Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force
–FINAL REPORT– October 2020
BACKGROUND In November 2019, the Town of Pittsboro’s Board of Commissioners approved the creation of an advisory Task Force named the Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force (PWQTF). As detailed in [Appendix A], the PWQTF was charged with the following mission:
To assist the Board of Commissioners in its assessment of unregulated contaminates in Haw River and the appropriate response thereto.
The Board directed the PWQTF to address the following concerns regarding the Town’s water supply:
1. Help focus attention on specific issues and problems anticipated as a result of the presence of the unregulated contaminates, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane in the Town’s drinking water source.
2. Evaluate alternative supply sources of drinking water for the Town while considering the future needs of the Town, including review of the existing studies by the Jordan Lake Partnership for a Western Intake and the Chatham County Master Utilities Plan.
3. Consider recommendations for the protection of vulnerable populations, such as public schools and entities caring for the elderly and infirmed within the Town.
The varied backgrounds of each Task Force member offered an extensive level of experience in science, education, environmental advocacy, and policy development toward accomplishment of the Task Force mission. PWQTF members met twelve times between February and October 2020. During that period, the Task Force enlisted a wide range of experts to solicit data on water quality findings, and background on water resources management decisions. Presentations, data, and discussions offered by these professionals included material related to the characteristics of emerging contaminants, results of pollutant tracing and monitoring, information on how the pollutants affect human health, discussions on parallel programs and water quality enhancement efforts regionally, and Chatham Park’s water reclamation facility and reuse projections. Science and industry professionals who contributed to the Task Force findings included:
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Toxicologist, NIEHS (retired) Dr. Detlef Knappe, Environmental Engineer for NC State Dr. Heather Stapleton, Environmental Chemist for Duke University Mr. Mick Noland, Chief Water Officer for Fayetteville Public Works Chris Blice, Chatham County School Operations Officer Mr. Tim Baldwin and Mr. Josh Powell, treatment engineers from the Chatham Park Decentralized Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF)
16-Oct-20 1 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force
SUMMARY This Report will reference the term “emerging contaminants” in reference to 1,4-dioxane [Appendix B] and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) [Appendix C]. The Task Force extensively assessed immediate, short-term, and long-term options available to the Town of Pittsboro. PWQTF recommends the following three areas of action to the Pittsboro Board of Commissioners:
I. Develop an Emerging Contaminants Mitigation and Response Plan in coordination with upstream and downstream municipalities.
II. Assess the Town’s long-term water resources management options using a strategic decision matrix and cost-benefit analysis.
III. Educate Town water users about Emerging Contaminants through a public awareness program, and provide short-term options to reduce exposure.
AREAS OF ACTION The following areas of action lay out the immediate, short-term, and long-term actions needed to address the detrimental health risks presented by emerging contaminants in the Town’s drinking water supply.
I. Develop an Emerging Contaminants Mitigation and Response Plan in coordination with upstream and downstream municipalities.
The most effective means to address emerging contamination in the Town’s water supply is to stop the contamination at the source. There are multiple known sources of contamination stemming from within the municipalities of Reidsville, Burlington, and Greensboro.
The PWQTF recommends that the Town Mayor, Manager, and Public Utilities Director immediately contact their upstream peers in Reidsville, Burlington, and Greensboro about the Town’s concerns with their wastewater discharges. This alert should serve to establish regular communication and meetings with each of the town’s mayors, town managers, and wastewater treatment facility managers. This will establish a baseline of communication in order to halt contaminating discharges into the Haw River from three municipalities known to be causing contamination. To stop contamination at the source, these three municipalities must get involved with local industrial discharge customers. We have attached [Appendix D] for all necessary contact information.
The PWQTF also recommends immediate coalition-building with downstream Cape Fear River governments, whose citizens are also impacted by the contamination within the Haw River water. In the near future, we could be sending reverse osmosis waste downstream, via the surface water, and our downstream users have a right to know. Regular communication and meetings should be established between the Pittsboro Town government and the Cape Fear governments.
16-Oct-20 2 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Forming a strong coalition will also serve to build a much larger voice for state government to hear the demands of the people—toward the end goal of establishing regulatory guidelines for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, which do not currently exist. As a result of pressure from state water advocacy groups and town governments, Attorney General Josh Stein has recently launched an investigation into PFAS discharges throughout the state. Thus far, the Task Force has engaged in commenting and reviewing changes to permits through the Special Order by Consent for Greensboro. [Appendix E] provides a list of coalition-building contact information.
The PWQTF recommends a local representative be designated to participate and provide a voice on the 1,4-dioxane stakeholder conference call that is hosted on a quarterly basis by Kim Nimmer, Emerging Compounds Coordinator for Division of Water Resources. These calls allow stakeholders from municipalities, state agencies, academic researchers, and community groups to discuss ongoing research, issues, and potential solutions to 1,4-dioxane contamination issues across the Cape Fear Basin. In addition, Pittsboro town government should become involved with the already-organized Upper, Middle and Lower Cape Fear River Basin Associations to form the backbone of their coalition [Appendix F].
The PWQTF—if extended—would help assist with all applicable communication by drafting letters and setting regular meetings between the Town and upstream and downstream governments. The PWQTF notes that, after the departure of the Town Engineer in early 2020, the Town has not had staff to manage such efforts.
II. Assess the Town’s long-term water resources management options using a strategic decision matrix and cost-benefit analysis.
It was beyond the scope and expertise of the PWQTF to develop an engineering report or a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the town’s options for water infrastructure. However, the group reviewed existing reports and offers summary and recommendations. Documents and reports reviewed by PWQTF are summarized as follows:
Jordan Lake Western Intake [Appendix G and Appendix H] Pittsboro is a member of the Triangle Water Partnership (TWP), formerly known as Jordan Lake Partnerships. Pittsboro is one of four partner members—along with Durham, Chatham County, and OWASA—that plan to draw water from the western side of Jordan Lake. All forecasts share a common element: they start with a regional raw water intake and pumping station that is built on a site owned by OWASA, near Vista Point. No prior analysis has been conducted for alternative sites nor for Pittsboro having independent access to an intake.
In the analysis, the raw water intake is sized for the needs of all four partners, with cost based on their percentage of water needed. This path was chosen based on early discussions with NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These bodies are likely to approve only one more publicly owned water supply intake on the Lake— which would require regional cooperation.
The total anticipated costs for the raw water intake, pump station, and regional Water Treatment Plant for Phase 1—with a maximum day capacity of 33 mgd (million gallons per
16-Oct-20 3 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report day)—was $243.3 million in 2014. Pittsboro’s contribution was $29.5 million, for a withdrawal average of 2 mgd. No cost analysis has been done for Pittsboro to pursue an independent intake or to initiate the process independently, but it would not likely be approved. Increasing financial investment into this partnership would not expedite the process at this point as the lead agency for the Western Intake has always been Durham, which funded the initial engineering design costs. The current goal is to have a regional intake operating by 2031.
PWQTF recommends that Pittsboro remain engaged in pursuing the Western Jordan Intake and explore strategies to expedite the process. The Western Intake offers the benefits of regional collaboration, advanced drinking water treatment, and a more protected water supply.
However, this is a long-term solution. While it should be pursued, it will not adequately and urgently address the immediate emerging contamination problem.
2020 Chatham County Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plan [Appendix I] PWQTF has only been provided the Executive Summary of the Chatham County Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plan. Based on the Executive Summary, the following points are highlighted:
• The report states that “the cost of expanding the existing facility (Pittsboro WTP) may be more than other options due to the potential for higher levels of contaminants in the Haw River when compared with Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River.” • According to a 2019 study, levels of PFAS in Sanford’s wastewater effluent are the highest in the state. The levels in the effluent, which is discharged just a short distance upstream from the drinking water supply intake, were recorded at 4,026 ppt (parts per trillion) of total PFAS found in [Appendix J]. • Published interviews with Sanford staff indicated that the town government did not test for these unregulated contaminants. The town’s website indicates that testing at SIUs (Sanford Industrial Users) has begun, however, data has not yet been released. • Also missing from this report was any discussion regarding the total trihalomethanes contamination that would arise from the long detention time involved in the process of pumping water from Sanford to Pittsboro. Analysis on how the Town would address this problem was not included in the report.
The recommended Sanford supply option would not eliminate—and may actually increase—the PFAS contamination issue in Pittsboro and must be carefully examined. Overall, the information in the report appears to make broad assumptions about water quality; while focusing on water quantity. The preferred recommendations are dependent on both Siler City and Chatham County making certain decisions that may or may not take place, and the recommendations do not appear to address important details that affect Pittsboro directly. However, the decision tool “dashboard” included in the Plan could be used by the Town to examine supply options (if it includes appropriate water quality criteria).
Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study [Appendix K] This report reviews the Town’s water supply options: Haw River, Jordan Lake, and Sanford. The final recommendation in the report—based on both quantity and quality of water—is to
16-Oct-20 4 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report expand the existing WTP and continue the Jordan Lake Partnership to secure participation in the construction of a western intake. The report examines both raw and finished water from Sanford.
Investing in adequate water supply treatment methods will be a worthwhile investment—as contaminants from upstream discharges will not likely be completely eliminated with this option. Adequate treatment will also limit contamination of Jordan Lake.
PFAS Testing Network findings [Appendix L] The most recent testing results from the PFAS Testing Network indicate that Pittsboro is among the highest in the state for total PFAS in drinking water. The most recent levels were 844.8 ppt at the intake. To compare: the levels for the Town of Cary, which is sourced from Jordan Lake, were 110.6 ppt, and Chatham County North intake levels were 65.4 ppt. This is sourced from Durham’s Lake Michie and Jordan Lake.
A temporary interconnect to Chatham County water supply would be a safe, short-term option until the Western Wake partnership is completed.
CDM Smith final report on water treatment options Initially anticipated for completion, this study and final report is now expected to be due at the end of 2020 or early 2021. PWQTF offers to evaluate the report and provide comments for the Mayor, Commissioners, and staff upon its completion.
Based on review of the preceding documents and reports, PWQTF makes the following recommendations:
• Chatham County’s 2020 Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plan includes a scenario-based software “dashboard” to gauge the alternatives and costs of water and wastewater needs for the county and its municipalities over the next fifty years. The PWQTF recommends that the Town Engineer, or a consultant, use the County’s dashboard to assess Pittsboro’s options. However, as of this report, the extent to which the software includes emerging contaminants as a decision factor on supply scenarios is not clear.
• The PWQTF has found that the water from Jordan Lake has the least probability of containing emerging contaminants. The PWQTF recommends considering Jordan Lake as a second water source for Pittsboro, and has initiated a pros and cons list to assist in evaluating alternate water supply sources [Appendix M].
• The PWQTF wishes to provide additional input upon completion of the Town’s Pilot Testing of Advanced Treatment Options at the Pittsboro WTP Report, which is anticipated in early 2021. At that time, a more informed assessment of the treatment options can be made.
Additionally, PWQTF recommends that Town provide leadership and direction promoting the expansion of stormwater and wastewater reuse treatment and delivery systems; develop a
16-Oct-20 5 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
long-term potable water demand reduction strategy to increase the efficiency and operating life of existing infrastructure; continue to collaborate with private developers and customers to make every reasonable effort to install reuse infrastructure during initial construction within anticipated service districts; and seek regional cooperation and input to develop legislature and building code revisions necessary to allow streamlined permitting and construction of reuse treatment and distribution systems. The PWQTF would like to assist the town in developing these systems.
III. Educate Town water users about Emerging Contaminants through a public awareness program, and provide short-term options to reduce exposure.
The PWQTF recommends the Town take immediate actions to provide improved water quality with recommended short-term solutions for Pittsboro citizens and businesses alike while long-term solutions are in progress.
Reverse Osmosis as an immediate solution Based on local and national research, and backed by initial results of the pilot project at the Pittsboro water treatment plant, we believe that reverse osmosis (RO) filtration systems have the highest cost benefit value and should have a minimum rating of NSF Standard 58 and NSF Standard P473 [Appendix N]. The recommended immediate solution for the Town of Pittsboro is to provide RO fill stations, RO installation rebate programs for low income families, discounted RO systems for renters, homeowners, and businesses, and RO point-of-use filters for the three public schools within Town limits [Appendix O].
RO fill stations should be located in town limits: we suggest Food Lion and the Chatham Marketplace. These fill stations will allow water customers to bring their water bill, with account number, for identification when filling up one- or five-gallon bottles. These bottles can be provided for low-income families free of charge. Additional bottles could be purchased and added onto the customer’s monthly water bill.
Immediate rebate programs should be established for low-income citizens wishing to install home RO systems. Many water filtration companies offer deep discounts with large bulk orders. This can enable the Town to make the initial purchase on behalf of their citizens. With these discounts, the Town can offer deeply discounted products with a repayment option added onto monthly bills.
Both homeowners and renters should be offered discounted RO products to be installed under the sink or on the countertop. These products can be purchased in bulk by the Town, or a coupon code can be provided with bills enabling citizens to purchase the equipment outright. If community members prefer to purchase from another company of choice, they should be directed to follow the guidelines for proper filtration.
With these in-home options, the Town will need to establish a list of trained plumbers to install RO filtration under sinks or on countertops. There can be a collaboration with the community college to provide regular services.
16-Oct-20 6 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
All short-term options should be free to qualifying low income individuals. And those who don’t qualify for a fully-funded option will still be eligible for a significant discount.
Transparency of information The PWQTF recommends that Town government establish transparency with community members by sending out educational notices to residences, businesses, and establishments; and offering assistance with installing RO systems.
The Town government should act in haste in alerting local vulnerable populations by providing highly visible educational information in healthcare facilities, nursing homes, public and private schools, daycares, and kidney dialysis centers. The content of the educational notices should focus on current health studies [Appendix P] and associated risks of PFAS and similar emerging contaminants; as well as the Town’s efforts to minimize the risk to public health. The town should recommend that these establishments install RO point-of-use systems for their entire facilities, or water bottle fill stations throughout. Information should also be shared via the Town webpage, social media, local newspapers, and to a wider audience through collaboration with the Chatham County Public Health Department and with local healthcare alliances [Appendix Q].
This recommendation seeks to establish trust in the community by providing guidance and assistance from Town government on the threat to our water and our health. Ongoing educational information should be included on water bills and within electronic communication provided to water customers. We have developed [Appendix R] as a full repository of information for the town to utilize, share, and study in order to inform the public of water quality issues.
CONCLUSION To date, the PWQTF has provided both an interim and final report. These reports have outlined: the need for Town government water advocacy work both upstream and downstream; the short- term solutions available to address our water crisis; a summary of alternate water supply options; and the importance of transparency to inform and safeguard our town and vulnerable populations.
PWQTF has fulfilled every charge put forth in the resolution [Appendix A] except one: water treatment technology options. As CDM Smith is still in process of their pilot study, the Task Force was unable to analyze their data and thereby propose suggestions for long-term treatment plans. If the PWQTF term is extended, it will be able to provide this assessment.
The Town of Pittsboro will face many challenges related to water resources over the coming years—all of which will be complicated and will require many points of view and expertise. If the board extends the term of the PWQTF, our ongoing mission will be to guide, advise, and assist the Town Commissioners in decision-making processes and program development surrounding our most vital natural resource and to assist in the execution of short- and long-term solutions to the local and regional water crisis. ___ Report prepared by: Katie Bryant, Chair; Bill Holman, Co-chair; Emily Sutton; Becky Smith; Jennifer Platt; Hunter Freeman
16-Oct-20 7 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix A- Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Resolution
16-Oct-20 8 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A PITTSBORO WATER QUALITY TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the Town of Pittsboro is currently reviewing possible improvements to its water treatment facility in light of recent information regarding unregulated contaminants in the Haw River; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Town is interested in the opinions of and input from the residents of and property owners within the Town and users of its potable water system regarding such improvements; and
WHEREAS, while the Town of Pittsboro has its staff and additional resources available to assure the safe treatment of potable water in conformity with all applicable rules and regulations, the Board of Commissioners of the Town is of the opinion that the appointment of community residents to serve upon an advisory Task Force for these matters is in the best interest of the Town;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISISIONERS OF THE TOWN OF PITTSBORO AS FOLLOWS:
1. There is hereby established an advisory committee to be known as the “Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force”, hereinafter referred to as the “Task Force”.
2. The mission of the Task Force shall be to assist the Board of Commissioners in its assessment of unregulated contaminates in Haw River and the appropriate response thereto.
3. The role and responsibility of the Task Force shall be as follows:
a. To help focus attention on specific issues, and problems anticipated as a result of the presence of the unregulated contaminates, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) and 1, 4-dioxane in the Town’s drinking water source;
b. To evaluate alternative supply sources of drinking water for the Town while considering the future needs of the Town, including review of the existing studies by the Jordan Lake Partnership for a Western Intake and the Chatham County Master Utilities Plan; and
c. To recommend actions and alternatives for Board consideration;
4. The Task Force shall consist of not more than twenty (20) members who shall fairly represent the various areas of the town and its extraterritorial jurisdiction and its general population in terms of gender, race, civic involvement, and business experience.
5. Two members shall be appointed by each member of the Board of Commissioners and the Mayor and additional members may be appointed by the Board. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Board or until June 30, 2020, whichever is earlier.
6. The Task Force shall meet and select a chair to lead the Task Force’s discussions. To assure accurate record-keeping, the Task Force shall also appoint a member to serve as recording secretary to take and keep minutes of its proceedings. Minutes shall be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners promptly after every meeting of the Task Force.
7. The Task Force shall review water quality issues affecting Pittsboro as set forth herein and make a report or reports of its recommendations at the conclusion of its review. The Task Force shall coordinate its review of these issues with any review schedule adopted by the Board of Commissioners to address recommendations from CDM Smith concerning possible improvements to the Town water treatment plant facility or to assess alternative water supply source(s). It is incumbent upon the Task Force to make sure its review of any water treatment or water supply alternatives is complete by the time the Board of Commissioners makes any decision thereon. Any reports received from the Task Force shall be considered by the Board of Commissioners in addition to the input received from any public hearings or other resources available to the Town.
