ac.
5 —r
WvtA .SuFTBVt- Of" ZjoO' A<-L£\fc£J
- ^70 -to lazAcne-j
samrlc riOT
tElltl 3 l!»
V&TC '«•/"
aoNtrti. Tint io »*
• di; 100 Kill »/»UFrr*
1st ACHES «/« • «"**
O'A Mco
use 11 To 17 Ac^« 6c/1Tart.
FIGURE 3. TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENT
iF"ooo f - o-a»jc.e^no,oaSTo toq0O=>
j 41 4
iF 2.000/Ac «• ruNkj^trs v^OjOoo*^
EJP* <^0/9. 7.5-., 003
t/\
&
A
-------
sht isoF K ( 2 5 13 COO
TOTAL'
IRASS ONLY
MM
FIELD AREA. ACRES
E2,ooo X 1.443 s*H,noO
¦a. «r nritj v UpO*T«7 T* »910
FIGURE 24. FIELD PREPARATION - SITE CLEARING
85 BP* A"bo /$ - 7S-OQ3
-------
_L-ANjP PtSPoSAL - TZA^Jio lK)P*HjrqATtOKj •B/vSl^S-
EP* BO rB - TS"" CO3
jsht
T.80 0
c^/r>iL cosr
2 i.ooo
IDS
FIELD AREA, .ACRES
FIGURE 32. DISTRIBUTION - INFILTRATION BASINS
©&.SI&KI AWvjMpT'OJS ;
- HUU-TIPUE T2AJIMJ- -H FT C>\K.£ 3*1 OJT* ive ' z, { SU)p£2-
- iftfJDV SOIL.
- KJO CLfcA(l-iNl6 .l^CLUCJttf
- rvtyvjc)*-"a®1-*/ i«£veu cak>d
feKJTt a.- 10SU- PiiU ID73
KAuUTipi-y py T1 VPPAT£
l«8**&0 ¦¦ 14^303 R/Swct- DepOJOl^G OM U)ADim
*~ i£s;a>ox ' 2.39,000 tzates.
..4M&0 •SO.S&OX l,*l*tV* *<34.000
I * <1
-------
AJPPgP COJLTS - UMD OlSpt>SAv_
ree-F £pa achats - 75--Q03
SHT I "7 ot~4f
4, #00
•I. tit
« 111
It
1 1 ! II 1
CAPITAL COST \
-
•
SE
RVIC
E RO/
DS
/
V.
5
r
' FENCII
0
f.
4-
1
J 1 —
• •
It*. I.ltt
FIELD AREA, ACRES
It,tit
FIGURE 41. ADDITIONAL COSTS - SERVICE ROADS AND. FENCING
^*2' voice - g^zas/cc .Sv/wrscc?- v-oMv
^|' jTOCtz Ffc>->ce AflOuwe* Ati-fA
(wot lw«. EoFTtifl- AP-w<0
ROM?; \&000 *1.443 ¦
zqoco 7<
Ffc^Cff * Si<\vM£ aj tl.too
U9W
g M6p TO TAv> » ^5,200 TO $7, QOC? TC.AtJ6g t>0/Ug
OfJ UOApifJG rSATTSf
ra-OAO? loooti '44 3 ? *10,000
frOdox 1.4^3 * r 11*500
rtvtc 05*0K 1,447 » 12.10U
\0,oovK I-<<*!'' I 4,50C/
a 4
TB"Ta*-. g Zz, 3Qg To 2.g;8oc>
-------
Oo3
— *5HT 10 oFAf
10.000
CAPITAL COST
i.iti
FLOW, HOD
10*
FIGURE 39. ADDITIONAL COSTS -
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES
IMCUJPfcS : A DM £ U.A& E'^MVDiWfi
LAG) EHi=.WT
GBTT-Aie
SVtop.
NQTfct Q SCATt-faoOtiLHW ; AOina & LAO «a-»iu-. ©£ jg oAtc HiUv, T«P!
Onju^ CVAru\££.y «,0'Mi£ mAiwt d Si^iAix. oTT\Cts
<0 LAUfc O^^OJAw SITE
pn-jM Curwt. Go, ooo x i .aaz ~
AQJ Ta^ S^ATtBflVMai" UJfc //,,eT ^«T - ^3, gog
,4 Mg.p ?< X/ Si * Z$,
ooo
FbTZ. AI wJTfcK) A.KJ eg BlOG Q*o
at S ere OF lNF"lLTfZATlQfcJ 13 *.S (MJ
-------
R&r. 43c) / 9 - ys"- Qo3 ^HT v3 oP4t
U/\tOC> C?iSpS>4AvU
10#.DO#
t #. ott
u i.too
too
CAPITAL COST
5
1
it
tot
¦ILL 0IPTN, FT
l.tll
FIGURE 40. ADDITIONAL COSTS - MONITORING WELLS
Assume. 6 SO' eAk
^.Soo x t.4^3 xg * Q/3QO .: \9?& &ASE
\MCU»D6S Puv-\ps- &TC,
UJ& JAME Van- O
ASSUMVs S^e t^OWtTOTriKiG WSUU C0S-T3".