8. In connection with its role the Task Force may:
a. invite presentations by water quality experts, academics and scientists concerning the presence of unregulated contaminates in the Haw River and suggested measures to address and ameliorate such substances and their effects upon the health of users of the Town’s water system;
b. suggest materials for the Town’s website to inform the public of the measures which the Town is taking to address water quality issues;
c. consult with State Water Quality officials in DEQ to seek information about permitting and penalties for upstream contaminating entities;
d. consider recommendations for the protection of vulnerable populations such as children in the public schools within the Town and entities in the Town caring for the elderly and infirmed; and
e. suggest measures for expansion of the existing and drinking water delivery systems in the interim period before construction of a new water treatment plant;
9. The Task Force shall meet at Town Hall on a regular basis, but not less frequently than monthly. A quorum must be present for the conduct of all regular meetings. A majority of the members appointed shall constitute a quorum. The chairperson may call a meeting, or a meeting may be called upon the written request of three members. All such meetings shall be subject to the open meetings law of North Carolina.
10. Members shall be automatically removed for lack of attendance. Lack of attendance is defined as failure to attend two (2) consecutive meetings or failure to attend more than one-half of the meetings scheduled. Participation for less than three-fourths of a meeting shall be the same as a failure to attend a meeting. Excused absences due to illness, absence from the county due to personal hardship, if approved by a majority vote of the Task Force, shall not constitute lack of attendance. Excused absences shall be entered into the minutes at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Members removed pursuant to this paragraph shall not continue to serve on the Task Force and such removal shall create a vacancy which may be filled by the Board.
11. The Board of Commissioners may appoint one or more of its members to serve as ex officio members of the Task Force or as a liaison to it.
12. Notwithstanding the creation of this Task Force, the Board of Commissioners has not thereby relinquished its discretion or authority to approve any water treatment option or source of drinking water for the town and its citizens. The Board is not obligated to adopt or incorporate any recommendations received from the Task Force and expressly reserves the right to review, comment upon, deny or approve any option to assure safe, potable drinking water to the town’s water customers with or without a report from the Task Force at any time and from time to time.
Adopted this __ day of November 2019.
TOWN OF PITTSBORO
By:
ATTEST:
Pittsboro Water Task Force Members
Karla Stone Eanes Bill Holman Becky Smith Adam Pickett Daniel Ayers Bett Foley Emily Sutton Hugh Harrington Mark Williams Chris Atack Kevin Russell Karen Strazza Karen Styres Katie Bryant Hunter Freeman Jennifer Platt Lori Cramer Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix B- 1,4 Dioxane Fact Sheet https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14- dioxane_january2014_final.pdf
16-Oct-20 9 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix C- PFAS Fact Sheet https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas
16-Oct-20 10 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix D- Upstream Dischargers Contact Information
16-Oct-20 11 Upstream Dischargers Contact Information
Burlington, NC
1. Ian Baltutis, Mayor P: (336) 222-5020 (Office) E-mail: [email protected]
2. Hardin Watkins, City Manager P: 336-222-5022 E-mail: [email protected] More Information
3. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT P: (336) 222-5133 • Robert C. Patterson, Jr., PE Director of Water Resources E-mail: [email protected] • Eric A. Davis, Water & Sewer Operations Manager E-mail: [email protected]
Greensboro, NC
1. Nancy Vaughan, Mayor Email can be located on the following link: https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/government/city-council/e-mail-city-council
2. David Parrish, City Manager P: 336-373-2002 E-mail: [email protected]
3. Michael Borchers, Director of Water Resources https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/water-resources/wastewater-system/1- 4-dioxane-updates
Reidsville, NC
1. Jay Donecker, Mayor P: 336-342-5093 Email: [email protected]
Upstream Dischargers Contact Information
2. Preston W. Mitchell, City Manager E-mail: [email protected]
3. Chuck Smith, City's Public works director E-mail: [email protected]
Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix E- Cape Fear Communities Coalition
16-Oct-20 12
Cape Fear Communities Coalition
Pittsboro
Pittsboro can withdraw up to 2 MGD from the Haw River at Bynum. The Town has information about unregulated chemicals, including 1,4 dioxane and PFAS on its website.
Honorable Jim Nass, Mayor [email protected] 703-517-8408 Bob Morgan, Interim Town Manager [email protected] 919-542-4621 X 1105 John Poteat, Utilities Director, [email protected] 919-542-2530 Adam Pickett, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor [email protected] 919-542-3530 Cindy Perry, Chair, Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force
Chatham County
Cary provides raw water to Chatham County Utilities from its Jordan Lake intake. Chatham Utilities treats an average of 2 MGD at its Jordan Lake Water Treatment Plant for its North Chatham Water System. Chatham County also buys water from Sanford for its Asbury-Chatham Water System. PFAS and 1,4 dioxane information is on the Chatham County website.
The Honorable Karen Howard, Chair, [email protected] 919-636-5799 Dan LaMontagne, Manager [email protected] 919-542-8200 Larry Bridges, Director, Utilities/Public Works [email protected] 919-542-8238 Daniel Clevenger, Water Treatment Plant Superintendent [email protected] 919-303-0055
Cary
With Apex has capacity to withdraw and treat 56 MGD from its Jordan Lake intake. Also provides water and wastewater service to Morrisville. PFAS, 1, 4 dioxane, and emerging contaminants information is posted on the web site and is addressed in annual drinking water report.
The Honorable Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor, [email protected], 919-469-4011 Sean Stegall, Manager, [email protected], 919-469-4007 Jamie Revels, PE, Director, Utilities, [email protected] J. D. Arnold, Water Systems Manager, [email protected], 919-362-5502
Apex
With Cary has capacity to withdraw and treat 56 MGD from Jordan Lake.
The Honorable Jacques Gilbert, Mayor, [email protected], 919-522-9823 Drew Havens, Manager, [email protected], 919-249-3301 Jimmy Cornell, Utilities Operations Manager, [email protected], 919-249-3536 David Hardin, Water Resources Specialist, [email protected]
1
Sanford
Has capacity to withdraw 12 MGD; average withdrawal is 7 MGD. Regional water provider to Chatham County and others. Intake above Buckhorn Dam on the Cape Fear River. PFAS information is posted on the City’s website.
Honorable Chet Mann, Mayor [email protected] 919-777-1103 Victor Czar, Director, Public Works [email protected] 919-777-1117 Scott Christiansen, Water Filtration Administrator [email protected] 919-777-1800
Harnett County Public Utilities
Has capacity to withdraw 42 MGD. Regional water provider. Intake on Cape Fear River upstream from Lillington.
Honorable Howard Penny, Chairman, Harnett County Commissioners [email protected] Paula Stewart, County Manager [email protected] Steve Ward, Director, Harnett County Public Utilities Allan Obraut, Water Treatment Supervisor
Fuquay-Varina
Has capacity to purchase 4.25 MGD from Raleigh, Harnett County & Johnston County. Plans to purchase 6 MGD from Sanford and is seeking an Interbasin transfer certificate to transfer water from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Neuse.
Honorable John Byrne, Mayor, [email protected], 919-552-1403 Adam Mitchell, Manager, [email protected], 919-552-1401 Jay Meyers, PE, Public Utilities Director, [email protected], 919-567-3911
Fayetteville Public Works Commission
Has capacity to withdraw and treat 57.5 MGD; average withdrawal is 23.746 MGD. Regional water provider. Intake on the Cape Fear River above Lock & Dam #3 for the Hoffer Water Treatment Plant. Glenville Lake Water Treatment Plant also provides water. 1,4 dioxane information is posted on the PWC website.
Honorable Mitch Colvin, Mayor [email protected] 910-433-1992 Doug Hewitt, City Manager Darsweil Rogers, Chairman, PWC David Trego, General Manager, PWC 910-223-4002 Mick Noland, COO, PWC [email protected] 910-223-4733
Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
Water wholesaler for Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover & Pender Counties. Operates Kings Bluff Raw Water Pump Station in Bladen County above Lock & Dam #1. Also provides treated water to Smithfield Foods from its Bladen Bluffs water treatment plant in Tar Heel.
2
Al Milliken, Chairman (from Brunswick County) Tim Holloman, Executive Director 910-383-1919
Bladen County
Smithfield Foods
Brunswick County
Brunswick County Utilities treats raw water provided by LCFWASA. It is expanding its Northwest Water Treatment Plant from 24 MGD to 36 MGD at an estimated cost of $110,000,000. It is also constructing an advanced low-pressure reverse osmosis system. Construction started in 2020 and is expected to be operational by 2022. Brunswick County Utilities has extensive information about Gen-X & PFAS on its website.
Honorable Frank Williams, Chairman Randell Woodruff, County Manager [email protected] 910-253-2016 John Nichols, Director, Brunswick County Utilities Glenn Walker, Water Resource Manager [email protected] 910-371-3490
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (Wilmington-New Hanover County)
Sweeney Water Treatment Plant treats raw water provided by LCFWASA. Has capacity to treat 35 MGD; average is 16 MGD. Richardson Water Treatment Plant treats up to 6 MGD of groundwater for northern New Hanover County. CFPUA is investing about $43,000,000 to upgrade & expand treatment utilizing granular activated carbon (GAC) at Sweeney. The project started in 2019 and should be fully operational by May 2022. CFPUA has extensive information about GenX, PFAS, 1,4 dioxane and other emerging contaminants on its website.
Honorable Bill Saffo, Mayor of Wilmington [email protected] 910-341-7815 Honorable Julia Olson Boseman, Chairman, New Hanover County [email protected] 910-798-7148 William Norris, Chairman of CFPUA Jim Flechtner, Executive Director, 910-332-6621 Carel Vandermeyden, Treatment/Engineering Services Administration [email protected] 910-332-6560 Beth Eckert, Environment & Safety Management Director, [email protected]
Columbus County
Pender County Utilities
Pender County Utilities treats 2 MGD of raw water provided by LCFWASA. It plans to expand to 6MGD. Pender County Utilities has information about GenX & PFAS on its website.
The Honorable George Brown, Chairman 910-675-8653 Chad McEwen, County Manager 910-259-1200
3
Michael Mack, Director, Pender County Utilities [email protected] 910-259-1570
Triangle Water Partnership
Includes local governments & utilities that withdraw water from Falls Lake, the Neuse River, Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River, including Pittsboro & Chatham County
Larry Bridges, Chatham County Utilities, Chairman.
Triangle J COG staffs the partnership. Jen Schmitz recently left TJCOG to take a new job in Washington. Maya Cough-Schulze will staff the partnership. Contact her at 919-558-9389 or mcough- [email protected].
NC DEQ Contacts
Kim Nimmer Emerging Compounds Coordinator Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Quality 919-707-9019 [email protected]
Rebecca Sadosky Drinking Water Protection Coordinator Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Quality 919-707-9096 [email protected]
4
Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix F- Upper, Middle and Lower Cape Fear River Basin Associations
16-Oct-20 13 Upper, Middle and Lower Cape Fear River Basin Associations
Cape Fear River Assembly https://cfra.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?sl=1589298099
Lower Cape Fear River Program https://uncw.edu/cms/aelab/lcfrp/
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association https://www.ptrc.org/services/regional-planning/water-resources/upper-cape-fear-river-basin- association
Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix G- Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners: Economic Feasibility Study
16-Oct-20 14 Jordan Lake Western IntakePartners Economic Feasibility Study
Final Report / February 2, 2018
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 1 Contents Executive Summary...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Western Intake Partners...... 5 City of Durham ...... 5 Pittsboro...... 6 Chatham County ...... 8 Orange Water and Sewer Authority ...... 10 Economic Feasibility Model ...... 12 City of Durham ...... 13 Pittsboro...... 17 Chatham County ...... 20 Orange Water and Sewer Authority ...... 23 Baseline Model Results...... 26 Sensitivity Analysis...... 26 Growth Projections ...... 26 Threshold for Triggering Need for Increased Capacity ...... 27 Governance...... 27 Cooperative Models...... 28 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 29 Next Steps ...... 30 Appendix ...... 31 Table 1. City of Durham Financial Forecast...... 31 Table 2. Town of Pittsboro Financial Forecast...... 32 Table 3. Chatham County Financial Forecast...... 33 Table 4. Orange Water and Sewer Authority Financial Forecast...... 34
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 2 Executive Summary Thirteen localities joined together to form the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) in 2009 to plan for the region’s future water supply. The JLP created the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan (TRWSP), which evaluated different strategies to meet the region’s long-term water supply needs. As part of the JLP, several JLP members are working together to determine how best to access their Jordan Lake allocations. This subsequent work proposed the development of a regional water treatment plant (RWTP) called the Western Intake and Water Treatment Facility to service the Western Intake Partners (WIP), consisting of the City of Durham (Durham), the Town of Pittsboro (Pittsboro), the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and Chatham County. Although not a part of the WIP, Orange County is also included in this study as it is assumed they will receive their water supply allocation from Jordan Lake through an interconnection with Durham.
Durham engaged Hazen and Sawyer in 2014 to develop water supply solutions for each partner locality of the WIP. This study, called the Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study (Western Intake Feasibility Study), proposed a preferred basic design of the RWTP out of three alternatives. Durham then engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) to conduct a financial and economic feasibility study for the construction of the RWTP. The completed analysis considers projections of customer and/or demand growth, capacity needs, operating revenue requirements, and capital financing alternatives for each of the partners, as well as supplemental sensitivity analyses related to variability in growth. The study objective is to determine an optimal time to invest in the RWTP that balances the collective benefits of the treatment plant with each utility’s financial impact.
For the purposes of this study, the WIP consists of Durham, Pittsboro, Chatham County, and OWASA. Costs are divided between the partners based on the 2040 average- and maximum-day capacity allocations. Durham, which is the largest of the partners, accounts for 55 percent of the estimated RWTP facility costs and is in the best position to leverage a high credit rating for favorable terms that may lower borrowing costs for the capital investment for all participants depending on the ultimate capital financing plan. Pittsboro, which accounts for 12 percent of estimated costs, soon expects to annex Chatham Park, a new and large development anticipated to bring significant growth within the next five to ten years. Chatham County accounts for 27 percent of estimated facility costs and will incur ancillary growth associated with the Chatham Park development. OWASA owns the property adjacent to Jordan Lake for the proposed site of the RWTP recommended in the Western Intake Feasibility Study and accounts for 6 percent of estimated facility costs.
The economic feasibility analysis performed in the study utilizes two main metrics: each utility’s average cost per thousand gallons (kgal) and monthly customer bill impacts. The two metrics show the financial burden on each utility as a whole and on its individual customers in order to determine the optimal time to begin investment in the RWTP. Pittsboro and Chatham County both face increasing demand that is likely to surpass available capacity in the next decade. For these two jurisdictions, the need for increased capacity is the primary driver for RWTP construction timing. As such, there is considerable financial risk for Chatham County and Pittsboro associated with making large capital investments based on high demand growth projections which may not materialize to the extent expected. Though Durham does not face capacity issues in the near term, its main objective is to minimize increasing maintenance and regulatory costs associated with one of its current water treatment plants; therefore, the optimal time for Durham to invest in the new treatment plant is as soon as is otherwise necessary to avoid costly
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 3 investments at one of its current treatment facilities. OWASA is primarily using the RWTP as a supplemental source of water for use during extended drought and water emergencies and would ideally have use of the RWTP during the period of 2025 and 2035 to provide supplemental emergency capacity while its existing Quarry Reservoir is unavailable.
Based on the analysis described in detail in this document, Raftelis recommends that the WIP develop a plan to begin construction in 2025 so it can be online by 2031. Importantly, the group should strongly consider the risks associated with slower than anticipated growth noted above and presented herein. A RWTP with less capacity in 2040 that can be expanded to suit the needs of 2060 and beyond is a viable alternative. Prior to 2025, the group should decide upon a collaborative approach to financing that will minimize the cost of capital and make the project feasible for all entities. This arrangement will be closely tied to a cooperative governance approach to ownership and management of the RWTP. Though the two can be managed separately at first, if necessary, they should be developed in tandem to streamline the financing and minimize the number of interim agreements. Introduction The Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) was created in 2009 by 13 localities to “jointly plan for sustainable and secure water supplies for the region.” This collaborative partnership of local communities created the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan (TRWSP) which evaluated several strategies to meet the region’s long-term water supply needs. As part of the JLP, several JLP members are working together to determine how best to access their Jordan Lake allocations. This subsequent work proposed development of the Western Intake and Water Treatment Facility to provide water services for the Western Intake Partners (WIP), which includes the City of Durham (Durham), the Town of Pittsboro (Pittsboro), Chatham County, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA). Although not a part of the WIP, Orange County is also included in this study as it is assumed they will receive their water supply allocation from Jordan Lake through an interconnection with Durham.
In 2014, Durham engaged Hazen and Sawyer to develop and evaluate, at a conceptual level, regional Jordan Lake water supply alternatives to assist the WIP in determining the most favorable alternative to meet the water supply needs of the individual members as well as the group collectively. The study was called the Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study (Western Intake Feasibility Study). The recommendation of this study included the design and construction of a Regional Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) with the extension of new finished water pipelines from the RWTP to each WIP distribution system.
The RWTP and pumping facilities are sized initially based on projected maximum-day demands in the year 2040 (as shown in Table 1) with subsequent expansion to meet 2060 maximum-day demand projections. Planning level costs for the RWTP and related facilities are $243.3 million for the initial facilities (2040 demand) and $316.8 million for the ultimate facilities (2060 demand). Planning costs were developed in 2014 dollars and are adjusted to reflect the future cost of the facility at the time of initial construction1. Projected RWTP operating costs were also developed as part of the Western Intake Feasibility Study.
1 Capital costs escalated based on the 10-year average Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (2006 – 2016).
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 4 Table 1. 2040 Demand Projections
The City of Durham engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) to conduct a financial and economic feasibility analysis of the potential design and construction of the RWTP. Raftelis evaluated the economic implications for each of the WIP and had preliminary discussions related to governance and other participant issues associated with regional service delivery. The analysis includes the development of long-term financial projections and economic evaluation criteria to assess, at a high level, the financial and rate impacts of this capital investment on each WIP. Using the Western Intake Feasibility Study as the basis of the demand assumptions, the analysis gives consideration of alternative projections of customer and demand growth, capacity needs, and capital financing alternatives. The goal of the study is to determine the optimal time period in which to invest in the RWTP that balances individual utility impacts with the broader, collective benefits of regional collaboration.
The Raftelis study began in early 2017 with a group kickoff meeting, which was followed by several individual utility meetings. The goal of these meetings was to pinpoint the necessary inputs and assumptions such that the model could be almost wholly developed before reconvening the group. Raftelis developed a model during this period that forecasted demand, evaluated established economic criteria, and allowed for variable timing and distribution of project costs. Raftelis presented preliminary model outcomes and recommendations to each utility individually during July and August, and reconvened with the entire group in September. Raftelis presented preliminary results at this group meeting and discussed next steps and governance options.
The project concludes with this report, outlining the circumstances, modeled inputs and data, and model outputs for each utility as well as recommendations for the group moving forward. Western Intake Partners The Western Intake Partners are a diverse set of utilities that vary on service provision, current water supply sufficiency, development density, expected growth, and alternative water supply options. This section describes the circumstances of each Partner with respect to its involvement in the regional effort. City of Durham The City of Durham is the largest and northern-most of the Western Intake Partners. It provides water service to almost 90,000 customers and sewer service to the majority of those customers who reside inside the City. Durham has been growing steadily for over a decade and expects that growth to continue. As the largest system within this partnership and as an emergency source to several other systems, Durham is particularly interested in ensuring an adequate and reliable supply as the region continues to expand. Durham’s Williams Water Treatment Plant is in need of major capital investment, and a new plant could offset the need to make those repairs in the near future, allowing the City to take that plant offline and have it available for a more comprehensive rehabilitation in the future if needed.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 5 Water Supply & Service
In FY 2016, the City of Durham’s water demand was 27.6 million gallons per day (MGD), as compared to its 52.0 MGD treatment capacity across both water treatment plants. Maximum daily flows were 39.3 MGD and 37.8 MGD in FY 2015 and 2016, respectively. As stated, the Williams WTP requires a substantial investment in the relatively near term, rendering that total capacity lowered if no replacement comes available. Durham has agreements with numerous neighboring utilities to provide and receive water in emergency situations. The agreement with OWASA was exercised recently when OWASA experienced an emergency WTP shutdown and subsequent severe main break. Durham provided approximately 6.0 MGD during the period of just over two days. The agreement with OWASA was exercised again during planned construction at the Williams WTP. Durham received a total of 106.1 MG from OWASA over a period of 27 days during September and October 2017. Durham also has similar agreements with Hillsborough, Orange-Alamance, Raleigh, Chatham County, and Cary.
Utility Finances
For FY 2017, Durham anticipates approximately $45.4 million in water operating revenues, increasing at approximately 3.5 percent each year. This figure matches the anticipated water portion of utility-wide operating expenses, rate-funded capital improvement projects (CIP), and debt service. Raftelis updates the City’s water and sewer utility rate model annually and works to ensure that fiscal policies related to debt service coverage, reserve targets, and capital funding are met.
Growth Projections
The City anticipates a conservative but steady growth of 1 percent per year, which has been exceeded in recent years as economic conditions have improved.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Considerations
The City of Durham has the largest stake in the RWTP and is financially capable of funding the capital costs at project initiation. Depending on the governance model selected for the plant, Durham may be the primary project financier, to be reimbursed by the other utilities as part of individual agreements.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Assumptions
The City of Durham has an allocation of 10.0 MGD received in 2002 and an additional allocation of 6.5 MGD as part of the Final Decision in the Round 4 Jordan Lake Allocation, which was published on April 4, 2017. The Western Intake Feasibility Study allocation assumes 18.0 MGD of 33.0 MGD initial RWTP maximum-day capacity and accounts for 55 percent of facility costs ($132.9M of the originally estimated $243.3M in 2014 dollars). 1 MGD in average and peak demand is assumed to be a pass through to Orange County. For the purposes of this study, that 1 MGD and its associated costs are included in the City of Durham’s portion of the RWTP. Pittsboro The Town of Pittsboro in central Chatham County, which currently has approximately 4,000 citizens, is beginning a period of rapid expansion. Chatham Park, a new development with potentially thousands of homes and several commercial centers, is being developed to the northeast and southeast of the downtown area (see Figure 1). The Town has agreed to annex those areas as they are developed.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 6 Figure 1. Chatham Park Development (Source: www.chathampark.com/maps/)
Pittsboro has not been charging capital recovery or access fees since October 2016, so the economic feasibility model anticipates that all RWTP costs are borne through rates alone. However, this alternative revenue source could be significant and recent State legislation has clarified an appropriate way to calculate and assess the fees, so it may be considered in the future.
In preparation for this rapid growth, the Town recently passed several significant ordinances related to reclaimed water, water efficiency, and irrigation and is also finalizing an emergency drought plan. Pittsboro’s growth will have additional impacts on the surrounding region and is one of the key considerations in this regional water supply solution.
Water Supply & Service
The Town currently produces an average of 0.6 MGD of potable water, with a recent maximum daily demand of 1.3 MGD. The water treatment plant has an available treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD. The Town also has an interconnection with Chatham County, which is intended for Pittsboro to sell water to the County. The two entities are currently considering another interconnection and modeling critical
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 7 points at which water could flow to Pittsboro from Chatham County. Chatham County is tied in with other systems, and Pittsboro anticipates an additional 2.0 MGD may be available through that interconnection, but this level of flow would require significant upgrades and improvement to Chatham County’s infrastructure. Additionally, the Town can take up to 8.0 MGD out of the Haw River, but there are significant issues with water quality and river access above the dam, rendering the Haw River an unviable solution in the short term.
Pittsboro provides both water and sewer services to about 1,900 customers. Once a RWTP is in place, the Town may take the existing plant offline or repurpose it for water reclamation.
Utility Finances
The Town receives $1.6 million in operating revenue annually, $1.5 million of which covers operating expenses. The remainder is put toward a small debt service obligation and other capital projects. The Town’s financial policies include maintenance of a reserve fund and minimum fund balance.
Growth Projections
As reported in the Western Intake Feasibility Study, growth associated with Chatham Park is expected to increase demand from 0.6 MGD to about 3.0 MGD in 2040. For economic feasibility modeling, we have assumed a baseline growth of 0.1 MGD annually, which is based on the steady increase in demand derived from the Western Intake Feasibility Study.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Considerations
Pittsboro’s growth represents the most significant capacity need among the WIP.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Assumptions
The Town has been allocated 6.0 MGD as part of the Final Decision in the Round 4 Jordan Lake Allocation, which was published on April 4, 2017. The Town has been allocated 3.0 of the 33.0 MGD RWTP maximum- day capacity and accounts for 12 percent of facility costs ($29.5M of the originally estimated $243.3M in 2014 dollars). Chatham County Chatham County is the southernmost jurisdiction of the Western Intake Partners. It surrounds the Town of Pittsboro and almost entirely encompasses Jordan Lake. Outside its urban center, Pittsboro, and the northeast portion, Chatham County is a lightly populated region. The County anticipates that a portion of its jurisdiction to be annexed by Pittsboro as part of the Chatham Park development, but that additional ancillary development, likely in the form of an industrial corridor, would occur and remain in the County outside the incorporated Town. Water Supply & Service
The County manages three separate water systems, each serving a different part of the County, which is detailed in Figure 2, below, as displayed on the County website. The Regional Water Treatment Plant would tie in to the Northern/Eastern “North” system, but all three systems are interconnected.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 8 Figure 2. Chatham County Water Systems Map (Source: www.chathamnc.org/)
The County has approximately 9,000 water customers across its combined system and does not provide sewer service. The County’s water treatment plant, located in the North system east of Jordan Lake, is permitted to treat 3.0 MGD, and at present produces an average of 1.7 MGD. In total, system usage averages approximately 2.1 MGD, which is the baseline figure for analysis. The County has a 4.0 MGD contractual agreement with the City of Durham through 2028, but the infrastructure at that interconnection can only support an additional 3.0 MGD transfer, which effectively reduces the availability of the additional supply. The County also has an interconnection between their East system and the City of Sanford at Highway 42, but this interconnection is also limited as a source of additional supply due to infrastructure constraints.
Utility Finances
Chatham County receives approximately $6 million annually in operating revenues for the three water systems. Revenue requirements of the same system(s) are approximately $4.6 million, with most of the remainder dedicated to servicing debt on previously funded capital projects. Chatham County also generates revenue from capacity fees.
Growth Projections
The Western Intake Feasibility Study projected rapid growth for Chatham County, which upon further evaluation may reflect some of the same growth captured in the Town of Pittsboro’s projections. For the purpose of this study, Raftelis models a slower growth rate for the next 5 years and then growth equivalent to that contained in the Western Intake Feasibility Study beginning in 2020. To limit costs that are required to be recovered through rates, the model assumes an offset from capacity fees escalated based on system growth. As discussed later in this report, if regional growth is anticipated to be
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 9 significantly less than was originally envisioned, a smaller regional water treatment plant should be considered.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Considerations
Depending on RWTP construction timing, the County’s agreement with Durham may require an extension beyond 2028.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Assumptions
Of the four Western Intake Partners, Chatham County has the least clear path toward growing to fill its regional treatment plan capacity assignment. Chatham County has an allocation of 6.0 MGD received in 2002 and an additional allocation of 7.0 MGD as part of the Final Decision in the Round 4 Jordan Lake Allocation, published April 4, 2017. The Western Intake Feasibility Study allocation assumes 10.0 MGD of 33.0 MGD initial RWTP maximum-day capacity, and accounts for 27 percent of facility costs ($65.9M of the originally estimated $243.3M in 2014 dollars). Orange Water and Sewer Authority Just west of Durham, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) provides water, sewer, and reclaimed water services to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the surrounding area. OWASA’s service area is approximately 35 square miles with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), residential, and commercial development.
Water Supply & Service
OWASA’s water supply sources are Cane Creek Reservoir, University Lake, and the much smaller Quarry Reservoir, all west of the service area, which together provide about 10.5 MGD safe yield on an annual average basis. The water treatment plant has a maximum day treatment capacity of 20.0 MGD. The map below shows the location and watershed boundaries for these sources.
One of OWASA’s primary considerations in this analysis is the plan to drain and expand the Quarry Reservoir between the years 2025 and 2035, during which time that backup supply will not be available. If there were to be a prolonged drought coincident with this event, it could cause water supply shortages for OWASA and its customers. In addition, Cane Creek Reservoir, OWASA’s largest raw water source, has a small drainage area for its water storage volume. Thus, it can take a long time to refill following a drought; therefore, an extended drought or back-to-back droughts leaves OWASA vulnerable. While OWASA does have mutual aid agreements with the City of Durham, Town of Cary, and Town of Hillsborough, each represents an amount determined by the seller and none are a guaranteed solution if the region is experiencing extreme drought conditions.
In 2010, OWASA developed a Long-Range Water Supply Plan that assessed water supply alternatives to meet demand over a 50-year period. The Plan concluded that existing sources, including an expanded Quarry Reservoir will meet most needs through 2060, but the conclusion is contingent on continued customer conservation, use of the reclaimed water system, and water treatment plant recycle system. OWASA’s Jordan Lake allocation is a critical part of its water supply portfolio to meet water needs during drought or operational emergency.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 10 Figure 3. OWASA System Map
OWASA serves approximately 21,000 water customers. Usage has been level in recent years, as reflected by the average annual and maximum day production at the water treatment plant. Table 2 below shows the past three years of data. OWASA notes that some usage has been offset by reclaimed water; the reclaimed water system was developed in partnership with UNC and became operational in 2009.
Table 2. OWASA Average Annual and Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Calendar Year Average Annual (MGD) Max Day (MGD) 2016 6.61 8.29 2015 6.84 9.45 2014 6.96 9.63
Utility Finances
In FY 2016, the utility operated on water revenues of approximately $18 million, half of which is dedicated to existing operational requirements and the remainder split evenly between debt service and cash funding for capital projects. OWASA currently services debt on existing revenue bonds, plans to issue more in coming years, and is operating under a detailed Capital Improvements Program, which should take the utility through 2021. For the purposes of this study, water system finances are divorced from sewer and separate entities. General and administrative costs are split evenly between water and sewer utilities.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 11 Growth Projections
OWASA staff provided Raftelis with growth projections as part of an output from their propriety financial model. This document shows a growth rate of water service points of about 0.5 percent per year. The allocations determined in the engineering report set OWASA’s allocation at 2.0 MGD of 33.0 MGD initial RWTP capacity.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Considerations
The proposed site for the RWTP in the original study is on OWASA-owned land on the western bank of Jordan Lake. Fair compensation for the lease or purchase of this land must be considered as part of the long-term agreement between participating utilities. In this model, based on the Western Intake Feasibility Study, the land-related costs are borne entirely by the other partners as a portion of their capital costs, though there is no direct payment to OWASA. This approach is reasonable and reflects a proportionate allocation of the estimated value of OWASA’s land. Ultimately, if the OWASA site is used, the partners will likely need to obtain an independent valuation of the property and determine the most appropriate recognition of this asset, which may differ depending on various legal considerations, particularly as it relates to the transfer of ownership.
Regional Water Treatment Plant Assumptions
OWASA has a current allocation of 5.0 MGD, which has not changed as part of the Final Decision in the Round 4 Jordan Lake Allocation, which was published on April 4, 2017. OWASA has been allocated 2.0 of the 33.0 MGD RWTP maximum-day capacity and accounts for 6 percent of facility costs ($15.0M of the originally estimated $243.3M in 2014 dollars). Economic Feasibility Model To understand the financial implications of the RWTP on each of the Western Intake Partners, Raftelis developed a model which created long-term financial projections to assess, at a high level, the financial and rate impacts of this capital investment on each WIP. Customer demand and revenue requirements – made up of existing and proposed operating expenses, debt service, and capital expenditures – are established for each partner based on the Western Intake Feasibility Study and information provided by each jurisdiction.
There are two main economic evaluation metrics used to assess the financial feasibility of the RWTP for each WIP: the utility’s average unit cost per 1,000 gallons and the customer impacts in terms of a monthly bill. The average unit cost is calculated by dividing the total annual revenue requirements of each utility by the projected annual demand, shown in 1,000 gallons. This metric provides a broad understanding of how high or low the utility’s costs are relative to its customer base and demand.
Customer impacts are estimated by calculating the monthly bill for a 4,000 gallon, inside-city residential customer using each utility’s current water rates and escalating the bill by the percent change in the utility’s unit cost per 1,000 gallons. For example, if a utility’s average cost per thousand gallons (kgal) is projected to increase by 5 percent from 2017 to 2018, the 2017 bill for a 4,000-gallon customer would also be projected to increase by 5 percent. Since the average unit cost calculation considers both future costs and demand, it represents a reasonable proxy to assess the impact on customer bills over a long- term planning period. The impacts on the customer bill demonstrate the financial burden on a per- customer basis, who would ultimately be paying for the RWTP. The metrics diverge when growth in
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 12 demand and growth in costs occur at different rates. These two metrics provide the ability to gauge the impact of the RWTP on each utility and its customers, and thus determine the optimal timeframe of the construction of the RWTP.
Several assumptions were made throughout the process to estimate customer demand, capital expenditures, and financing costs, which were conducive to a long-term analysis with consistent methodology amongst jurisdictions. The Western Intake Feasibility Study included 50-year customer demand projections for each jurisdiction. These demand projections were incorporated into the model, although they were recalibrated to reflect each system’s current 2017 demands, as opposed to the 2017 demand projected at the time of the Western Intake Feasibility Study in 2014. Table 3 provides a projection of demand for each jurisdiction through the assumed completion of the RWTP in 2031.
Table 3. Average Day Demand Projections (MGD) for Western Intake Partners Partner 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Durham 27.90 28.18 28.47 28.75 29.04 29.33 29.62 29.92 30.22 30.52 30.82 31.13 31.44 31.76 32.08 Percent Change 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Chatham County 2.08 2.10 2.14 2.20 2.27 2.44 2.62 2.79 2.97 3.14 3.32 3.49 3.67 3.84 4.02 Percent Change 1.0% 1.0% 2.3% 2.8% 3.0% 7.5% 7.4% 6.5% 6.5% 5.7% 5.7% 5.1% 5.2% 4.6% 4.7% Pittsboro 0.675 0.75 0.85 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 Percent Change 12.5% 11.1% 13.3% 17.6% 10.0% 9.1% 8.3% 7.7% 7.1% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% OWASA 6.64 6.68 6.72 6.76 6.81 6.84 6.86 6.87 6.92 6.98 7.04 7.10 7.17 7.23 7.30 Percent Change 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%
In addition to the capital costs associated with the RWTP, it was necessary to make certain assumption as it relates to additional capital expenditures for each utility’s water system over the long-term planning period. To address this need, some of the WIP jurisdictions provided a capital improvement plan identifying water system capital expenditures over the next five to ten years, and these costs were incorporated into the model. However, because capital projects are often difficult to predict on a long- term basis, additional capital expenditures were estimated beyond what was available in planning documents based on each jurisdiction’s policy on debt service coverage, or if a policy did not exist, Raftelis identified a reasonable coverage target considering the utility’s size and financial characteristics. Debt service coverage was used as a proxy for long-term capital expenditures as the additional dollars generated for coverage purposes are often used to finance capital investments internally through rates. Finally, for consistency, each utility was assumed to debt-finance the entire capital costs associated with the RWTP using the following assumptions: 1.5 percent issuance costs, 5 percent interest rate, and a 30- year term. Based on Raftelis’ experience, these assumptions are consistent with likely funding costs, historical tax-exempt interest rates and typical maturities, and they are reasonable for long-term planning purposes.