R)tL 'S*XI5 WJT«>A ore. U2>*U1»-Ki
-------
re£Mfci»-rr4 Fan <^MC7i£^PP-Atw<: -to make mt~£
suitablc. nxt. u-ie moot bis pt£Ttfrc>M im^o e.y
"^PcCinc 5lTg £VA,U>A-TlO^
J/
19000*1.<343 - *2 £000 - uich'ujaoikjc- 4flo sp^a^t
'-jePOOO X 1*443 y * |t)|,O0£? - l-0tv L^)A»|k»4 - 100 ' iP*Oki&
I Q~>0 Cost I K-»DtX.
|r ,4 M &P ,100" S^A&C /5ow Kl'n*ep:
rSAHGt'.
l.0t*C0
-------
cost
UAwp DvSPO^V- — T?-<\jptP trH^tL-T^^T-lQtO BASIUj
^STfcM
oesieuATtvou
UA.KJD
COST
KSOO/ A&
SlTt
PT2.&P
»NF\U?TWa<«
¦BASIM5
T2.0/5\.t>WAV
FEmCINCs
M(MnT
Budq,
Monnofi^nS
W&U-S
uMoat vm*u
Hoo' Ida'
SPAt* gQftU
TOTAU
vw.lTH
UNOfcTlprtMMl
fOo' ICO'
TWTAU
Wo
DN0£ftO<2/MUS
t.e rioo,
h*<*» u*d
IOS",ooo
?i, ?oo
• 4 A, 300
42,10* -^S.ioo
lO,40(,
JLS,O0»
55,0cx>
¦?o3,3iAD
<13&JSeo
311.300
LOW U>*P
150,000
SV.SQO
-Llf&aov
57, Qoo
^3,3oo
to, 40o
4£>,sx»
101,000
5H«o
C.5%A»o
S"5D,oOO
1-5 MtO
H VOV Uji^O
9o,ooo
intooo
• 23.7oo
37,ooc»
^0j0OO
I 0 4 0u
2r*«»
5V, UM
173,700
32-8,100
U»/V0*D
125.000
lcrttoao
2.04,00c*
4
{<±,40a
3^,500
6c,t«>
S?'j3»
ClJ;Coo
537, 000
0.^ «AC.P
HK.UUK9
$0009
¦1*
IO, too
44,000
zn., 300
U3WU3AO
tZSOOO*
\3,&>o
64,200
ZS~t QO*
2.3,000
1 o, 400
k>,too
ZJjCOO
1.1 Sf.Soo
2.oSj8oo
ZDpOO
lo, qoo
ll-.Ccw
27.400
TSoax
ic%4ot0
He <*vSi\J*AeS LAMD PuaCHAi'cID Tr> p^c£0+Avt?AT£" l-SWi-P TfTAl- FUT^n-C FtoW
M IQt toAP a ^0 " /(A/ggVf
LOW U?
-------
sH-T ZZif-JT
tB \0 LOGIC TT2.e^Vr^e3^T P>u-A^rn;
/\e~r 1 v SLUDtf •
Aurf QAW: tiitL- '-S ^GP - So>2 Bop TtfiMOVAc
Ells PAT"A £ z, ^Zo. Qj>^ *3A;ac ^.a^-aT. gQAT
Act "a" -pcao-p sjcc^
V~ I £ DA-TA SA.VS & z.f QZ-q. OOC C-Oh*iT. T
l;t'. cost-s ( oetJTi^v-0 fborH uoc*vrio^£i
Ei\£> QO&L Kior state oumeTVierz. luaotwT-
puMpiK><. ts iKjcvJoeO or_ wor. Ai fuv^pi^JG ts k-wt
TH-c iAWc <£>. >COTll UJCA.—OOAvCj ,ooo
-*; T? = 1>. CQS,ooo W/o Po^\p
I Z>7S*
up DAft? - A Op K'U^Z ^
3,c 0$,O0&> X '. /Z. " 4, /.JZ, 0 f^oA ^ £S£) M£C>
UnjIT-^ I. 43(3,037 / M&P
DQ.tfc>w^\. u^Ht-Tv^A^J d HO^A'fl-O 3.0 MGO pi**T(Sj, TT^OOTS MSC*.
CosTe "3, 300, OOcJ ^ |wCuvA7t»o6 jkIP" d 1£PF
uppATt TO ETKJT3. "Z-d7/
3, 3d?,ooo x /..57= Sa&.ooo
DicWCT FDft. pt/HfMf; 5"£ <3C HlCHisfV
IF l>miT CO&T S&TT AT 1. S00,00& /HcP
Tf ^osta ~ M.SOCiOQ? ^2.. 700. OOO PiA^T^) F?Q,
u se "Z.. Soa.060 @ oa£ hhjl - cam unu»Tg saMg
e^\si"»U6 PAClUiTlEiS
a t,3fl9,oo« /MCS
-------
SHT Z3oFff
|F OAUHIU. LxPAuPt:P Fare r7o'Z \a. o. P. n^ui/AL Q^L.y?
rtow - ' r^lcso - ^«-T (—5 I
* I. 0 HGD Alt t_. s.a
if MfcQw> aesz.. po»oc?.£.- Sfc&c^.u drc.
I QO ooo )< i/^A3s llS"/4oa
J "
+ C4 ^7,000 y I '4^3 ' 5*3 0*",tfu 60wTAt-f TAwteJ
use <15;000 \A^/0 cotAvT £FFu-t>JT FT^
AOo h»j»kj& 5", oot)^ ^
ADO C0»TTiov. T3V-00, l~AL>At.-i-tA~vtt?»o Z'S", ooo
M —-..-I,.,—- ->">->
TOTAus ^7 •+ VHfi-fl Swi'JC CS<],O20 T'-^A,
^
- 5*10. COD ^ F&tu UO IN-\.CX3. UUIT,
l.o n^gd —>• -r i_5 "7j y»vne 4 M(sc, -.-. 6. (C, ccX) total.
woolc pi?ofi.A<:.w viAvt, to add ifujekit poMp'^i-
T.MS <-O0ui> A»L» ^J_S^_0££_ To
Tvwt mav «rv mAv{ fjo-r Gc. n-cWwMa&o iF vS-sU'Ti^
PutA^rT Moomeo FdO. *7o7,
IF OAvT H(>.U 'AOOiriL-J TO SO^ rut'MoVAu 0. lJ coun
Vj\£f1friM0ai-— tx/Ouu i) fSOAfT pOwP CO'CtSPT - Uw »TM
AppP'OfTtt'^'^i- Aoj 0„n Flirts. UA^li . A f ^uUlTlfi^,
use 6Afl-m imp pmwqt ^>rflo6.ocr?