As the analysis involved an iterative process of reviewing the metrics described above and adjusting the planned date for bringing the RWTP on line, the description below focuses on the final iteration, with plant construction beginning in 2025 and the plant being in service in 2031. City of Durham The City of Durham is allocated 18.0 MGD2 of the 33.0 MGD of the initial RTWP capacity and 55 percent of the total capital costs. These costs account for both the City’s share of water treatment as well as a portion of land costs, as the land is currently owned by OWASA. The City is assumed to have a constant 16.5 MGD of demand from the RWTP, as the RWTP will replace 17.0 MGD of the City’s existing capacity from the Williams Water Treatment Plant and thus will not be used for peaking. As previously mentioned,
2 Includes 1 MGD pass through to Orange County.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 13 the Williams Water Treatment Plant is an aging facility and as the maintenance and regulatory costs associated with the plant rise, the City hopes to minimize investment in the plant and replace the capacity with the newer RWTP with lower maintenance costs.
As seen above in Table 3, the City’s water demand in FY 2016 was 27.6 MGD. The model assumes demand will increase 1.0% annually over the planning period, and the City currently has 52.0 MGD of treatment capacity. Figure 4 presents the City’s projected demand as compared to its existing treatment capacity.
Durham Demand vs Existing Capacity 60
50
40
30
20 Capacity (MGD) 10
- 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Demand Current Capacity
Figure 4. City of Durham Demand Vs. Available Capacity
Figure 5 illustrates Durham’s projected demand (daily peak plus average day) and capacity, which includes the additional 17.0 MGD of treatment capacity from the RWTP and assumes a commensurate reduction in 17 MGD of capacity from the Williams WTP. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed the 16.5 MGD of daily demand would be constantly supplied by the RWTP. The remaining max-day demand would be supplied by the Brown WTP assuming the Williams WTP were to be taken offline. It should be noted Durham is currently expanding capacity at its Brown WTP that is not captured in Figure 5.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 14 Durham Demand vs Proposed Capacity 60
50
40
30 Capacity (MGD) 20
10
- 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Demand Peak Demand Current Capacity Total Existing and RWTP Capacity
Figure 5. City of Durham Demand Vs. Proposed Capacity (Excludes current expansion to Brown WTP)
Unlike the other WIPs, all the data for the City – including the operating and nonoperating revenue and expenses, debt service, capital costs, and demand projections – were based off the City’s rate and financial planning model, developed by Raftelis. Growth projections were assumed to be 1 percent annually through 2040 – as shown above in Figure 4. Operating expenses were based on the FY2018 budget with assumed growth of 3 percent annually, with long-term capital needs based on a 2.00 debt service coverage ratio. The financial projections included existing debt service for the entire water system and planned capital financing for other projects as contained in the financial planning model. Operating expenses and future debt service for the RWTP were modeled to be incurred as the plant is operational in 2031.
Under these projections, Durham’s average unit cost is estimated to almost double by 2040, starting at $4.46 per kgal in 2017 and increasing to $7.42 per kgal by 2040, as shown below in Figure 6. Under the City’s current rates, a 4,000-gallon customer pays $19.32 per month for water. This customer is projected to pay $32.12 by the time the construction of the RWTP is assumed to be completed in 2031 – see Figure 7. On average, this is a 3.69 percent compound annual rate increase between 2017 and 2031.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 15 Cost per Kgal $10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$ per Kgal $4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Durham Linear (Durham)
Figure 6. City of Durham Cost per Kgal
Figure 7. City of Durham Customer Impacts
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 16 Because the driving factor for the City’s investment in the RWTP is to minimize the increasing costs associated with the Williams WTP, optimal timing for the construction of the treatment plant is largely dependent on future regulatory requirements and related timing of investments required at the Williams WTP. Although a fair degree of uncertainty in these factors exist, based on discussion with City staff, a target RWTP construction initiation year of 2025 appears to be reasonable, particularly if it facilitates regional collaboration. Pittsboro Chatham Park is expected to bring considerable and direct growth to the Town of Pittsboro and is the impetus for expanding the Town’s capacity. The Town’s available treatment capacity is 2.0 MGD, with current demand on the system roughly 0.6 MGD. The Town of Pittsboro is allocated 3.0 MGD of the RWTP capacity and 12 percent of the capital costs. These costs account for both the Town’s share of water treatment as well as a portion of land costs, as the land is currently owned by OWASA. The Town plans to use the RWTP for peaking purposes. Figure 8 presents the Town’s projected demand as compared to its existing treatment capacity.
Pittsboro Demand vs Existing Capacity 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Capacity (MGD) 0.5 - 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Demand Current Capacity Capacity Threshold
Figure 8. Town of Pittsboro Demand Vs. Available Capacity
As seen above, demand is projected to grow by 0.1 MGD per year throughout the forecast period, based on the Western Intake Feasibility Study. Thus, the Town’s average daily demand is expected to exceed 80 percent of its current treatment capacity by 2026 and 100 percent of its treatment capacity by 2030. For the purpose of this study, we have used 80% of average daily demand as a trigger for consideration of new treatment capacity. As the ‘exceedance’ is still below total capacity, it is intended only as an indicator that, with increased growth, additional capacity will be required and the circumstance should be evaluated. The baseline model, described in the section above, suggests the appropriate timing for RWTP design and construction is 2025, to be in service by 2031. This timing reflects the midpoint between Pittsboro and Chatham County’s respective exceedances of the 80% threshold. It also balances the other Partners’ drivers for near-term replacement capacity and system redundancy with the high costs associated with such a significant project. This timing recommendation does not preclude consideration of an initially smaller, scalable RWTP as discussed above.
Figure 9 illustrates Pittsboro’s projected demand (daily peak plus average day) and capacity, which includes the additional 3.0 MGD of treatment capacity from the RWTP. For the period before 2031, any
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 17 peaking beyond the available treatment capacity would have to be managed through drawing on supplemental supply agreements.
Pittsboro Demand vs Proposed Capacity 6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
Capacity (MGD) 2.0
1.0
- 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Demand Peak Demand Current Capacity Total Existing and RWTP Capacity
Figure 9. Town of Pittsboro Projected Demand and Proposed Capacity
Operating expenses were projected based on half of the growth escalation rate. This growth rate was selected to reflect both inflationary impacts and incremental costs associated with a system expecting to see significant growth. The Town’s near-term capital improvement needs are assumed to be funded through rates, cash reserves, and a small debt issuance. Longer-term capital needs are estimated based on a 1.50 debt service coverage ratio and assumed to be funded through rates. Operating expenses and future debt service for the RWTP were modeled to be incurred as the plant is operational in 2031. The Town is proposed to assume $29.5 million3 of the RWTP capital costs. Figure 6 illustrates the high level of fluctuation in the Town’s cost per kgal as the Town absorbs the cost of the RWTP. Given the relatively small size, the Town’s water and wastewater system is particularly sensitive to potential growth, which can have considerably volatile effects on the system. With the most significant near-term growth of any WIP and with limited economies of scale to absorb risk, the impact of Chatham Park creates high levels of uncertainty for the utility and financial risk is introduced if the development doesn’t grow as quickly as expected.
3 Represents 2014 dollars. Projected capital costs were escalated to the initial year of RWTP design and construction in 2025.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 18 Cost per Kgal $10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$ per Kgal $4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Pittsboro Linear (Pittsboro)
Figure 10. Town of Pittsboro Cost per Kgal
Under these projections, the Town’s average unit cost of $6.45 per kgal is projected to increase to $8.91 per kgal when the facility is complete in 2031. In FY 2017, a customer using 4,000 gallons per month pays $34.64. This customer is projected to pay $47.84 by the time construction of the RWTP is complete, which results in an average compound annual rate increase from 2017 to 2031 of 2.33 percent, as shown below in Figure 11. While these rate increases are relatively low, as iterated above, customer impacts will increase or decrease considerably if actual demand varies.
An important assumption made in the evaluation process is that the Town would refrain from charging capacity fees throughout the forecast period. While this was a conservative assumption, recent legislation indicates that the Town may, in fact, be able to charge capacity fees, which would mitigate a portion of the cost and risks associated with the RWTP.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 19 Customer Monthly Bill - 4,000 gal $60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$- 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Pittsboro
Figure 11. Town of Pittsboro Customer Impacts
The RWTP is a sizeable investment for the Town. With high levels of potential growth on the horizon, there is risk associated with both under- and over-investing in the water treatment system. It is especially important for the Town to understand the risks and associated customer impacts and evaluate options to the best of its ability. One important option is investment in a smaller, scalable treatment facility with lower capital costs in the near term. Chatham County Chatham County is allocated 10.0 MGD of the initial regional water treatment plant and 27 percent of the total capital costs. These costs account for both the County’s share of water treatment as well as a portion of land costs, as the land is currently owned by OWASA. The County is expected to see relatively high growth rates over the forecast period due to the ancillary impacts associated with the Chatham Park development. This growth is the driving factor for the County’s involvement in the RWTP, as Chatham County’s current water consumption is approximately 2.1 MGD and the system’s current available treatment capacity is 3.0 MGD. Chatham will likely use the RWTP for peaking purposes.
The County has experienced relatively slow growth during the past four fiscal years. Based on discussion with County staff, and to balance the prospect of near term growth with the realities of recent changes to consumption, the County’s water demand is projected to increase approximately 2 percent annually for the next five years. Thereafter, demand is based on the Western Intake Feasibility Study, which projects a series of 7 percent and 6 percent growth rates until 2027 (as shown above in Table 2), followed by a series of 5 percent, 4 percent, and 3 percent growth rates. Figure 12 presents the County’s projected demand as compared to its existing treatment capacity.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 20 Figure 12. Chatham County Demand Vs. Existing Capacity
Under these relatively aggressive growth projection assumptions, Chatham County’s average daily demand is expected to exceed 80 percent of its current capacity in 2021, and exceed 100 percent of its capacity in 2026. With the development of the initial RWTP, the County will add 10.0 MGD of capacity to its current 3.0 MGD. As illustrated below in Figure 13, this is a high volume of capacity relative to the County’s demand projections, estimated to be under 6.0 MGD by 2040 (8.4 MGD with a system peaking factor of 1.50). For the period before 2031, any demand or peaking beyond the available treatment capacity would have to be managed through drawing on supplemental supply agreements.
Chatham Demand vs Existing and Proposed Capacity 14
12
10
8
6 Capacity (MGD) 4
2
- 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Demand Peak Demand Current Capacity Total Existing and RWTP Capacity
Figure 13. Chatham County Demand vs Existing and Proposed Capacity
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 21 Operating expenses for the County are founded on the FY 2016 audited financial report and are projected to increase by 3 percent annually. Capital improvements for the next five years are assumed to be funded through rates and reserves, while longer-term capital needs are projected based on a debt service coverage ratio of 1.50 and assumed to be funded through rates. Operating expenses and future debt service for the RWTP were modeled to be incurred as the plant is operational in 2031.
The County’s share of the RWTP capital cost totals approximately $65.9 million4 in 2014 dollars. The County’s average unit cost per kgal, which is currently about $6.71 per kgal, undergoes significant fluctuations throughout the forecast period, as shown in Figure 14. The peak of the County’s unit cost is $11.56 per kgal at the time of RWTP facility completion, followed by a gradual decline in cost due to the rising number of customers and demand able to absorb the costs.
Cost per Kgal $14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00 $ per Kgal
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Chatham Linear (Chatham)
Figure 14. Chatham County Cost per Kgal
The average compound annual increase for a 4,000-gallon customer is 3.87 percent from 2017 to 2031 as shown below in Figure 15.
4 Projected capital costs were escalated to the initial year of RWTP design and construction in 2025.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 22 Customer Monthly Bill - 4,000 gal $80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$- 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
Chatham
Figure 15. Chatham County Customer Impacts
It should be noted again, however, that the customer impacts and cost per gallon per day will increase dramatically if actual customer demand is lower than expected, as the costs associated with the RWTP will be spread out and absorbed by fewer customers.
Because of the financial risk associated with basing large capital investments on significant growth projections, in addition to the amount of unused projected capacity from the RWTP, other options may be desirable for the County. Decreasing Chatham County’s portion of the plant or the size of the plant could potentially lower the cost and risk for the County. In addition, the County may consider shutting down their existing treatment plant and using the RWTP as its entire water source. Further, the County may consider using its existing treatment plant for customer peaking instead of the RWTP, and potentially realize cost savings in the RWTP. The County should have further discussions internally and with the WIP to explore the best solution. Orange Water and Sewer Authority Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) presently has 20.0 MGD of available treatment capacity with a fiscal year 2017 peak day demand of 9 MGD. OWASA is allocated 2.0 MGD of the RWTP, which would be used periodically as an auxiliary supply source during droughts and operational emergencies. The utility does not plan on using the system for peaking purposes. OWASA is allocated 6% of capital costs, which accounts for the fact that the land is currently owned by OWASA.
Growth projections are relatively low for the utility – 1 percent growth rates or less throughout the forecast period – and were provided by OWASA staff members. Operating expenses and existing and projected debt service for the utility were also provided by OWASA staff members, while future capital needs, which are assumed to be funded with rates, are estimated based on a 2.00 debt service coverage ratio, per OWASA’s financial policies. Operating expenses and future debt service for the RWTP were modeled to be incurred as the plant is operational in 2031. However, it should be noted that since it is assumed OWASA will only use the RWTP for auxiliary supply, the Western Intake Feasibility Study assumed that OWASA would use the treatment plant on average once in five years. The cost estimates in their report were based on variable operating costs that occur once every five years.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 23 As indicated in Figure 16, OWASA currently has sufficient treatment capacity to support forecasted demand.
Figure 16. OWASA Demand vs Existing Capacity
OWASA’s share of the RWTP capital costs is $15.0 million5 in 2014 dollars. Given the relatively low projected growth rates, the additional cost of the treatment plant results as well as other projected capital costs increase both the average unit cost and customer impacts, as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. The average compound annual increase for a 4,000-gallon customer is 4.02 percent between 2017 and 2031.
5 Projected capital costs were escalated to the initial year of RWTP design and construction in 2025.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 24 Cost per Kgal $16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00 $ per Kgal $6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$- 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039
OWASA Linear (OWASA)
Figure 17. OWASA Cost per Kgal
Customer Monthly Bill - 4,000 gal $70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$-
OWASA
Figure 18. OWASA Customer Impacts
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 25 Unlike the other partners, OWASA will likely use the RWTP for supplemental purposes. OWASA would initially need the additional RWTP capacity in year 2025 when the utility initially plans to drain the Quarry Reservoir. Given the financial implications for the utility, exact timing of the construction of the treatment plant may play a more critical role in the utility’s evaluation process than it does for other WIPs. Baseline Model Results The baseline model, described in the section above, suggests the appropriate timing for RWTP design and construction is 2025, to be in service by 2031. This timing reflects the midpoint between Pittsboro and Chatham County’s respective exceedances of the 80% threshold. It also balances the other Partners’ drivers for near-term replacement capacity and system redundancy with the high costs and planning considerations associated with such a significant project. This timing recommendation does not preclude consideration of an initially smaller, scalable RWTP as discussed above. Sensitivity Analysis Growth Projections Given the uncertainty in growth for two of the four Partners, Raftelis conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine how the potential impacts of growth faster or slower than projected impacted the baseline model metrics. This analysis initially looked at consumption 20% lower and 20% higher than the baseline annual assumptions. A low-growth scenario for the Partners with lower growth rates in the baseline model (Durham and OWASA) results in a slightly negative overall growth in total demand over the 14-year period (2017 – 2031), indicating that baseline demand in 2031, if decreased by 20%, is lower than demand today.
Table 4. Low and High Growth Projection Demand Impacts, 14-Year Compound Annual Growth Rate (2017 – 2031) Low Growth High Growth Baseline (-20%) (+20%) Chatham 3.20% 4.80% 6.20% Pittsboro 6.70% 8.40% 9.90% Durham -0.60% 1.00% 2.30% OWASA -0.90% 0.70% 2.00%
RWTP Timing (Initiate 2029 2025 2021 Design and Construction) RWTP Complete 2035 2031 2027
Table 5. Low and High Growth Projection Customer Bill Impacts, 14-Year Compound Annual Growth Rate (2017 – 2031) Low Growth High Growth Baseline (-20%) (+20%) Chatham 5.50% 3.87% 2.58% Pittsboro 3.98% 2.33% 1.00% Durham 5.31% 3.70% 2.42% OWASA 6.20% 4.52% 3.17%
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 26 As shown in Table 5, above, customer impacts are quite sensitive to these growth scenarios. For example, in Pittsboro, bills are susceptible to a swing of approximately 1.25 – 1.75% annually if projections are too low or too high. The same is true for the other jurisdictions. However, it is important to note that in even a low-growth scenario both Pittsboro and Chatham County experience annual rates of growth considerably higher than what they have experienced in the recent past, which highlights the potential risks associated with rapid growth. This result underlines the fact that growth is critical for the RTWP as designed to be a good investment. All utilities strive to control costs and offer rates as stable as possible. In the baseline growth scenario, where growth builds year over year, even relatively minor deviations from the projected growth could impact rates significantly. Threshold for Triggering Need for Increased Capacity In this model, we use 80% of average daily demand as trigger for consideration of new treatment capacity. As the ‘exceedance’ is still below total capacity, it is intended only as an indicator that, with increased growth, additional capacity will be required and the circumstance should be evaluated.
As a measure of due diligence, we also evaluated the 80% threshold with respect to maximum daily demand, which includes a peaking factor (in this model, approximately 50%). Intuitively, the threshold exceedances shifted forward in time significantly. For example, according to the model, Durham’s peak day demand will exceed 80% of its capacity in 2017. Durham’s current capacity is 52 MGD, making its 80% threshold 41.60 MGD. Durham’s 2017 average day demand is 27.9 MGD, making its peak demand 41.85 MGD. As noted previously, Durham is now constructing additional treatment capacity at its Brown WTP. The rest of the results are in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Years when 80% Capacity Thresholds are first Exceeded by Peak Demand Capacity Capacity Total Capacity Threshold - Threshold - - Average Day Average Day Peak Day Chatham 2025 2022 2016 Durham n/a n/a 2017 OWASA n/a n/a n/a Pittsboro 2030 2027 2021
While this consideration was warranted, it does not offer any meaningful insight into the timing of the RWTP, as there are strategies (such as finished water storage) that can be used to manage demand peaking. Governance The cooperation of the four WIPs will ultimately be governed through one of several mechanisms available to the groups as provided by North Carolina law. Here, a key consideration is establishing a regional solution that leverages the collective credit of the group or the best credit of the group to ensure the most favorable possible borrowing terms as large capital costs dominate the early years of the project.
The available mechanisms for this cooperation are outlined below, along with a discussion of the timing and approach for establishing a governance model.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 27 If and when the WIP decide to pursue a joint collaboration for the construction of the RWTP, a project charter should be established to set the guidelines of cooperation in the short term and to explore governance options between the agencies for the longer term. Although it would be ideal for the agencies to determine a governance plan before the administrative or logistical work such as permitting, securing funding, etc., the timing of these two tasks need not be coincident. Since the RWTP is a several-year project, the WIP can work toward a collaborative governance solution in parallel with the logistical tasks. For instance, Durham can start the process of finding contractors and investing in the preliminary engineering and permitting work before a permanent governance structure is determined. Another option would be to choose a preliminary governance option and shift the structure during the several years it will take to build the RWTP. For example, interlocal agreements can be used as an interim solution while a more formalized arrangement is under development. Cooperative Models There are three main cooperative models outlined in the North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) that would be a suitable choice for a governance structure:
1. Interlocal agreement (NCGS § 160A-461) 2. Joint agency (NCGS § 160A-462) 3. Water authority (NCGS § 162A)
The Western Intake Feasibility Study also mentions the formation of a Metropolitan Water District (NCGS § 162A) as a potential governance solution; however, a Metropolitan Water District requires that the agencies within it be located in the same county. Given that the WIP are located in three different counties (Durham, Chatham and Orange counties), this is not a feasible option.
Interlocal Agreement
In an interlocal agreement, one government, which is usually the largest or most central, will agree to provide service to the other agencies involved in the agreement for a negotiated price and period. The hiring of personnel, ownership of property, and determination of rates and charges are the sole responsibility of that government. Interlocal agreements are the predominant way for jurisdictions to work together in NC, because the State features strong council-manager forms of government and service delivery happens mostly through municipalities. For the purposes of the WIP, Durham would be the government responsible for the tasks outlined previously.
The main advantage associated with this type of governance structure is the simplicity of implementation. Durham has the largest government within the WIP and will also require the majority of the capacity of the RWTP, making Durham the most reasonable choice for a governing agency. In addition, Durham can likely borrow money at a lower rate to fund the RWTP, resulting in cost savings for all agencies involved.
The disadvantages, however, include potentially complicated property agreements. OWASA currently owns the land that the RWTP is planned to be built on. There will need to be another agreement to determine the property ownership rights to both the land and the treatment plant itself. This issue also lends itself to another potential disadvantage: less ownership of the program for other agencies. Although this structure may be the simplest to implement, other agencies in the WIP may want to play a larger part in the program’s governance.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 28 Joint Agency
The WIP can also enter into an agreement to form a joint agency, which will divide the ownership of the program between the participating agencies. There are a couple methods in which the joint agency can appoint personnel: the member agencies can jointly appoint personnel, the joint agency itself can appoint personnel, one of the agencies appoints all personnel, or personnel services can be contracted by the member agencies or joint agency. The joint agency also has flexibility in appointing its governing body. An annual budget recommendation for the joint agency needs to be submitted to the governing board of each participating agency every year for approval.
A joint agency maintains the relative simplicity of implementation associated with an interlocal agreement, but provides more equality in ownership for all agencies in the WIP. There is also flexibility in appointing personnel and a governing board for the joint agency. However, a joint agency does increase administrative burden as opposed to an interlocal agreement.
Water Authority
The third type of governance structure that the WIP can choose is the formation of a Water Authority. The participating agencies can form a resolution to establish the water authority and conduct a public hearing. If the resolution is accepted, then the water authority will be recognized as a public body in the State of North Carolina. The governing board of the water authority can be appointed however the participating agencies choose.
A Water Authority may initially have a high administrative burden, but will require less maintenance once formed for each of the participating agencies. Once the governing board is appointed, the WIP decisions will be made independently from the governing board of each agency. In addition, a Water Authority may receive advance funds, most likely from Durham, to provide for the preliminary expenses of the RWTP.
The North Carolina Water and Sewer Authorities Act states, “The governing body of a single county or the governing bodies of any two or more political subdivisions may by resolution signify their determination to organize an authority…” (emphasis added). Additionally, “The term ‘political subdivision’ shall mean any county, city, town, incorporated village, sanitary district or other political subdivision or public corporation of this State now or hereafter incorporated.” Raftelis understands OWASA, an Authority itself, to fall under the definition of ‘political subdivision’, making this a viable option of the WIP. Conclusion and Recommendations Through the assessment and model analysis presented above, Raftelis finds this to be an economically feasible project under the growth conditions as projected in the baseline model. We determined that the optimal time to begin the design and construction of a new RWTP is in 2025, with a goal of it coming online by 2031. That timing balances the capacity and redundancy needs of all partners with the cost associated with this major investment. Irrespective of the timing, Raftelis strongly recommends consideration of a smaller plant, right-sizing the proposal to the more current demand projections over the next 15- to 25-year timeframe. It has been about three years since the Western Intake Feasibility Study was published, and even longer since data was originally developed for that study. With better and more recent data in hand, the Partners are well positioned to make a more informed decision about the initial size, and scalability of the plant. Additionally, most jurisdictions have an existing plant from which
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 29 allocation is shifting. The allocation arrangement can be reconsidered to accommodate a smaller plant if needed.
The 2031 operation of the plant is a compromise, and as such there are some agencies that may require interim solutions if growth happens as quickly as projected. Notably, Chatham County may need to extend its agreement with the City of Durham beyond its current 2028 deadline.
Despite these additional considerations, Raftelis believes this to be a worthwhile effort that will have financial and service benefits to all Partners. Discussion amongst the Partners in September 2017 resulted in agreement on a two-phase approach. The first phase would be permitting. This phase would have slightly lower costs and some Partners may be able to cash fund their portions. Others may not. The first phase, permitting, might be managed at the staff level through cost-sharing agreements. The second phase would be design and construction, which would likely involve capitalizing costs for all jurisdictions. Next Steps The evaluation presented above highlights the economic feasibility and optimal timing of the project. There are numerous steps to undertake prior to project implementation. This discussion has taken place so far at a staff level, so the first step is for staff to present the information to Managers, and to allow Managers a chance to discuss the circumstances, risks and benefits associated with the project. Once there is consensus at that level, managers can present information to governing boards, from which Managers or staff will receive authorization to proceed with developing guiding principles.
Though the timing of design and construction is still seven years in the future, there are many stakeholders outside the working group that will need to be involved in some way, so Raftelis strongly recommends beginning that process, first by providing information to Managers, in early 2018.
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 30 Appendix
Table 1. City of Durham Financial Forecast
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 31 Table 2. Town of Pittsboro Financial Forecast
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 32 Table 3. Chatham County Financial Forecast
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 33 Table 4. Orange Water and Sewer Authority Financial Forecast
Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners | Economic Feasibility Study February 1, 2018 34 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix H- Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study
16-Oct-20 15 FINAL
Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study
Technical Memorandum October 2014
31118-102
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose and Authorization 1
1.2 Scope 1
1.3 Background 2
1.3.1 Jordan Lake Partnership 2
1.3.2 Jordan Lake Allocations 2
1.3.3 Western Intake Site and OWASA Property 3
2.0 Basis of Conceptual Design and Analysis 10
2.1 Basis for Facility Sizing 10
2.2 Cost Basis and Assumptions 11
3.0 Alternatives Analysis 14
3.1 Alternative 1: Regional Water Treatment Facility 14
3.2 Alternative 2: South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities 15
3.3 Alternative 3: Raw Water Only Facilities 16
3.4 Alternatives Cost Comparison 17
4.0 Other Project Considerations 20
4.1 Advantages / Disadvantages to Receiving Raw Versus Finished Water 20
4.1.1 Raw Water 20
4.1.2 Finished Water 21
4.2 Pipeline Routing and Easement Acquisition Considerations 22
4.3 Water Quality Issues 23
4.4 Interbasin Transfers 25
5.0 Project Implementation Considerations 29
5.1 Anticipated Permits and Approvals 29
5.2 Draft Project Schedule and Implementation 30
5.3 Funding the Next Major Step: Cost-Loaded Schedule for Engineering Services 30
6.0 Potential Partnership Structures and Interim Planning 33
6.1 Interlocal Agreement Model 33
6.1.1 Sales and Purchase Model 33
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page i of ii
6.1.2 Joint Agency Model 34
6.2 Special Purpose District/Authority Model 34
6.2.1 Water Authority 35
6.2.2 Metropolitan Water Districts 37
6.3 Application of Organizational Models 39
6.3.1 Lead Agency Responsible for Service Delivery 39
6.3.2 Scope of Service Delivery 41
6.3.3 Costs for Service Delivery 41
6.3.4 Schedule for Service Delivery 42
6.4 Partnership Structure Comparison 42
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 45
7.1 Conclusions 45
7.2 Recommendations 46
8.0 References 48
Appendix A: Regional Water Treatment Facilities – Detailed Cost Summary
Appendix B: South Durham and Jordan Lake Regional Water Treatment Facilities – Detailed Cost Summary
Appendix C: Raw Water Only Facilities Alternative – Detailed Cost Summary
Appendix D: Jordan Lake Water Quality Data Summary
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page ii of ii
Executive Summary Introduction
The purpose of this report is to support a focus group of the Jordan Lake Partners (JLP), referred to hereinafter as the Western Intake Partners (WIPs), in planning for the potential collaborative development of water withdrawal, treatment, and transmission facilities on the western side of B. Everett Jordan Lake. The WIP, which includes the City of Durham (Durham), Chatham County, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and the Town of Pittsboro (Pittsboro), retained Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. to complete the services addressed in this report. This study was funded by Durham.
The project scope consists of two main tasks: (1) at a conceptual level, develop and evaluate regional Jordan Lake water supply alternatives to assist the WIP in determining the most favorable alternative to meet the water supply needs of the individual members as well as the group as a whole, and (2) review institutional models under which the WIP could potentially organize to develop the selected water supply alternative.
The report reviews the three conceptual water supply alternatives listed below. An element common to all three is a regional raw water intake and pumping station at a site identified by OWASA near its 125-acre Jordan Lake property and known as the Vista Point western intake site. It should be noted that this study does not consider alternative intake locations and assumes use of OWASA’s property at Jordan Lake for construction of a regional water treatment facility (RWTF) regardless of whether or not OWASA decides to participate in the RWTF. In future studies, the WIP may wish to consider alternative locations for one or both of these facilities. It should also be noted that, although Orange County is not a WIP, for purposes of this study it is assumed Durham would provide wholesale water service to Orange County directly from its distribution system. Orange County is therefore included in facility planning. At the WIP’s request, Orange County is also identified in facility cost sharing as a separate entity, as well as jointly with Durham.
Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility: Construct a RWTF on the OWASA Jordan Lake property, and extend new finished water pipelines from this facility to each WIP system as shown in Figure E-1.
Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities: As shown in Figure E-2, construct a WTF on the OWASA property to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro; construct a second WTF located adjacent to the South Durham Water Reclamation Facility in southwestern Durham County to serve Durham, OWASA and Orange County; and extend new raw water and finished water pipelines as shown in Figure E-2.
Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities: construct a WTF on the OWASA property to serve Chatham and Pittsboro; extend raw water pipelines to OWASA’s Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Durham’s Williams WTP (to serve Orange County as well as Durham); and extend finished water pipelines as shown in Figure E-3.
Basis of Conceptual Design and Analysis
The sizing of potential water infrastructure components presented in this report was based on water demand projections provided by each of the WIPs, with the assistance of the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), and refined in a collaborative process over several iterations. The maximum day demands summarized in Table E-1 were used as the basis for facility sizing.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 1
With year 2060 as a planning horizon, water treatment and pumping facilities are initially sized to meet maximum day demands in the year 2040, with construction completion assumed to occur in year 2021, and with subsequent expansion in year 2040 to meet year 2060 maximum day demands. Pipelines, which are costly to expand (via the installation of parallel piping), and the regional intake are sized to meet ultimate, year 2060 maximum day demands.
In light of current and potential Jordan Lake drinking water quality considerations, capital costs for the construction of new WTFs, and improvements to existing WTFs facilities in the case of Alternative 3, assume advanced water treatment technology will be needed to meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements and to provide high quality finished water to the WIPs. The treatment processes assumed are similar to the existing Cary/Apex WTF but include ultraviolet disinfection (UV) as an additional process. These processes would:
provide for the removal of organics for total organic carbon (TOC) and disinfection byproduct (DBP) control;
use ozone, UV, and chlorine to provide multiple barriers for disinfection and oxidation for pathogens, taste and odor, emerging contaminants, and algal toxins; and,
utilize chloramines as a residual disinfectant to minimize DBP formation as currently practiced in the region.
Raw water terminal storage is not included in the cost analysis; however, the partners may wish to evaluate that option during more detailed future studies. The final process selection should be evaluated in the preliminary engineering phase based on site-specific source water quality monitoring at the intake site, and finished water quality goals established by the WIP.
Cost estimates were prepared in current, 2014 dollars, based on planning-level information and appropriate simplifying assumptions and contingency allowances. Final costs of the selected project will depend on a range of factors to be considered during more detailed design-level studies.
Table E-1: Demand Basis of Facility Design
Year 2040 Demand Basis for Year 2060 Demand Basis for Initial Facilities Capacity (mgd) Ultimate Facilities Capacity (mgd) Partner Avg. Max. % of Total Max. % of Total Avg. Day Day Day Capacity Day Capacity Chatham 6.5 10.0 30.3% 10.5 16.0 29.6% County Durham 16.5 17.0 51.5% 16.5 21.0 38.9% Orange 1.0 1.0 3.0% 2.0 3.0 5.6% County OWASA 2.0 2.0 6.1% 5.0 5.0 9.3% Pittsboro 2.0 3.0 9.1% 6.0 9.0 16.7% Total 28.0 33.0 100% 40.0 54.0 100%
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 2
Alternatives Analysis Costs for the three Jordan Lake water supply alternatives studied are summarized in Tables E-2, E-3 and E-4. The Regional Water Treatment Facility (Alternative 1) is the most economical alternative for all of the partners as illustrated in Figure E-4. Alternative 2 – South Durham and Jordan Lake WTFs was 9% higher on a capital cost basis and 8% higher on a life cycle cost basis than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 – Raw Water Only Facilities was 30% higher on a capital cost basis and 51% higher on a life cycle cost basis than Alternative 1.
The Regional Water Treatment Facility alternative is expected to provide the optimum use of resources while also minimizing implementation issues. It also requires the least linear footage of pipeline, which would minimize impacts to the environment and the public. The Regional Water Treatment Facility alternative also offers economies and efficiencies of scale from the perspective of operation, maintenance, staffing, monitoring, reporting, etc.
Table E-2: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary – Regional Water Treatment Facility Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Per 1,000 gallons Total (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Life-Cycle Costs Total Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $65.9 M $21.4 M $87.3 M $183.4 M $1.7 $0.6 Durham and $132.9 M $20.5 M $153.4 M $418.7 M -- -- Orange County Durham $120.1 M $12.8 M $132.9 M $388.2 M $1.5 $1.5 Orange County $12.8 M $7.7 M $20.5 M $30.5 M $1.5 $1.0 OWASA $15.0 M $9.6 M $24.6 M $31.0 M $4.1 $0.4 Pittsboro $29.5 M $22.0 M $51.5 M $61.3 M $1.5 $0.7 Total $243.3 M $73.5 M $316.8 M $694.3 M -- --
Table E-3: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary: South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Per 1,000 gallons Total (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Life-Cycle Costs Total Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $194.2 M $2.0 $0.7 Durham and $142.8 M $22.0 M $164.8 M $451.2 M -- -- Orange County Durham $128.2 M $13.8 M $142.0 M $417.4 M $1.7 $1.7 Orange County $14.6 M $8.2 M $22.8 M $33.8 M $1.8 $1.1 OWASA $22.6 M $10.4 M $33.0 M $42.4 M $8.9 $0.6 Pittsboro $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $64.6 M $1.7 $0.7 Total $269.6 M $75.4 M $345.0 M $752.4 M -- --
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 3
Table E-4: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary – Raw Water Only Facilities Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Per 1,000 gallons Total (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Life-Cycle Costs Total Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $193.2 M $1.9 $0.7 Durham and $208.6 M $20.9 M $229.5 M $730.6 M -- -- Orange County Durham $189.9 M $13.1 M $203.0 M $690.6 M $2.8 $2.8 Orange County $18.7 M $7.8 M $26.5 M $40.0 M $2.1 $1.3 OWASA $27.8 M $7.1 M $34.9 M $47.7 M $10.0 $0.6 Pittsboro $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $78.7 M $2.1 $0.9 Total $340.6 M $71.0 M $411.6 M $1,050.2 M -- --
Other Project Considerations
Other project considerations are reviewed in report Section 4. In summary, these include the following:
Advantages and disadvantages to the individual WIPs of pumping raw versus finished water, which on balance favor finished water delivery.
Pipeline routing and easement acquisition includes a discussion of benefits of routing pipelines along existing transportation corridors, related routing challenges including easement acquisition, environmental impacts, and cultural and historic resources impacts.
Potential water quality issues, including: source water quality degradation and actions by the state to address this issue; evaluations that will be necessary to inform final decisions regarding the intake location and configuration; provisions for the addition of chemicals at the intake to address the quality of raw water as it is transported via pipelines for treatment; additional measures that must be taken to address water quality degradation in raw water that must be transported over long distances, particularly on an intermittent rather than continuous basis; and concerns about the age (or residence time) and disinfection issues associated with the transportation of finished water to and within the WIPs’ distribution systems.