90*^ n>t>A«q
-------
CARlTAy, COST AnjA>y,sf sis M'KKTcy
5H-C 24 gr^r
| <5VST£r-l
Pipe uwe
COST
PtJt-\p STA
CObTS
TTtGfKT^&JT
COSTS
UVJO DVSf&JN-
C04T5 ^
XOT^U
Au-r (a"
| Przo^TS K»I=CVC PLAnT
3,5*3 Qooo
2..QC 3J(X>C
^noojooo
8,1301,000
V\ LT & "
. OMtHtU-PLAi-rr
I rorit rcivt;^- o-y
3, 833,000
7-,?>z.c,ooo
2., Coo, ooo
8 ,C.S9,cx>o
\
L-y\tv>D O ISPO.SM-
Au-r 1
1
\ZZB,O00
Z.IS&.OOO
1,10*7.0OV
> '
3^8,000
53o, ooo
0, 99l,ooi?
¦•7,6^,000
1
LAmO
^nv--t a.
Z-fH^oda
l,G <*fc,c*x3
Irfnipoo
320,033
537, OCO
5P 59,000
SSUA.OCQ
I Uj\MO^Dl^P05AL
v; 3 2-1 \SO<3
l,4S"l,OO0
•a, i c5;<3oo
Z~0c,oc>o
l.C8tOOd
5CZ^5,S«o
5B6$]sO° j
x cost rz^^ce DcPewoi-Jc, o-o uo^tsi^c.T^;^'
^-) 0 QUD£P-CW\^ A^,C S"SSTT- l-A ^qupeO
IF SITl£ COkJOjTiO^ M fcrC6JJ(-TA-nr U^C>t.Ti.O(W\(6»iJ CA'J
Bt; ADDtP tO-STJ OnJ pG. 2./
-------
K.&F; E.PA ^"bo/9-7S-CO-3
5v»ir z S" ot4f
39.001
I I 11 I 111
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
g
S K S tWWW e
ID.000
•- 1.000
IB*
FLOW. MOO
FIGURE 16. PREAPPLI CAT I ON TREATMENT - AERATED LAGOONS
pois/STAsJ- Q.<3 KVGtt V-\fVrcCMs G^O
L/M^OO. * 7 5"0 K V Z%Scx>^(,o
. Z3 X z.S-,9au* Cooo^/Yn
pn-OUTj KJf--Z.LT - i^tVc/H/TV . «W&)
MAXeyJAcis" 11 OO
L^
-------
"RETT -33U/3 - 7S~- 0C>3
SWT Z6
OPERA!I OH & MAINTENANCE COST
MATERIALS OTHER THAN CHLORIHE
FIGURE 17. PREAPPLI CATION TREATMENT - CHLOR I NAT I ON
DONiiTAsi r Q.*\ HGJQ MAlWlAU =. I $00
UA<30Q, ~ t&OO
= 160
5"0C 6 y (.- *7 3o«VVr- A*<60
. nIdOt 2. ?z-t> nj -2, oocj /yor~ * I $0v
HIG6IW5, £, paouTZ KivStW Cl^ ?G.
u/\floa SCO*
?C0
^7do XHW; fi^Afc/
/-T~X I1*C#0 "i? t. Goo fag.
-------
V'?-t=F £P/\ - 7S-003
,l S 1053-3- < 05^ -1. ^ loolyn.
HUbi^S StlVn V-S.1. r £5Jesr7Mvvy <2.
-------
Q-4~\M costsr- PUMPtNjg frtt^rrcO* ;v-/7
t - iHT z5tr4Z~
Sjo^ksocm - e>Avy •z.tooc? A.*!?.
,-2. MC9
,pl^t£ P^.VXT "Z. . 14 M6t7 - 5(\
- S~te& X(.*i£{Zz SloufMe.
„ ?i X Lloo
DorwrA^ j PS ~ ^t joJ/^n
ptfkq~T A<^ 2. Pj = I 3ocj/v^a.
y^l por^T'V P-S ~ ^*2 S~0 tt
{. $' K S~Coo s / &>, A/rt
Font Rii/t>"v- JF-" PJ r. &! O sooo f\'n,
\ut^< P, S no pr/rjoT; f.n~u\y
s>cqj
i^rr P'J.@ pruvrj ^£vi
P? i. TO l_Af~D PUpoJAL I , & MGO
L- /A^Jcao-^. |C0o>
H'l : . 2^2/
- *iCOO
ff s&sa X1-W2* & ho /W-*
// Veto- "*/S~.ioo fya.
^
P. j tu pi-iOqjAl /.3 a^go - uja i z,aoo/yrb
p.) TV UmI Pu^JjAv. O'A^I 00 UJ»T * yoocj/y/g.
-------
ri-et- , trpA rj - vs- 003
sht i"- i> oF^r
nPFDATinu z MAiHTFHAunr rncr
*
V
S
LABOR
H,
s
*
'MATERIALS
~~—-¦
»» «»• I.Mi
FIELD AREA. ACRES
\NRUT^TlOO 1BA.SI
L-/\(bCsrt, - 2. e>0 /A c
•MiVT = 1Z/Ao
2-3*2» I ~ ^ ^ 2 ~ f A c.
1"35T X 44 ~ (3 / At-
7/ KlOj; tf"2 f. 5"^ /hh~
l/% MC»P - cr o, 0 * AA0V/b- =. Il.ooa /^ft UQ{^
s I *7, <3CJH> f H< 4H
tT , *i| M60 |f /\c- T-&?
iV\ ft-/ t ^ »
3 2.gj *> I •'('/? - ^75" I Ac
It K 4')S'~ S"*>0u/mt. LOU«
1*7 Ac JC ^£.0' 1000 fafl. tfiCW
I, & M GO - ^<=1 Ac r
7/ A C
-------
T2-IC-F- \^PA ^\3o/3- -70""- OG3
5° ex 4S~
i ii 11 in i i i i n
nnrn.rtW6.-
< ot o
XI'1''13 9
nt K /7' coz iz°° Aj»ru
f\Q0 too (J f?, i-uch
iF 1« 3 N*t D - CAfu >& K I I 40g At- Uou'
» P ")< i.PwLjLilki__ Hvcv<
-------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 60ST T
LA
10
r*n
^
r*
"S
--
*
^ MATERIALS
•
•0 too l>0#,
•ELL DEPTH. FT
t-A OK/vTQfU UJ C. i.<
5"P ' iXj-J MAT1: Z 5"
UA/}
-------
sht 52-or*tr
100
1 00
I I I I INI I I I ITT
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
5
too 1.011
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.000
FIGURE 34. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER - UNDERDRAINS
1, & co Ac - ^cov^-r -= {t>
MA'l * Ao
* so *i * hz~ n-us-
n t X -'t-H < ^-LOO/^CL
tF tool LA^orv- "i.Q,
yr
L.w 4^.,0/A,, %/0aA„l
"7/ At - *tOf' uA.Sooa £t
: MAl v 3 (J
53T/: I,
-------
•SWT 33 oT4f
its
<
u.
<
i a
ATIOH & HAIHTEHANCE COSTS-
• 00
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
3
Q
I
0
CO
h
V-
3
o
ti
e
*
<
FIGURE 18. TRANSMISSION - GRAVITY PIPE
I
U)
I
T
too
111 1-1
MAIHTEHANCE COST
OPERATION &
tot
u
t
}
3
iS
it
-------
HlGGlNiS
FJS.l
\5oQ,m
l-HG&INS
RS.2
Oi-nrFVsu- y..
^ i5oocjp*-\
IS>/yrt_
B" P,H
13. 1N"T
•e
O^KWIU.
TP. 4
p.i
^STOOCprA —
(i. 0 HGP AVfc.^
I
I
ii'
X|®
flS
eal -
1 2 9-G /HYL. W . S^cAf rv-
INOVSSSUCi-t
RIVER R £>
; S*OOC.pM
i reivers P.s.
^13ogph*
^ *tD^uu
PR00T3 Heck
: ,r.=> jtG5&m
3fiOGPH
DUN5TAN
He
l
-r*r»0
10" INI
-<—
7T l40/urt^~J ' '
' I ¦ DUNSTAN,
^ MMMp.^. 83SCPH
O
7
DUKSTAkj PS i
I CO G.PN1
Co«t\putgo 6n •.. cuaue
p. o
Q»C0 GPM
4t /c-r xi 1.443 X, U=»^rV
PINS PT
Rs;a
couuexnbras
lislE PT
P.3* Z
*2>40CPrt
P\P£Llf»& dttiMi Vos-r/ -
¦ y .S?l
lnt&sry-^3cKi/^c^-
¦¦• -.-¦ ¦
'.',J :
:. ......!. ;..i ....
-------
COLU
EXtSTtrnG, CAV^U-Tp.
To (3£ 'D\iCO^TlNV»&P
CD' ^
;R*
$790 -x* 1 S&oefafL
-------
*F \-l "TP.
t.3 MCO AV£>
- toOOlFYT& 70<£ Boo rz.6:MOVtM.
£ GfiJUAUrATlON
8" Ft-»
\Z." INT
b^l w va.
9 4/V* x—' S*7-
UBBVUIVETC.
rsmesucB
RiVE.TVP.'S
S"cOo"|Ml
C^KM
Tfl/YfJ-
8_ P?M
IS&Nn.
Wyn.
PiMfpr
DUNVTAw HWMP4
Bcogpm
PS Z.340 -^koo.ooo cfd
DUNJOA
P.S 2 .6#/
\06C.f*A "f1"
PtP£M^£' o 4 m
-------
;-rr
i
: I '
SUiC 37 orfi"
L: J -i -
"t i"!"t
-1
existing oAvcHiu, t.f: i . i
I. OrlGp ± - HdovFsj £.XiS"n»J6
To /scmeve- nc^ ©o© TxeHot/At
A~r i u o t^cv»4
.OOTT^uu
VU«,IMS>
P. -s
Q.^ogpm;
Coll,
: v>se.Tzm£D pond
! DfeSlCKj, 8ao»6PO
! \=T?oVtDE VTDT*f\6£:
For? coM-rrtoLLED
; Dvscv\*\tt
POviSir^J MMHP5 - !
835-CPm
i o" iw-f
ZOOGfM
0"f:h
i:: Mae pt:
p.-5.
G.00 6PM
,:'MWmar
* - »
/^erzKiep: pohlp..
^OOOOCI £>FO
pr%> v i os e>Tova\s,e
. 60- ;
UUMSTAkJ
;p.s,.z~iooQfA :
- I -:
! •
- I ••
I '
. I '
• " I *
ptzoot5 m ea<- r.s
i..
outfall.