Project Implementation Considerations
Report Section 5 addresses project implementation considerations, including project permitting, financing, and schedule. It includes a cost-loaded schedule to assist the WIP in overall project planning, with a focus on financing and implementation issues in the near term.
There is not a specific proposed date for completion and start-up of the regional facilities; however, the project implementation schedule presented in this report anticipates that at least 87 months would be required for project planning, preliminary engineering design, final design, and construction. Consequently, mid-2021 is the estimated earliest date that the proposed facilities could be placed into service assuming that preliminary engineering studies would begin in the summer of 2014. If the partners desire to evaluate
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 4
additional sites for regional water treatment facilities, then the schedule would have to be extended to accommodate that evaluation and subsequent purchase actions. Furthermore, the timeframe in the schedule for the completion of required inter-local agreements relating to the authorization and funding of subsequent engineering and permitting phases of this regional project is judged to be optimistic.
In consideration of the project schedule requirements and the water supply needs and infrastructure investment decisions that some partners face, the WIPs should proceed without delay to implement a plan to obtain water from Jordan Lake.
Potential Partnership Structures and Interim Planning
Section 6 reviews a number of institutional models under which the WIP could potentially organize to collaboratively develop the Jordan Lake Regional Water Supply Project and focuses on the following three, which are considered to be most applicable: interlocal agreement, Water Authority, and Metropolitan Water District. Example applications of each model are provided as well as basic issues the institutional model would have to address.
The complexity of organizational issues that the partners must deal with include differing levels of water supply capacity, water supply risk levels, financial capacity, need for upgrades/expansions to existing water supply, treatment, and distribution systems, and so on. This complexity will present substantial challenges—and require a significant time commitment—to arrive at a suitable agreement that aligns the partners’ individual needs with the project’s organizational and implementation requirements. In consideration thereof, the partners will want to consider interim interlocal agreements and related infrastructure improvements as a bridge between near- and long-term planning. A primary information source for planning interim arrangements is the Phase 2 Potable Water Interconnection Study–Hydraulic Modeling, which is currently in progress for the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) and scheduled to be completed in 2015. The JLP, including members of the WIP, commissioned Hazen and Sawyer to complete this study in order to develop a regional approach for planning interconnections that could increase the reliability and sustainability of drinking water sources and infrastructure by allowing the Partners to use their water resources cooperatively and thus defer construction of new facilities (on Jordan Lake or elsewhere).
In view of this complexity, one approach for advancing the regional project would be for one partner to take the lead in financing and arranging for the next phase of project engineering and design services, with the understanding that other partners would participate in the review process and would reimburse the lead partner for a proportionate share of the expenses incurred at such time as they formally decide to become a partner in the regional facilities.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following are the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
Conclusions
1. Of the three Jordan Lake water supply alternatives that have been developed and evaluated collaboratively with the WIP to meet the individual partner and group water supply needs, Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility appears to be the overall optimal alternative to be carried forward for facilities planning and potential implementation.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 5
2. As summarized in Table E-5, Alternative 1 has the lowest capital as well as life cycle costs, followed by Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities. Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities has the highest overall costs.
3. Alternative 1 is also estimated to provide the overall optimum use of resources and have the lowest environmental impacts. It is thus expected to be the easiest alternative to implement. Although the present study involved only conceptual design and did not include a detailed assessment of potential environmental impacts, a single RWTF at Jordan Lake would likely minimize environmental impacts. As noted in Table E-5, Alternative 1 is estimated to have the lowest wetland and stream impacts. This is largely because this alternative has the lowest overall linear footage of water pipeline. An added advantage is that it maximizes the footage of finished water main and thus the potential for meeting customer demands along the identified pipeline routes.
4. At this conceptual level of study, cost estimates were prepared based on planning-level conceptual designs, desktop site evaluations, and simplifying assumptions. The processes assumed for the WTF assume advanced treatment processes that address multiple water quality concerns, and should be further evaluated following a site specific water quality monitoring study. No physical site evaluations or surveys were performed. Final costs of the project will depend on the concepts and capacity assumptions that are carried forward and developed during final design, and a wide range of factors to be determined during the design process.
5. The DWR and the USACE expect regional participation in any Jordan Lake water supply project and are likely to approve only one more publicly owned water supply intake on Jordan Lake. With the existing Cary-Apex intake located on the east side of the lake north of US Highway 64, the new intake would logically be located at a site on the western side of the lake to serve communities on the west side.
6. This study assumes the development of a regional water intake at a location north of the Vista Point Recreation Area and use of OWASA’s property at Jordan Lake for construction of either a RWTF or a smaller facility to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro. In future studies the WIP may wish to consider alternative locations for the intake and/or RWTF.
7. Report Section 4 reviews a number of Other Project Considerations. Of these, evaluation of source water quality, with a focus on evaluations related to the configuration of the selected regional intake location and selection of appropriate water treatment plant processes, is judged to merit consideration for further study in the near term.
8. Report Section 5 includes a number of project implementation items that merit considerations for action by the WIP.
9. As discussed in Section 6, there are a number of institutional models under which the WIP could organize to collaboratively develop the Jordan Lake Regional Water Supply Project.
10. Based on our experience with other institutional frameworks for regional collaboration involving multiple water systems, Hazen and Sawyer believes the interlocal agreement model may be the most appropriate for the WIP to facilitate implementation, operation, and management of the Jordan Lake west regional intake, treatment, and major transmission facilities and services. Such an approach would likely be the easiest to implement and support, while still being capable of ensuring that the needs of all project partners can be met in an equitable and timely manner.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 6
11. The local governments should begin the process to obtain governing board approval to proceed with additional work on the western intake and/or RWTF.
12. In advance of construction for the first phase of facilities, it will be necessary for a lead WIP agency to complete a number of activities, including preliminary engineering and design, land acquisition, environmental permitting, and final design.
Table E-5: Alternatives Comparison Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Total Relative Total Life Cycle Wetland Alternative Initial Ultimate Pipeline Total Costs and Stream Facilities Facilities Length (ft) (2014 Million $) Impacts Alternative 1 – Regional Water Treatment $243.3 $73.5 $316.8 $694.3 ~151,000 Lowest Facility Alternative 2 – South Durham Greater than and Jordan Lake $296.6 $75.4 $345.0 $752.4 ~200,000 Water Treatment Alt 1 Facilities Alternative 3 – Raw Water Only $340.6 $71.0 $411.6 $1050.2 ~271,000 Greatest Facilities
Recommendations
1. Based on the foregoing, Hazen and Sawyer recommends that the WIP select Alternative 1 - RWTF as the preferred alternative for planning for the potential collaborative development of a regional Jordan Lake Supply. This recommendation was presented to and concurred with by technical staff of the WIPs at meetings held on May 9, 2014, and June 27, 2014.
2. Hazen and Sawyer has developed a list of anticipated permits, a draft schedule, and a cost-loaded schedule for the RWTF to assist the WIPs with continued discussions and planning efforts as they work to develop a shared intake and related facilities at Jordan Lake. Several actions are recommended to be completed by the WIPs in the following weeks and months to facilitate timely completion of the proposed facilities to meet the needs of the partners. These include the following:
Present the study and findings to each local governing Board;
Initiate a water quality monitoring study for the intake site on Jordan Lake to establish a baseline and to inform subsequent intake and treatment plant design decisions;
Obtain approval of the governing Boards to proceed with additional work, including the interlocal agreement(s) necessary to initiate policy planning, preliminary engineering and design, and related consulting services;
Establish a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to guide the technical aspects of the Regional Facilities Preliminary Engineering and Design Process; and,
Form a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to review and provide guidance to the TAC.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 7
3. In light of current and potential water quality conditions at Jordan Lake, it is recommended that future drinking water treatment facilities using water from Jordan Lake include advanced treatment processes to address taste and odor challenges, disinfection by-product formation, algal toxins and other issues. Therefore, the cost estimates in this report assume that drinking water treatment facilities receiving water from Jordan Lake would include the following minimum processes: conventional treatment processes plus ozone and ultraviolet light disinfection and granular activated carbon treatment. Alternative 3 (which includes delivery of raw water to Durham’s and OWASA’s existing water treatment plants) includes estimated costs for construction and operation of major process improvements at those two existing facilities.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 8
Figure E-1: Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 9
Figure E-2: Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake WTFs
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 10
Figure E-3: Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 11
Figure E-4: Life Cycle Cost Comparison
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 ES - 12
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Authorization
The purpose of this report is to support a focus group of the Jordan Lake Partners (JLP), referred to hereinafter as the Western Intake Partners (WIPs), in planning for the potential collaborative development of water withdrawal, treatment, and transmission facilities on the western side of B. Everett Jordan Lake. The WIP, which includes the City of Durham (Durham), the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Chatham County, and the Town of Pittsboro (Pittsboro), retained Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. to complete the services addressed in this report. This study was funded by Durham.
1.2 Scope
The project scope consists of two main tasks: (1) at a conceptual level, develop and evaluate regional Jordan Lake water supply alternatives to serve the WIP, and (2) review institutional models under which the WIP could potentially implement the preferred water supply alternative.
The alternatives analysis in Section 3 of this report reviews the three conceptual water supply alternatives listed below. An element common to all three alternatives is a regional raw water intake and pumping station at a site identified by OWASA near its Jordan Lake property and known as the Vista Point western intake site. It should be noted that this study does not consider alternative intake locations and assumes use of OWASA’s property at Jordan Lake for construction of a regional water treatment facility whether or not OWASA decides to participate in the regional facilities. In future studies, the WIP may wish to consider alternative locations for one or both of these facilities. It should also be noted that, although Orange County is not a WIP, for purposes of this study it is assumed that Durham would provide wholesale water service to Orange County directly from its distribution system. Orange County is therefore included in facility planning. At the WIP’s request, Orange County is also identified in facility cost sharing as a separate entity as well as jointly with Durham.
Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility: As shown in Figure 1-1, construct a regional water treatment facility (RWTF) on the OWASA Jordan Lake property, and extend new finished water pipelines from this facility to each WIP system.
Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities: construct a WTF on the OWASA property to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro; construct a second WTF located adjacent to the South Durham Water Reclamation Facility in southwestern Durham County to serve the Durham, OWASA and Orange County; and extend new raw water and finished water pipelines as shown in Figure 1-2.
Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities: As shown in Figure 1-3, construct a WTF on the OWASA property to serve Chatham and Pittsboro; extend raw water pipelines to OWASA’s Jones Ferry Road WTP and Durham’s Williams WTP (to serve Orange County as well as Durham); and extend finished water pipelines as shown.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 1 of 48
1.3 Background
1.3.1 Jordan Lake Partnership
The JLP was created in 2009 by local jurisdictions and water systems in the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina to “jointly plan for sustainable and secure water supplies for the Region.” The JLP includes the four members of the WIP focus group and the following nine additional partners: Town of Apex, Town of Cary, Town of Hillsborough, Town of Holly Springs, Town of Morrisville, Orange County, City of Raleigh, City of Sanford, and Wake County (for the RTP South service area). The JLP receives administrative and technical support from Fountainworks, LLC and the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG). The City of Durham serves as the lead fiscal and contracting agent for the JLP and contracted with Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. to complete this report.
The JLP worked collaboratively to develop the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan (TRWSP). The TRWSP is divided into two volumes. Volume I: Regional Needs Assessment, identified each partners long term water supply demands, examined their current water supply sources and estimated yields, and identified potential future water supply needs (TJCOG, 2012). Volume II: Regional Supply Options, evaluated multiple strategies to address those needs (TJCOG, 2014).
The result of the TRWSP effort was the establishment of a preferred regional alternative that was strongly supported by all members of the JLP. The preferred regional alternative was compared with numerous other alternatives and was found to be the most economical and represent the least environmental impacts. Details of the preferred alternative are available in TRWSP Volume II (2014) and are not reiterated herein, except to note that the preferred regional alternative involves continued use of and additional allocations from Jordan Lake for most of the Jordan Lake Partners, and assumes development of a Western Intake and Water Treatment Facility to serve the four WIPs plus Orange County. This approach would provide more regional reliability and redundancy. While Orange County is not a member of the WIP, they have been included as part of the Western Intake Feasibility Study as it is assumed they will receive their Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation through an interconnection with the City of Durham.
1.3.2 Jordan Lake Allocations
The B. Everett Jordan Lake is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) multi-purpose reservoir located in Chatham County, in central North Carolina. The project was authorized by the United States Congress for flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and wildlife conservation. Impounded in 1981, the lake’s storage volume is divided into three operational pools as shown in Figure 1-4. The conservation pool is subdivided into 45,800 acre-feet (approximately 15 billion gallons) that is reserved for water supply and 94,600 acre-feet that is reserved for downstream flow augmentation. The State of North Carolina has authority over the water supply pool and can allocate this storage to local governments having a need for water supply capacity. The State, acting through the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) under NCAC Title 15A 02G.05000, as administered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (NCDENR, DWR), issues two levels of water allocations: “Level I” allocations are made based on 20-year water need projections with withdrawals planned to begin within five years of the allocation; “Level II” allocations are made based on longer term needs of up to 30 years.
During the conclusion of Allocation Round 3 in July 2002, the EMC allocated a total of 63 percent of Jordan Lake’s storage capacity (equivalent to 63 mgd of water supply capacity) to local utilities in the Triangle. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing allocations approved by the EMC. The DWR has estimated that the
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 2 of 48
water supply pool has a supply capacity of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) and thus, for convenience, refers to each one percent of storage interchangeably by its equivalent safe yield of approximately 1 mgd.1
Table 1-1: Current Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocations Allocation Holder Level I Level II Total Towns of Cary and Apex 32 0 32 Chatham County 6 0 6 City of Durham 10 0 10 Town of Holly Springs 0 2 2 Town of Morrisville 3.5 0 3.5 Orange County 0 1 1 OWASA 5 0 5 Wake County – RTP South 3.5 0 3.5 Total 55 8 63
Acting on a November 2009 request by the JLP, the EMC formally initiated the process for the fourth allocation round in January 2010. On June 4, 2013, the DWR published the Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Application Guidelines, Round Four. As discussed hereinafter, each of the WIPs has submitted a Round 4 Level I Allocation draft application to the DWR, with a draft version of Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility being identified as the preferred alternative.
Table 1-2 (TJCOG, 2012) summarizes each WIP’s current total Jordan Lake allocation, Round 4 Level I Allocation Request, and projected year 2060 demands. As discussed hereinafter, the Round 4 Allocation Request and the projected year 2060 demands served as the basis for the conceptual water supply alternatives.
Table 1-2: WIP Jordan Lake Current, Requested, and Projected Storage Allocations Current Round 4 Projected Year Partner Allocation Allocation 2060 Demand (mgd) Request (mgd) Chatham County 6 13 18 Durham 10 16.5 16.5 Orange County 1 1.5 2 OWASA 5 5 5 Pittsboro 0 6 6 Total 22 42 47.5
1.3.3 Western Intake Site and OWASA Property
Cary and Apex jointly own and operate an existing municipal water supply intake on Jordan Lake as well as a nearby water treatment facility. Located on the eastern shore of the lake just north of US Highway 64, this is the only publicly owned water supply intake on Jordan Lake (Figure 1-5). For many years, Triangle Area communities have recognized the need for one or more additional publicly owned intakes on Jordan
1 Although the yield of Jordan Lake’s water supply pool has not been confirmed independently in connection with this report, recent modeling of future Cape Fear Basin water use scenarios using the OASIS hydrologic model indicate that 100 mgd is probably a conservative estimate of its operational water supply yield.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 3 of 48
Lake. DWR and the USACE expect regional participation in any future Jordan Lake water supply projects, and are likely to approve only one more intake, which would logically be located at a site on the west side of the lake to serve communities on the west side. In the late 1980s, recognizing the need to preserve a potential site for a future regional water treatment plant on the west side of the lake, OWASA acquired approximately 125 acres of land in Chatham County at a location off of Seaforth Road (SR 1941) near Vista Point, as shown in Figure 1-5. A preliminary engineering study completed for OWASA in 1991 (1991 Intake Study2) identified four options for constructing an intake and raw water (RW) pumping facilities in the vicinity of the OWASA property. A potential intake location labeled as Option 1 was recommended as the optimal site based on available information, but further study was recommended to define design details. The recommended site is located on USACE property directly north of the Vista Point recreational area.
As a part of the OWASA 2010 Long-Range Water Supply Plan, Hazen and Sawyer assisted OWASA in developing two options for these assets: (a) Develop Jordan Independently by OWASA, and (b) Develop Jordan Lake in Partnership with Others.3 The latter option served as a starting point for the Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility presented in this report.
2 Water Intake Site Investigation, B. Everett Jordan Lake, prepared for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro, North Carolina, by CH2MHILL, September 1991.
3 Appendix V11, Hazen and Sawyer Technical Memorandum, Option 3: Develop Jordan Lake in Partnership with Others, http://www.owasa.org/Data/Sites/1/media/whatwedo/appendix%20vii.pdf
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 4 of 48
Figure 1-1: Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 5 of 48
Figure 1-2: Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake WTFs
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 6 of 48
Figure 1-3: Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 7 of 48
Figure 1-4: Jordan Lake Operational Pools
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 8 of 48
Figure 1-5: Western Intake Site Location
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 9 of 48
2.0 Basis of Conceptual Design and Analysis
The development of a regional intake, pump station, and water treatment facility on the west side of Jordan Lake has been discussed for several decades and, as noted above, was included as the preferred alternative by each of the WIPs in their Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation - Round 4 Level I Allocation draft applications. Report Section 3 discusses the three Jordan Lake Western Intake alternatives identified in Section 1. The present section discusses the basis for the conceptual design analysis of these alternatives.
2.1 Basis for Facility Sizing
In this report, the sizing of infrastructure components is based on water demand projections provided by the respective WIPs, as refined in a collaborative process over several iterations. Table 2-1 summarizes the water demands that the WIPs have agreed to use for facility sizing in this report. In general, demands are consistent with the Round 4 Level I draft allocation requests, with the exception of Chatham County, whose demand projections have been adjusted to reflect their assumed desired capacity in the new regional facilities. Participation by Chatham County reflects its option to continue to utilize its existing 3 mgd WTF on the east side of Jordan Lake, and the potential for the County to realize reduced water demands as a result of recently implemented rate increases and/or other measures.