¦. .-J I
j.oL
C»rM
~'1~H ,v°"-
: pivjtPT, \
p»5 z j.. ,.\ .
:. 340 &pi-r ,
rr;jzr:i]i
. i ."f. 1 ¦ i-;"-
PiwfcfT ; "
jFts X :
rH-
• , f..i
:
i..
<;
1..
: i
< i
• • )
PtP&Wg ICtTs
; A^TOOfDjAuS.
-total%: -rm "Jsmohr.
-------
5vTC 33
M M - Q^'M. - LApD Qi5tco.sAi. on-no*,^
, IT &M
DlS, AUTT. 1
L.AMD C>W Av_T z.
LAwo 6»S Au-r vA
AtT*A"i'£-.C> PoMPX
Toa
s #w r-'-o- Ftj-cirt
ISoclii 2-50 0
t Ti 1 &oa
Saw Ty I 00 o
MOM I70>'.J >Jt VMl£U-i
\3aa
("i 0Zoo "Xt> Q 2.00
2-5^ To Si) oj
t&jo re -?aa<~
T n-Aw-i,'vt '-J-!'0^ uwy
5 too
S900
V /cp,A;
; VA i WA(;l(. r
I'J >2*2/ o<^
06^fl»7O 34t$0J
5"^ TJ £'Z,0C/
~TcrrAi_ ^iM'10 V V\u — \U>C|_. I.
Cl_A r
A Lyzs,-T£p
¦p^n.
L-O.ccxj^^u
ZS} Ooo/yrt.
OA®
rCc»-\ tiV**- CuTtvSr.
OFF"! CGj 1~AG £ tfuic 5^aoo A/n_ - ?»wt^ tMA l«1f :X. \L~f-,
Sopi-Xti ^t^O^r-r, \&,0oo Afrt.
CMtiywiJT • \^,oe>U /yn.
C.l_(3-U CAu r^ooo /y2
Trin^ jji(jf1-"7A"TiOv;, (5, ooo (i^n.
& 5^.00*/Vn. «3^"A'-W ^~£
' ra^l.c? ortr».J
\,r I I o M6.fr ~|0 go *7) 0<:>t> 4- A pdiVi ~£[ " /06.av<>/Lfn.
~ iO^jOOQ /m&o
TbTAv.'P-AvJCV- VMTH VO-7, CO^f.
LAWO D' -fP-' -1-
Oup'. 2 UA^O Di-S 3-A,
ic-7,500 -ra \n&$00
ui^otira no,39o-
lo^^uTa 165, o&o
/\(?0 «o'7, m st *
P^loolD \BXoc6
i7D,ioo t<» 1 bntVoQ
-------
ACM Q & M 60JT? SHT 55
Atts, # <=>. f"OP~ COMp/M~ziJ0'-J v^\tij vanid ens? optiou^
TA(i;ourN-rto»-' -£.xclxmvfc t?r tp-cAtv-a&jt
IT6M
^\U-T. A
H\Cc,t^i P. SI
Ul- p.s Z
Qj Ki-VTArj MA. I Kip J
ottvf Hiv-u p.j
Piift-fc fiil/tyv fit7 PJ
\kjf fu^j (0, -rp
p
I l 00
12,00
\~LOU
\C,oo
"2-1 00
I \00
\? 00
-zsixj
/a, 00a
&000
10, QOJ
590&
5UMMAP-7 E/cum'Arivity? ^S",3oo
^u-r. <0
1 IOd
I Z.T^Pr\rdA-n->VIZ CHFXIC OsJ T P QftM
5oc.th po.i-rv_A^o T.P ^ "Vio -
O01 e -jCct/7 (3 c^r; 1^77 p *«^37,<33?/y,. Tav ^orFAr-D fti^ou^Ke
¦te_/7g^/M.D2A,AC,-^ e^™™cnv
*5tMp>-1-\tJ~T W.- iui> HAv£" HiCrityl uf-t-T" C-o.iT S -S MCO f-UA^T
SA^ 506OO /mod y L ^ r ££¦ OOP !-"to.
Aisutvie the javmis: a~t
TBTAU *
I £Z , Doc/
4 4 (5VJ0©
Slo^b00
A .
/T grig/Llf-TO Pit.OOP TVTAu p^VM IS"?<. V1 WTAS.C
Tt) y/fCA-ra, /A I d"?,
I 07, 000 x (<10 = ZOS'.-JOQ
<3 OOP CHSSfc
IE; ESTIHA.TES ARRIVEO AT iwTHIS A*JAuysLT
y\ppiEAa-ry oH&ctc ve^V vvtsu-.. guerH pata
C-AT^ltao IVJ t=TA eis Coco M£V7
-------
.... ..—4Yt>T£*~l ; KvJTfcTZlKI^TVV&
I=\
-¦• ¦ ----- . ;
...... ¦ - ¦ - *
- "
....
*pYS>Te.M UNVT
Gltrr CAP cobT
^,cs^
Forces MA\t^S
l.&£d/0ci4
<\o
& "2>^ « TA
^.O^I/OOO
to
.... - - -¦ ¦
-rr^sPcrMe^
X..1O0, OOO
t.o
- : -- ¦-¦ •
L.f\*-»es Ol6?0SN- *VJ>T.
— . ....
- —
- ¦
l_At-JD Fon-t?l6posAL.
—
¦ - -
-rt^v<^L.s
#,3*1,100-.'
TcS>,^S"o
- - -
—
¦ - - -
- - - -
-r::
-------
CAPiTAv. catHT 5oMMr\^-y
WITH ESTIMATE
5Y^T£H i A \~T£J2-hATt\/E ' c "
^Vi-raM un*t
EST CAP COST
.®>eu\/tc^uFE
¦za.Hn. . : :
SAt^SCls VAUUE.
&TS/W. INT. 66WEW
I 1 © lO'QOO. ...._
~^0
""5vs:t oou /._....
Forc.ce MAINS
"Z-, oXt, SToo
• AO
: ..i,o u; i so -:
PUMplMC £>TA
Z,T> Zc.,&oo ...
z.o
. . . .
TTJ-QfVrf^eKrr pu(\KTfe)
t,soo(ooe :
t-o
: .... .
W\NP Q16P0SW. SYiY. .
•»
. ...
UAtJD FoaPliPOSAu
• • ------- • — -• — --- -
TWr^sLs
&, CSV,?00
— - :
" r *
- -•--
—
— -
—
i' - ..'..1.'.' —
-------
CAPITA. COST 5UH
vv ITH s ^ LV J\C3 QiSC»
LOftO g £d"lK.~
"5VST&M UN\T
^V-. *Nf crVvM...
kjo uKjoisnocz^
IS1TT CAP COST
e,£Wic£UPE .::.
" Zd *irL
SAtv^sce v^uvjs
GTS/W. VKT. 6EW£T£S
Ct&.ooo
<*0
: % ^%ooo ;;;;:;;
FOnce MAINS
2..59Z.900
4o :
1.1 S>C./^5*0
PUMp»f>lCi 5TA
7LIZ8ft>OV
3-0
-rrcQKTf-Ae^n- pi_At-nr(^)
), iOl: OOO
2.0 .7"
LAND CH5p05M.<=.Vi-r.
Z?2,5>00 -----
2D .
-- • - -
l_ At-JD Fort PliPOSAu
I (J 5~\ OG&
VMDtVF ~
/OSlOOO
"tt)TA«L.S>
O^aiyBOO
I '~7£-.t>v5
LD AO iV/xV \<£ .-..
PoSAL
U-/.ITU Uf- ' f't
tVT CAP 'Crt-'f
>VWS\^$ ££ 1 c*c#
StriiAcv'. UF't.
Tr £ p Acv/Vi'.
Tuo *>,' ri..
Sf^UV^dli. 1/ A'un'_
c» p-av if-n"
rortcL. :~.
ST<\
Tn-tAT'^t-^' pU/Ao-rrf.
UtJD Dtip 2VJT.".:.V
UA pi (V.fi hi^o j Al^—
G^^OCJt?
2; 53~z;$oo
3-. [$9,0 <3v
I, \ 01,0OrJ
'j, 0 }, ooo
I SO, coo.
«^C
¦^6 ".
2-y
.. 20 .
Xa
It— c
. 3'i3/OOc
i; zs>c, 'ts-'f
| t&Q eio~
TUTACi 7,; : :. l,~)c%4so
-------
' ::— :_„..___syx;43of^:.
cosf 'SoMMp^v :: :. ~ . /.: •
vvtTH s=s-riMrN-rc t
. =>V5»Ti=j-i i CA^o DtipoiAc Z- . :.. v
Lowtvr L.AMo;o»jpP5Ai.':s^jTeM
L-OA.O 3-0" fu^xc - KjO U>OeaC>TtA\NJJ .
~T ~ ' " — '
Syxt£.m l»n»t
est cap cost
sem/iceuPEz
S ALViNC 1= VAW£\
GT2/XV. \NT, 6£WEtiS
374,o»o:
:: : 40 :::::::::
" v /.::._ . ../
Forces MA1N5 -1
l,3C7, SOO
D&*>.!5®
RJMplf^G *>TA
l,64c,ooo
2~0 ~
— • - -'•• • - •• ¦ - -
-rrtsKTMeKTr pt_i\(-rr(<5
t,
- •
..... ; . _... _. . ... ...
UA.MP OliPOSfcL SYiX-
JtO
'.;.; ._; / ; ; ;
l-At>JD Fofl PISPOSAU
9 a ,(xio .
. \y^D
. " So,oCkf
'TOTALS'
^ta^zoo
•
. . :
;: l,z.cot-?si> '
¦ - ¦ ••
. liliHST. .LAM.& QU
i-oad
um vT
Posau:
wa- i-TK ytsi(i iCfi
£^"w
stwifi- un?
j'&pwwb
SACuiSCk-VAw'«.
— -
c \-frj\-Vyf ivr sevi; n.j.
FoUCX MMiJC
r-o^yriMc....
-\ Uc^'i vMcVT/ _
u A N> O. Dop- .5 TV'. '."-' :."
t—av-»vv .ipj
. 374,00*
i,sr;, s&j
: \/C.4C;aac.' ; - -
... V<5~n,ocky :
^.90, <$00. .
;;;
*'tO - 1- " -
.. -?ci ...::
....
'"" £-0 . ..".:
; t$%QQo ... .:...'.'..
~«N "
-
: jwo ;...
:
Tb-7ALJ
--— —•—
. - : 1 Ch ~
- ¦ - ' :
-------
:: : — - — - l_
•c/^P>rrA.v, CQfrr suMha^v , : / .
\AJ \ TH S^UAQ.tE£nMATc
5V5T£H ; VAut> .D'ti*>oMv_
1. A .
• _ ; '- L —:
.l;o"Ou:'«S.T' C?\nE"DVilpoVa:C~'s NTi
(. OAO 3X>''U ~»> DcXi-CT1^"^1-?
-
::V:;
'bvaTe.M unit "
esT CAP COST
^6U\/lC£UPE
la ¦in, :
SAv.V(\c£ value .
GHi/W. \KT. 6£WE\£S
_T?4.c2°0
4o :
: iS^aoo
Fcsnce Mft\N5
\.S^H, 50q .