The following summarize the key bases for facility sizing and operation:
Year 2060 is the planning horizon for facility sizing and life cycle cost analyses.
The intake and pipelines, which are costly to expand, are sized to meet ultimate, year 2060 maximum day demands.
Water treatment and pumping facilities are initially sized to meet maximum day demands in the year 2040, and are assumed to be expanded in year 2040 to meet year 2060 maximum day demands. The following assumptions apply:
o Except for OWASA, it is assumed that daily water usage from Jordan Lake facilities will be in accordance with the demands summarized in Table 2-1, notwithstanding that practical economic considerations might eventually favor an alternative operating protocol. OWASA’s stated policy is to use Jordan Lake water only during extended droughts or operational emergencies; therefore, for the purpose of this study, it is assumed that OWASA would pump water on average only once every five years rather than on a daily basis as assumed for the other partners.
o The maximum pumping rate does not exceed twice the allocation (equivalent to a maximum day peaking factor of 2.0), which is the case for all of the WIPs. For higher pumping rates, DWR may limit the annual volume pumped to the actual storage allocated (150 MG = 1% of the water supply pool storage) instead of the equivalent yield, which includes streamflow (1 mgd = 365 MG/year). This potential limitation would address a concern that an allocation holder might wish to pump the total allocated volume at a high rate over a short period during the peak of a drought, in which case the streamflow component of the allocation could be negligible.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ August 29, 2014 Page 10 of 48
Table 2-1: Demand Basis of Facility Design Year 2020 Year 2040 Demand Year 2060 Demand Demand Basis for Basis for Initial Basis for Ultimate Initial Water Facilities Capacity Facilities Capacity Production (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Partner
Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. % % % Day Day Day Day Day Day
Chatham 3.0 5 21.7% 6.5 10.0 30.3% 10.5 16.0 29.6% County
Durham 16.5 17 73.9% 16.5 17.0 51.5% 16.5 21.0 38.9%
Orange 1.0 1 4.3% 1.0 1.0 3.0% 2.0 3.0 5.6% County OWASA 0.0 0 0.0% 2.0 2.0 6.1% 5.0 5.0 9.3% Pittsboro 0.0 0 0.0% 2.0 3.0 9.1% 6.0 9.0 16.7% Total 20.5 23 100% 28.0 33.0 100% 40.0 54.0 100%
2.2 Cost Basis and Assumptions
Cost estimates were prepared based on planning-level conceptual designs, desktop site evaluations, and simplifying assumptions. No physical site evaluations or surveys were performed. Facility and water line layouts were based on Geographic Information System analysis. All costs are presented in 2014 dollars. Final costs of the project will depend on the concepts that are carried forward to and developed during final design, and a range of factors, such as actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, treatment process selection, implementation schedule, and other variable conditions unknown at this time. Consistent with the actual Round 4 Allocation draft requests, the present study also assumes that each partner will obtain and maintain a Level I Jordan Lake allocation. No costs are included for Level II Allocations. Capital costs were calculated for all required project infrastructure components to include: the regional intake, regional raw water piping, regional raw water pump station, water treatment facilities, raw and finished water transmission piping and booster pumping stations (where needed), payment by WIPs to OWASA for purchase of its Jordan Lake WTF site property, purchase of required additional land/easements, environmental mitigation, and Jordan Lake allocation costs. An overall goal is to make the comparison of alternatives an “apples-to-apples” comparison.
For each infrastructure component, capital costs were assigned to each partner based on the partner’s respective share of the facility capacity/ownership. Thus, for the regional intake and pumping station and the ultimate expansion phase of construction, each WIP was assigned a capital cost share equal to the percentage listed in the last column in Table 2-1. Likewise, for the initial phase, costs were assigned based on percentages in the eighth column of Table 2-1. For non-shared components, the full costs were assigned to the respective partner.
Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs for the infrastructure components were estimated using both published and in-house Hazen and Sawyer databases and cost curves. The base treatment plant costs developed are preliminary concept level costs and used for comparison of alternatives. In light of
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 11 of 48
current and potential Jordan Lake drinking water quality considerations, capital costs for the construction of new WTFs, and improvements to existing WTFs facilities in the case of Alternative 3, assume advanced water treatment technology—including conventional treatment processes, plus ozone and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, deep bed filters with activated (GAC) or biologically activated (BAC) carbon, chlorine disinfection followed by chloramine residual disinfection, along with residuals handling—will be needed to meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements and to provide high quality finished water to the WIPs.
The treatment processes assumed are similar to the existing Cary/Apex WTF but include ultraviolet disinfection (UV) as an additional process. These processes would:
provide for the removal of organics for total organic carbon (TOC) and disinfection byproduct (DBP) control;
use ozone, UV, and chlorine to provide multiple barriers for disinfection and oxidation for pathogens, taste and odor, emerging contaminants, and algal toxins; and,
utilize chloramines as a residual disinfectant to minimize DBP formation as currently practiced in the region.
Raw water terminal storage is not included in the cost analysis; however, the partners may wish to evaluate that option during more detailed future studies. The final process selection should be evaluated in the preliminary engineering phase based on site-specific source water quality monitoring at the intake site, and finished water quality goals established by the WIP.
Capital cost financing was assumed to begin in the year 2015 for the design and construction of the initial phase infrastructure components, and in year 2035 for design and construction of infrastructure components assumed to be expanded by year 2040. Capital costs have been assumed to be debt-financed for 25 years, at an annual interest rate of 3.225%.
For the life cycle cost analysis, annual costs include annual operation and maintenance costs (including variable costs such as energy and chemicals; and fixed costs, such as staffing, equipment maintenance and replacement, etc.), capital cost debt service payments; and Jordan Lake allocation costs. The assumed lifespan of equipment is 25 years, and the assumed lifespan of the remainder of the infrastructure is 50 years. As noted, all capital and life cycle costs discussed in Section 3 are presented in 2014 dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Additional key assumptions are listed below.
Calculation of Capital Costs*
Current ENR CCI: 9795.92 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, and Profit: 15% Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services: 15% Legal Fees, Permits, and Approvals: 5% Contingency**: 25% Raw and Finished Water Main - Rural: $9.00 per inch-diameter/ft Raw and Finished Water Main - Urban: $15.00 per inch-diameter/ft Land Acquisition: $10,000 per acre
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 12 of 48
Calculation of Life Cycle Costs
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% Financing Term: 25 years Equipment Replacement as % of Total Construction Cost: 15% Number of Years Replacement Equipment Defrayed Over: 5 years Annual O&M Costs as Percentage of Construction Costs: 10% Fixed O&M Costs as Percentage of Total O&M Costs: 70% Variable O&M Costs as Percentage of Total O&M Costs: 30% Energy Cost: $0.092 per kW-hr
The Following items are per the DWR’s instructions for the Jordan Lake Round 4 Allocation requests:
Level I Allocation Total Purchase Cost: $91,040.76 per mgd
Level I Allocation Annual Cost for Subsequent Years: $2,218.85 per mgd/year
Level I Allocation Additional Fixed Administration Cost: $250 per year
*All estimates were prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International for a Class 4 level of estimation (conceptual estimate of +50% to -30%). **Contingency costs for the expansion of Durham’s Williams WTF are assumed to be 40% due to the uncertainties associated with repurposing this historic facility and site constraints for the new facilities.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 13 of 48
3.0 Alternatives Analysis
The following three water supply alternatives were developed and evaluated at a conceptual level to assist the WIPs in determining the most favorable alternative to meet the water supply needs of the individual WIP as well as the group as a whole, and to provide an estimate of capital and other costs to assist in the facilities planning and development process.
As noted in report Section 1.2, all three alternatives reviewed hereinafter involve the construction of a regional raw water intake and pumping station on USACE property at or near the Vista Point recreation area and near the OWASA Jordan Lake property (Figure 1-5). Based on the projected total maximum day demand for the WIP in year 2060, as summarized in Table 2-1, and the foregoing discussion, these facilities would have an ultimate design capacity of 54 mgd, except for the treatment facilities and pumping stations, which would have an initial capacity of 33 mgd and a footprint designed for the ultimate 54 mgd facility capacity.
3.1 Alternative 1: Regional Water Treatment Facility
Alternative 1 involves the construction of the Regional WTF on the OWASA Jordan Lake property, which, as discussed above would have an initial capacity of 33 mgd and an ultimate capacity of 54 mgd and would treat raw water pumped from the regional intake and pumping facility.
Finished water would be conveyed to the WIPs’ distribution systems through two pipelines, one routed north and the other west as shown on Figure 1-1. The north pipeline would serve all of the WIP partners except Pittsboro. It extends northward from the OWASA site along Seaforth/Big Woods Road to Jack Bennett Road and west to its intersection with Lystra Road, where finished water would be delivered to the Chatham County North distribution system. It would continue west along Lystra Road and turns north onto Farrington Point Road eventually to a point near the crossing of Old Chapel Hill Road and I-40 in Durham, where finished water would be delivered to the OWASA-Durham distribution system interconnection. It is assumed Orange County would be served via the existing Durham-Hillsborough water system interconnection. The Pittsboro pipeline would run west along Mt. Gilead Church Road to US 64/Business 64 to a connection with its distribution system. Based on a preliminary hydraulic evaluation, finished water booster pumping stations are estimated to be required for Chatham County, Orange County, and Pittsboro.
Conceptual level costs for the Regional Water Treatment Facility alternative are summarized in Table 3-1. The grand total of capital costs is estimated at $317 million, with $243 million going to the initial construction and $74 to the facility expansion. Capital costs for the individual partners range, based on the respective percentage share of costs (refer to Table 2-1) from a grand total of $21 million for Orange County to $133 million for Durham. Because it is assumed that Durham would provide wholesale water service to Orange County directly from its distribution system, the costs shown in Table 3-1 for Durham and Orange County are presented both as a combined cost and as separate costs. The same applies to cost summaries for the other two alternatives discussed hereinafter. Table 3-1 also lists estimated life cycle costs, which total $694 million, and unit life cycle costs based both on water usage and the amount of the Level I allocation held by each partner. It should be noted that the usage unit cost for OWASA is considerably higher than for the other partners because, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed OWASA would use Jordan Lake water on average only once every five years rather than on a daily basis as assumed for the other partners.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 14 of 48
Table 3-1: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary – Alternative 1: Regional Water Treatment Facility Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Total Per 1,000 gallons Life-Cycle (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Total Costs Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $65.9 M $21.4 M $87.3 M $183.4 M $1.7 $0.6 Durham and $132.9 M $20.5 M $153.4 M $418.7 M -- -- Orange County Durham $120.1 M $12.8 M $132.9 M $388.2 M $1.5 $1.5 Orange County $12.8 M $7.7 M $20.5 M $30.5 M $1.5 $1.0 OWASA $15.0 M $9.6 M $24.6 M $31.0 M $4.1 $0.4 Pittsboro $29.5 M $22.0 M $51.5 M $61.3 M $1.5 $0.7 Total $243.3 M $73.5 M $316.8 M $694.3 M -- --
3.2 Alternative 2: South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities
This alternative involves the construction of two WTFs: (i) the Jordan Lake WTF, located on the OWASA Jordan Lake property and serving Chatham County and Pittsboro; and (ii) the South Durham WTF, located on the site of the South Durham Water Reclamation Facility owned by Durham, to serve Durham, OWASA, and Orange County.
The conceptual design for this alternative envisions that raw water would be pumped from the regional intake and pumping facility to each WTF via a separate pipeline. Consequently, the conceptual design assumes two sets of pumps would be installed at the regional raw water pumping facility. Raw water pumping facility costs have been adjusted to account for the additional mechanical equipment and larger required footprint. As shown in Figure 1-2, the northern shared raw water pipeline would be routed north from the OWASA site along the same general route as the Alternative 1 northern finished water pipeline, except, in this case, all water would be delivered to the South Durham WTF site, which is located east off of Farrington Road and south of Interstate 40. Finished water from this WTF would be delivered to the OWASA-Durham distribution system interconnection generally following the northern section of the route described under Alternative 1. Finished water from the Jordan Lake WTF would be conveyed to Chatham County and Pittsboro through separate pipelines, which as shown in Figure 1-2 would generally follow the routes described above for Alternative 1.
Conceptual level costs for Alternative 2 are summarized in Table 3-2. As discussed hereinafter, capital and life cycle costs for this alternative are generally higher than those for Alternative 1.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 15 of 48
Table 3-2: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Total Per 1,000 gallons Life-Cycle (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Total Costs Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $194.2 M $2.0 $0.7 Durham and $142.8 M $22.0 M $164.8 M $451.2 M -- -- Orange County Durham $128.2 M $13.8 M $142.0 M $417.4 M $1.7 $1.7 Orange County $14.6 M $8.2 M $22.8 M $33.8 M $1.8 $1.1 OWASA $22.6 M $10.4 M $33.0 M $42.4 M $8.9 $0.6 Pittsboro $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $64.6 M $1.7 $0.7 Total $269.6 M $75.4 M $345.0 M $752.4 M -- --
3.3 Alternative 3: Raw Water Only Facilities
The Raw Water Only Facilities alternative was selected for evaluation because it maximizes use of existing water treatment facilities owned by Durham and OWASA. It involves the following WTF improvements: (i) construction of the same Jordan Lake WTF described above under Alternative 2 to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro, (ii) the addition of advanced treatment at OWASA’s Jones Ferry Road WTP, consistent with the general assumptions and recommendations in this report for treating Jordan Lake water, and (iii) major renovations and upgrades to Durham’s existing Williams WTP to provide advanced treatment.
In this case, raw water would be pumped to all three WTF locations as shown in Figure 1-3. The regional raw water pumping facility would be furnished with two sets of pumps as described above under Alternative 2. Durham and OWASA would jointly own and use a raw water pipeline from Jordan Lake to the Jones Ferry Road WTP branch pipeline connection at the intersection of Farrington Point Road and Mt. Carmel Church Road. A raw water booster pump station would be installed on OWASA’s section of the Jordan Lake raw water line. The Durham raw water pipeline would continue north along Old Farrington Point Road/Farrington Mill Road to Farrington Road north into Durham to the Williams Water Treatment Plant located on Hillandale Road (As previously noted, Durham’s raw and finished water transmission mains have been sized to accommodate Orange County’s future use of Jordan Lake).
Also as shown in Figure 1-3, finished water delivery to Chatham County and Pittsboro would be as described above under Alternative 2. For OWASA and Durham, finished water delivery would be through their respective existing water distribution systems, with Durham serving Orange County as previously described.
Conceptual level costs for Alternative 3 are summarized in Table 3-3. As discussed hereinafter, capital and life cycle costs for this alternative are generally higher than those for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 16 of 48
Table 3-3: Conceptual-Level Cost Summary – Alternative 3: Raw Water Only Facilities Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Unit Life-Cycle Costs Total Per 1,000 gallons Life-Cycle (2014 $) Partner Initial Ultimate Total Costs Level I Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Usage Allocation Purchased Chatham County $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $193.2 M $1.9 $0.7 Durham and $208.6 M $20.9 M $229.5 M $730.6 M -- -- Orange County Durham $189.9 M $13.1 M $203.0 M $690.6 M $2.8 $2.8 Orange County $18.7 M $7.8 M $26.5 M $40.0 M $2.1 $1.3 OWASA $27.8 M $7.1 M $34.9 M $47.7 M $10.0 $0.6 Pittsboro $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $78.7 M $2.1 $0.9 Total $340.6 M $71.0 M $411.6 M $1,050.2 M -- --
3.4 Alternatives Cost Comparison
The initial capital costs, total capital costs, and life cycle costs for the three alternatives are summarized graphically in Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2, and Figure 3-3, respectively. These graphs clearly show that Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility is the most economical alternative for all of the partners, followed by Alternative 2, and lastly by Alternative 3.
Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present a cost comparison between the three alternatives on a percentage basis. Relative to Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility, overall costs for Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake WTFs are 9% higher on a capital cost basis and 8% higher on a life cycle cost basis, while costs for Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities are 30% higher on a capital cost basis and 51% higher on a life cycle cost basis. The cost of WTF construction is a major factor that favors the construction of a single RWTF rather than two WTFs, as in the case of Alternative 2. The higher costs for Alternative 3 are driven largely by the costs associated with repurposing Durham’s existing Williams WTP to include advanced water treatment processes, and upgrading treatment processes at OWASA’s Jones Ferry Road WTP. Overall pipeline length is another major cost factor. The ranking in this case follows the overall cost ranking, with Alternative 1 having the lowest combined linear footage of raw and finished water mains, Alternative 2 the second lowest, and Alternative 3 the highest.
Table 3-4: Percent Increase (Decrease) in costs for Alternative 2 – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities vs. Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Total Life-Cycle Costs Partner Initial Ultimate Total (2014 Million $) Facilities Facilities Chatham County 13% 0% 10% 6% Durham 7% 8% 7% 8% Orange County 14% 6% 11% 11% OWASA 51% 8% 34% 37% Pittsboro 0% (2%) (1%) 5% Total 11% 3% 9% 8%
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 17 of 48
Table 3-5: Percent Increase (Decrease) in Costs for Alternative 3 – Raw Water Only Facilities vs. Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Total Partner Initial Ultimate Life‐Cycle Costs Total Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) Chatham County 13% 0% 10% 5% Durham 58% 2% 53% 78% Orange County 46% 1% 29% 31% OWASA 85% (26%) 42% 54% Pittsboro 0% (2%) (1%) 28% Total 40% (3%) 30% 51%
Figure 3-1: Initial Capital Cost Comparison
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 18 of 48
Figure 3-2: Total Capital Cost Comparison
Figure 3-3: Life Cycle Cost Comparison
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 19 of 48
4.0 Other Project Considerations
While cost is a major component of the feasibility of the regional western intake and its alternatives, other factors influence project feasibility, including the advantages and disadvantages of pumping raw water versus finished water, pipeline routing considerations, water quality issues, and interbasin transfers.