46
Tf%, 75~o
RAPING 5TA
1,4 51,000
" - 2-f
0 :..
TPtOVTMeKrr
"2-, IdSTooo
to :
.. . a : /
.LANO OlSpOSW--p Y-iT...
lis:Boa .
. Z-0 . ...
. .. ": . 0 ' ' *.: ....*..
LAND Foa PliPOS«M_
$0 tOOv
IN/D "¦
&o,oa>
-rtJ-r^us>
5",74l),3oo
;: " —
1
. vrrcn>iiT u^o o^pt>
IT-." /uy V£_ L-0ADi»JC-
iA.C^STr^
U U DeciDriAiM.
' AT . 100 FT..Vf
AC(Mc ; _ _
\svr cap coi-r.:
*>AC(£ uncOi-T
G.O-Av v'wr, 5>ewervj ...
. t=£>[u:tr MAjKJi. . .
Puim^i04; ......
- 4o...
t-o
2o
. • Zo '...
|f~M0 "
I97.^f ... ' '
' V T7J, 7.JZ/ •
1 - - l"2-S"' o&spsv : : :
; - - - - -T
-v ;
: - ;• i
-------
^yjMMi\n.y cohpauative E.cotooM\c
\ "VE.V-A
! '
/Mrr 'A"
AtTG"
l_/\NkD PlSfOiAL
AvU-V li ^ '
UAN/O OlSfOiiU.
/NU.T 2.
U-A.KJD DlipOSJN,
P\UT Z-'A
COtMVT! COiT
8,301,000
0;&ss,sz>o
G>,©Q I, 9oo
7, ( 5^,3oo
5,7 &£, COv
G, O$7., I CO
S,741, Zoo
5.83Z, 30O
ESiG & COIST- ZS^
2. 07S"/ OOO
: 2., soo
I, *7X0 SOO
1,70#. 7oo
{,
/\V. Ar>»M*J»\t-COVT
. , 7*5 - £<3. V«2S
9i4r*?.oa
S'5«-.3oo
7 5~l, Qoo
nd^-,^00'
Z"ii,t3oa
300
cii,4cd
60 j 1
, I ; I I 1 ! M !
, zaCatZoo
11
\54,3oo
130,7 00
\lSt400
} S3, O0C :
J73;loo
\84,eoo
TWAXi. AsVS !
A>0/Sv.: COST
! IVVt^iSOO: .
i ! ? ? i ; : i ' j ' f i i
i L! I U'
, : } . i
VjSQ, SOO
336,100:
510,9001
: ; eus^otr
I '
i : 0/6, SCO
! - !
Usen. Uiorrs : • ; *;
SS^O
"2-O^i I j
SS^io:
ST540
:^G»S0
:<^C50
.! 2.03
IS©
1 Tr7
I.7C
lie's"
/76.
/79 :
. 1 1
. I , ! i , : : : i !
' ; : M ; M 1 i 'i
1 :
V-4 orel v i ; ;
1. - ' 4% 1MT-
Z.-
; t: eovjiv usen, fjtJyri'* ;; F^-Py*
t.-LA^O pvjfajA'V jOPTVOiOS : «,HoCJ ;tow VtM.U£-
i ! 1 i i I ! ' : ' i
i : ! 1 ! ' 1 i ; ¦!¦
z *irt iCoNiyr pefuoo
z.oNR ; .
; 1 '"T" h !T
; I !l t 1 ¦
|-r
| | I
1 l-i
4; ioo:&/fcAp(6«<*y ^^zs" :; | j j.j
low vAcue:-
K\6H Y^wue r
U
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
SOUTH PORTLAND
ALL AMERICA CITY
City of South Portland, Main
All America City
lr
January 4, 1978
Mr. Francis J. Hopcroft
Engineering Section - ME, NH, VT
United States Environmental Protection Agency -
Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Jerry:
Following your visit to my office on December 12, I met with
the City Council and discussed the proposed outlets to Scarborough's
treatment plant which suggested bringing their sewer system through
the City of South Portland to the Fore River.
The Council's action confirmed my personal feelings that they
are not in favor of any further disturbance of its city streets,
neighborhoods, etcetera, where there are no returning benefits
to the City of South Portland.
Wishing you a Happy New Year, I am
Ronald E. Stewart
City Manager
RES:pvj
cc: Robert Steele, Town Manager
Town of Scarborough
RONALD E. STEWART, CITY MANAGER • 25 COTTAGE ROAD, SOUTH PORTLAND • 04106
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
OIL SURVEY
Cumberland
County, Maine
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Sczvic*
Is cooperation with
MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Imu«4 August 1074
-------
Windsor Series
Tln> Windsor series consists of deep, cxcessively
drained, nearlv level to strongly sloping. coarse-texl urcd
soils. These soils funned in ^rl.icint outwash deposits, They
are on terraces adjacent to many streams !md livers
throughout the county.
A n pre. eiit:itivo profile of a Windsor soil in a culti-
vated area has ii surface. layer of dark-brown loamy sand
0 inches thick. The upper 1) inches of the subsoil is brown,
very friable loamy sand, and the lower 11 inches of the
subsoil is light olive-brown, loos* loamy sand. The sub-
stratum, at a depth of 20 inches, is pale-yellow, loose
medium sand.
Permeability is rapid or very rapid in these soils, nnd
available water capacity is low. Depth to bedrock is ,> feet
or more.
Manv ari a- of Windsor soils were formerly cultivated,
but tliev arc now wooded. Common species are northern
hardwoods, white pine, red pine, and eastern hemlock.
llepresentative profile of Windsor loamy sand. 0 to S
percent slopes. mile south of the (5orhatti-S< arboro
town line on the south side of Burnham IJond in Scar-
borough Township:
All- (I In r, im Ju-s. dark brown (IrtYR 3/3) loamy sand; weak,
medium, granular structure; very frialitc when
moist; many roots; strongly acid; abrupt, smooth
boundary.
ISL'l—0 to 13 Indies, brown (10YR 5/3) loamy sand; weak,
fine, granular structure; very friable when moist; a
few roots; strongly ueid ; gradual, wavy boundary.
I!22—13 to Indies, light olive-brown (2.5Y C/C) loamy
sand; single trrain; loose wlirn moist; a few roots in
upper 4 inched; strongly acid; gradual, wavy bound-
ary.
C--0 to Go Indies, pale-yellow (2.3V 7/4) medium snnd;
^inylo grain; loose when moist; strongly acid.
'I'll" solum ranges from 2t to 30 Inches in thickness. Rene-
Ii'>H raii-es from siroou'ly neid to very strongly ndd through-
out tlie profile. The content of gravel In the solum ranges
from 0 In 3 percent and from 0 to 10 percent In the horizon.
The Ap horizon ranges froui loatny sand to loamy line sand.
In the Ii2l horizon hue ranees from 7.!iYR to 2.3V, value Is 4
or 5, lind elm ma ranges from 3 to K The 1121 horizon ranges
from l".tiny sand lo P-amy tine *and. In tlio /;2l horizon h:;e i->
loYU or LTiY, value ranges fr<*:n 3 to 7, and chroma ranges
from - I" r> 'I'hr I',.".1 liori/on r.ni:i-s from loamj sand to fnc
snnd. In the (J horizon lute is .r>Y, lOVTi. or 2.."Y ; value ranges
from 3 to 7; nnd chroma ranges from 1 lo 4. The C horizon
ranees troni medium sand lo tine sand.
.\>-;"'|.i|(mI wii|> Wind .or soils in the lawl-cape are Ail fires,
jVi.'r'iehl. Sair.-iluek. S'.irboro. run! No'.-o-o -ils. Windsor
soils are similar lo these soils, but Deerflelil soils nre moder-
ately well dralneil, An Ores soils nre sniiimiliat poorly
il;nir.eil. and Searboro soils are very poorly draoied. Windsor
soils laek Hio ortst.-ln layer of Siiujriitii'U soils. Sdiago soils
formed i:> ib-eji organic dep 'siis.
Windsor loamy sand, 0 lo 8 percent slopes (WnJ1.—
Tliis soil has the profile described as representative of the
series. Ii is 011 the top of tet races adjacent to stream? and
rivers. IiiinotF is slow. Included in mapping are small
areas of Hinckley, IVeriield. and Am (ires soils. Also
included are small areas of soils that have thin lenses of
clay.
This A\ indsor soil ran be used for row crops, pasture,
nnd hay. and as woodland. For row crop?, irrigation is
needed because of low available water capacity. Low
available water capacity also limits the u«e of this soil for
hay and pasture, i his sod docs respond well to fertilizer.
For ¦woodland use. white pine and red pine arc suitable
for planting, but seedling mortality is severe. This soil
has slight limitations for i.^r as homes',ie.s that have
public sewage disposal, ] localise of possible ground-wafer
contamination from septic diluent, this soil has moderate
limit at n - i nr n m' as 11 < > t: . ites where sept ic tank sv stems
niu.-t be installed. This soil has slight limitations for use
as wildonit>s tent sites. Capability unit Ills-,": woodland
group :,sl; wildlife group 5.
«u.l. SOVIRNFMINT PRINTING OPFICKi I >77-701-9S6/I
-------
OCLC Connexion
Page 1 of 1
OCLC 6128464 Held by EHA - 63 other holdings
1 EHA holding in GLIMIR cluster; 63 other holdings in GLIMIR cluster of 2
Rec stat c
Entered 19800326
Replaced 20200302
Type a ELvl I
BLvl m Form
Srce d Audn Ctrl
Conf 0 Biog MRec
Lang eng
Ctry mau
Cont
Desc a Ills ab
GPubf LitF 0 Indx 0
Fest 0 DtSt s Dates 1978
040 COF *b eng *c COF *d GPO *d OCLCQ *d OCLCF *d OCLCQ *d OCLCO *d COF *d
OCLCA *d FQG *d OCLCQ *d EHA
074 431-1-55 (microfiche)
086 0 EP 1.57/3:Sca 7/supp.
088 EPA 901-R-78-010
099 EPA 901-R-78-010
049 EHAD
245 0 0 Recommended wastewater collection and treatment facilities, Scarborough, Maine : ^b supplemental
environmental impact statement/ *c prepared by Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
246 1 4 Scarborough supplemental final environmental impact statement
260 Boston, Massachusetts : *b Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, #c [1978]
300 1 volume (various pagings): *b illustrations, maps ; *c 28 cm
336 text *b txt *2 rdacontent
337 unmediated *b n Y2 rdamedia
338 volume *b nc *2 rdacarrier
650 0 Sewage *x Environmental aspects #z Maine *z Scarborough (Town)
650 0 Water gualitv management *z Maine *z Scarborough (Town)
650 7 Sewage *x Environmental aspects. *2 fast *0 (OCoLC)fstO1113742
650 7 Water quality management. *2 fast #0 (OCoLC)fst01171900
651 7 Maine *z Scarborough (Town) *2 fast #0 (OCoLC)fstOI 331407
710 1 United States. *b Environmental Protection Agency. *b Region I.
Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Submit- Replace-C Report Error- Update Holdings-C Validate-C
043 n-us-me
Workflow-In Process
about:blank
3/2/2020
-------
|