4.1 Advantages / Disadvantages to Receiving Raw Versus Finished Water
The relative advantages and disadvantages to each partner for receiving raw versus finished water are discussed below.
4.1.1 Raw Water
Chatham County
Chatham County owns and operates three separate water systems: North (HGL’s 740 ft and 570 ft), Asbury (HGL 620 ft) and South (HGL 770 ft). For the purpose of this analysis, the only Chatham County system to be served is the North system, which is currently being supplied by Chatham County’s existing 3 mgd treatment plant located near US 64 and Beaver Creek Road (the Asbury and South system demands are met by water purchases from other systems). Currently, there are no plans to expand Chatham County’s existing North treatment plant, which is located on the east side of the lake. Therefore, delivery of raw water to Chatham County is not considered a feasible alternative to meet future water supply demands.
Durham
The City of Durham has the option of receiving either raw or finished water from Jordan Lake. Two of the alternatives in this report involve delivering raw water to Durham: construct a new South Durham WTF under Alternative 2, or pump raw water to the Williams Water Treatment Plant site under Alternative 3. The facility cost analysis indicates the Jordan Lake RWTF alternative is the most economical option for Durham. In the case of Alternative 3, the Williams Water Treatment Plant is nearing the end of its useful life; it does not have advanced processes necessary to treat water from Jordan Lake; and because of the facility age, land, and other constraints, it cannot be easily upgraded to provide the required level of advanced water treatment. Thus, on the basis of conceptual-level evaluations completed during the present study for Alternative 3, the cost to upgrade the Williams plant is considered equivalent to the cost of constructing a new treatment plant in its place. A further disadvantage of Alternative 3 is that it would involve construction of a major raw water line to the Williams Plant through a highly developed urban corridor.
Orange County
As previously noted, Orange County is not a WIP. For the purpose of this study it is assumed Orange County would enter into an interlocal agreement with Durham to purchase drinking water.
OWASA
OWASA could receive raw or finished water from Jordan Lake. Raw water would be treated at the Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant, which has adequate capacity to treat its full Jordan Lake allocation. Hazen and Sawyer recommends that to address potential taste and odor and other treatability issues, OWASA upgrade the Jones Ferry Road WTP with advanced processes to adequately treat Jordan Lake water. In addition, delivery of raw water to OWASA would involve the construction of a major raw water
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 20 of 48
line to the Jones Ferry Road Plant from the south in the vicinity of downtown Carrboro, which would represent a major challenge due to highway and stream crossings and a highly developed urban corridor.
Pittsboro
The Town of Pittsboro water system is currently served by the Haw River WTP, which has a permitted capacity of 2.0 mgd. The estimated reliable yield from the Haw River is 6 mgd. Future plans may call for the expansion of the Haw River Plant in 2.0 mgd increments, or no expansion of this facility pending outcomes of the present investigation and several ongoing water quality investigations on Haw River source water. Similar to OWASA, upgrades would be needed to treat Jordan Lake water at Pittsboro’s Haw River WTP, and the construction of a major raw water line to the WTP from Jordan Lake through Pittsboro represents a major challenge due to major highway and stream crossings and a highly developed urban corridor. In addition, Pittsboro’s growth, primarily associated with the recently approved Chatham Park development, will occur on the Jordan Lake (east) side of Pittsboro. Given these constraints, delivery of raw water to Pittsboro’s Haw River WTP is not considered a feasible alternative to meet future, long term water supply demands.
4.1.2 Finished Water
The present analysis has assumed that finished water would be delivered to each of the WIPs at their respective specified connection to their existing distribution system for each of the three project alternatives. For this initial feasibility study phase, the alternatives comparison does not account for additional costs that may be needed to upgrade the connections to each WIP’s respective distribution system. However, each connection location is evaluated below in broad terms in order to generally assess whether or not the proposed connection was feasible.
Chatham County
The proposed finished water connection to Chatham County’s North distribution system would be in the vicinity of Lystra and Jack Bennett Roads (Figure 4-1). This is where Chatham County’s 740 ft and 570 ft pressure zones meet. There are several 12-inch water mains and an elevated tank and pump station at this location. Due to the volume of water to be transferred at this location, it would be desirable to provide additional distribution system piping in order to avoid excessive velocities in the existing water mains. In addition, a detailed review of the tank and pump operations is recommended.
Durham / OWASA / Orange County
The proposed finished water supply to Durham / OWASA / Orange County would be conveyed through the existing Durham-OWASA distribution system interconnection at I-40 at Old Chapel Hill – Durham Road (Figure 4-2). This interconnection includes a pump station. The current interconnection transfer capacity is 5.9 mgd from Durham to OWASA and 3.0 mgd from OWASA to Durham. The transfer capacity into the OWASA system is adequate to meet their assumed 5.0 mgd ultimate maximum day capacity. However, improvements to the Durham distribution system would likely be necessary to convey the 24 mgd projected to be ultimately needed by Durham/Orange County. It is recommended that a detailed review be completed to identify the location, features, and costs of any needed improvements.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 21 of 48
Pittsboro
The Town of Pittsboro owns and operates a water distribution system that supplies the Town and the adjacent area north to the Haw River. Chatham Park, a large recently approved mixed use development project east of Pittsboro, represents the majority of Pittsboro’s anticipated growth (Figure 4-3). Consequently, this study looked at the proposed finished water line connecting to the Town’s eastern most distribution system, in the vicinity of Business 64 and Hanks Chapel Road (Figure 4-4). The existing water line at this location is only 6-inches in diameter. Further analysis of the Pittsboro system at the proposed connection location is necessary to determine what improvements are needed, and should include an evaluation of the demands from the proposed Chatham Park development (including fire flow requirements).
4.2 Pipeline Routing and Easement Acquisition Considerations
Pipeline routes for each of the three project alternatives were primarily established by following existing corridors. In developing the planned routes, consideration was given to the need to minimize impacts to property owners and to wetlands and streams. Several issues that could affect the location of the future pipelines and acquisition of easements impact all three alternatives evaluated, and are summarized below.
Big Woods Interchange
NCDOT plans include the construction of a significant new interchange at the intersection of Big Woods Road and US 64, which would impact pipeline routing for each of the three project alternatives.
Chatham Park Development
Planned improvements in connection with the proposed Chatham Park development include upgrades to roadways and utilities, including drinking water, reclaimed water, and wastewater collection systems. The planned infrastructure improvements will affect the location and sizing of the proposed Pittsboro finished water line for all project alternatives.
Raw Water Facilities Easement
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will not issue an easement to the partners directly for the raw water intake, pump station, and pipeline. Rather, the easement would be issued to the State of North Carolina, which owns the water supply storage volume of Jordan Lake. The State would then allow the partners to use the easement. This represents a potentially significant limitation to the pursuit of Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities, given that extensive portions of the raw water pipeline route are located on USACE property.
As part of the application process to construct an intake at Jordan Lake, the USACE will require the submittal of a “Request for Use of Land/Water Application.” The first step in this process is filing a “Minimum Information for Initial Request,” which is similar to a draft Environment Assessment (EA). Under the second step (submittal of a “Detailed Proposal”), the USACE would likely require a formal EA, if not a more detailed Environment Impact Statement (EIS). EA/EIS document(s) must provide preliminary design-level details of the proposed project, a thorough evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, and the identification of adverse impacts and proposed mitigation measures for those impacts. An application for development of a multi-user water intake facility would likely be viewed more favorably than a single-user proposal.
Another easement consideration is North Carolina General Statute 153A-15, which requires that “before any county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government which is located wholly or primarily
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 22 of 48
outside another county acquires any real property located in the other county by exchange, purchase or lease, it must have the approval of the county board of commissioners of the county where the land is located.” Given the collaborative nature of the project, board of commissioner approval is not considered to be a major impediment for project implementation.
Constrained Easements
Following the construction of Jordan Lake, the USACE granted 200-ft wide rights-of-way to NCDOT for the relocation of Seaforth Road and portions of Big Woods Road. Consequently, where the pipeline is routed adjacent to these roads, it can be located within the NCDOT right-of-way. However, further north, the established NCDOT rights-of-way narrow to approximately 60 feet wide and include the portions of the potential major water transmission main routes that would parallel Jack Bennett Road, Lystra Road, Farrington Point Road, Old Farrington Point Road, and Barbee Chapel Road. The narrower corridors will likely require pipeline easements that extend beyond the NCODT right-of-way, much of which is owned by the USACE. Acquisition of property from the USACE for water supply purposes is allowed but will require a “no practical alternatives” analysis and mitigation.
Environmental Impacts
Wetland and stream crossings associated with the proposed raw and finished water transmission mains were identified for the three project alternatives using GIS data. Field surveys of these features and other potential environmental impacts will be required as part of future investigations. An estimate of mitigation costs resulting from unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams has been included for each of the evaluated alternatives. Alternative 2 – South Durham and Jordan Lake WTFs and Alternative 3 – Raw Water Only Facilities will require greater lengths pipeline, to include parallel pipelines in the same corridors (see Figures 1-2 and 1-3) than Alternative 1 - RWTF. Consequently, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater impacts to wetlands and streams than Alternative 1.
Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts
Potential cultural and historic resources are known to exist in the project area. Based on preliminary conversations with the USACE there is a State Designated Historic District in the project area, though this could not be confirmed during a search of the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office database and GIS service. In addition, the pipeline would cross through the Jordan Lake State Recreation Area along Big Woods Road. Field surveys to identify these cultural and historic resources areas will be required as part of future investigations to help minimize project impacts.
4.3 Water Quality Issues
Potential water quality issues were investigated for the three project alternatives and are summarized below.
Source Water Quality
The water quality of Jordan Lake, similar to Falls Lake and other surface water supplies in North Carolina, is considered to be impaired due to nutrient loading from the watershed. While the lake meets water quality criteria for drinking water supplies, current and projected excessive nutrient loading may result in algal blooms and taste and odor and treatability issues. As previously discussed in Section 2.2, it is essential that advanced drinking water treatment processes be used to ensure high quality drinking water from Jordan Lake.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 23 of 48
Because of the importance of Jordan Lake as a resource for water supply, water quality control, and recreation, a considerable amount of water quality data has been collected at the lake by various parties. Appendix D is a partial summary of potentially pertinent monitoring locations and available data. If the WIPs decide to proceed with a new intake and treatment facility at Jordan Lake, the existing data should be reviewed to assist in the evaluation and planning of appropriate treatment strategies and processes required to produce a high quality drinking water. Hazen and Sawyer recommends a site-specific source water monitoring study at the Vista Point intake site and any other potential intake site of interest to the WIP be conducted to fill in data gaps and to collect additional data on contaminants and other parameters of concern for drinking water that will help inform treatment process selection.
Raw Water Conveyance
In addition to source water quality issues, potential raw water quality issues that must be addressed include those related to the water being withdrawn from Jordan Lake, and those related to its transportation to the point of treatment.
As required by the NC Rules Governing Water Supplies (NCAC Title 15A.18C.0602) and good engineering practice, the Jordan Lake Regional Intake would be furnished with multiple withdrawal levels for selection of optimal water quality. Future studies should include careful evaluation of intake siting and the selection of intake withdrawal levels. Potential in-reservoir water quality enhancements, such as mixing or hypolimnetic aeration of waters in the vicinity of the intake (as currently being implemented by Cary/Apex), should also be evaluated (along with permitting feasibility). Future studies should also include a review of the feasibility and potential benefits of constructing terminal raw water storage on the RWTF site.
In addition, it is recommended that careful evaluation be made of provisions for adding oxidants such as potassium permanganate as well as powdered activated carbon at the intake to help improve the quality of raw water as it is conveyed to the head of the water treatment facilities. These provisions should address most water quality concerns at the Jordan Lake RWTF, where the raw water main from the intake has a length of approximately 6,000 feet.
The much longer raw water mains to the South Durham WTF site (21 miles) under Alternative 2 or OWASA’s Jones Ferry Road WTP (19 miles) and Durham’s Williams WTP site (28.5 miles) under Alternative 3 raise other concerns. The addition of potassium permanganate or other oxidants at the intake should help address water quality degradation over long travel distances, but additional measures would be required in the case where the water may not be pumped continuously. This would be an especially important consideration for OWASA, as its anticipated use of water from Jordan Lake would be on an infrequent basis. Raw water tends to become anoxic/stagnant as it sits in a pipeline to the point that delivery to a terminal reservoir for storage and mixing and/or provisions for wasting/flushing of stagnant water may be necessary to avoid the significant water quality issues that would otherwise ensue upon its direct delivery to a WTF.
Provisions for pigging raw water mains should also be considered to address the potential for buildup of biofilm on the pipe interior.
Treated Water Age
Due to the pipeline sizes and travel distances involved, water age and quality may present a challenge for the three project alternatives, especially during the early years when water demands are projected to be the lowest. Generally, a finished water age of less than seven days minimizes water quality-related issues in the distribution system. Calculations performed show that water ages for the average daily flow at start-
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 24 of 48
up for each WIP are all less than one day. Hence, water quality issues due to finished water age considerations are not expected to present an implementation issue.
Distribution System / Disinfectant Coordination and Flushing
The distribution systems for all partners rely on chloramines as a disinfectant. However, in accordance with the NC Public Water Supply Section’s requirements, each system must conduct an annual flush or “chlorine burnout” in which the system is switched to free chlorine for a 30-day period. Coordination of the annual flushing would be required among the partners to prevent chlorinated and chloraminated water from mixing. However, this is not expected to present any major implementation issues.
4.4 Interbasin Transfers
None of the WIPs currently transfer water out of the Haw River Basin (2-1). Chatham County, Pittsboro, and OWASA would return water to the Haw River Basin through their respective wastewater treatment facilities. Durham’s service area includes both the Haw and Neuse River Basin, while Orange County’s service area is entirely in the Neuse River Basin (10-2).
Water obtained and treated from Durham’s Jordan Lake allocation would be used only within the Cape Fear (Haw) portion of Durham’s service area and would not require an interbasin transfer (IBT) certification. It is notable that Jordan Lake would support a significant reduction in Durham’s current and future transfers out of the Neuse Basin by decreasing its reliance on Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir for all of its needs. Because Durham would use its full 16.5 mgd Jordan Lake allocation immediately upon completion of the new regional facilities, its projected transfer of 19.4 mgd from the Neuse River Basin in 2020 would be reduced to 8.8 mgd. Similarly, if Durham were required to rely solely on its Neuse Basin sources to meet all of its future needs, the projected transfer of 26.6 mgd in 2045 would be reduced to 16.0 mgd.
Jordan Lake water received by Orange County is assumed to be obtained via a finished water interconnection between the Durham and Hillsborough systems. This transfer involves an IBT of up to 2 mgd from the Haw to the Neuse River Basin (10-2), however, no IBT certification would be required because this transfer would not exceed the 2 mgd statutory threshold (Durham’s draft Jordan Lake Round 4 Allocation Request, 2014).
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 25 of 48
Figure 4-1: Chatham County Finished Water Connection Location: Lystra Road & Jack Bennett Road
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 26 of 48
Figure 4-2: Durham/OWASA/Orange County Finished Water Connection Location: I-40 at Old Chapel Hill – Durham Road
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 27 of 48
Figure 4-3: Chatham Park Proposed Development with Finished Water Connection (photo Preston Development Company)
Figure 4-4: Town of Pittsboro Finished Water Connection Location: US 64 & Hanks Chapel Road
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 28 of 48
5.0 Project Implementation Considerations
Hazen and Sawyer has developed a list of anticipated permits, a draft schedule, and a cost-loaded schedule to assist the WIPs with continued interlocal discussions and planning efforts as they work to develop a shared intake and related facilities at Jordan Lake. These items are discussed below.
5.1 Anticipated Permits and Approvals
A summary of the anticipated permits and approvals necessary for the design and construction of the Regional Water Treatment Facility alternative is provided below. Due to the scale and complexity of the project, a significant permitting effort is expected and would trigger State and Federal environmental impact reviews. The following summary addresses only those permits and approvals identified for the current conceptual level of project development. Additional permits may be required.
Environmental Permitting
USACE Land Use Request DWR Site Evaluation Approval SEPA/NEPA Environmental Analysis (EA) Section 401/404 Permits
Design Phase Permitting
NCDLQ Sedimentation and Erosion Control NPDES Permits (for waste process water and stormwater management) Duke-Progress Energy NCDOT Encroachment Agreements NCDOT Driveway Permit Chatham County Site Plan/Construction Plan Approval Durham Public Works/Water Main Extension Water System Management Plan Certification/DWR Authorization to Construct
Construction Phase Permitting
Chatham County Building Permit Blasting Permit
Post Construction
DWR Operating Permit
Other Potential Permits
Railroad Encroachment(s) Gas Line Encroachment(s) Local Government Permits
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ August 29, 2014 Page 29 of 48
5.2 Draft Project Schedule and Implementation Figure 5-1 is a draft project implementation schedule for the Regional Water Treatment Facility alternative. The schedule illustrates that once the project is initiated it will take approximately 3.5 years to design and permit, and approximately 3 years to construct – assuming no major delays in obtaining authorization to proceed with project engineering, financing, and construction. If this effort began in mid-2014, the schedule indicates that new regional facilities at Jordan Lake and the associated system connections could be on- line around mid-2021.
Water demand data from the Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Volumes I and II indicate the WIPs will need to begin withdrawing water from Jordan Lake by the year 2020. The draft schedule shown in Figure 5-1 indicates it is likely that the partners will need to implement interim arrangements to access their respective Jordan Lake allocations before new regional facilities on the west side of Jordan Lake can be designed, built, and placed in service to ensure that they can meet their respective water demands.
In light of the uncertainty of future supply and demand conditions, and the challenging water supply risks and investment decisions that some partners face, it is recommended that the WIPs proceed without delay to implement a plan to obtain water from Jordan Lake.
5.3 Funding the Next Major Step: Cost-Loaded Schedule for Engineering Services Recognizing that the next major cost item for this effort will be to fund the required engineering services, a cost-loaded schedule was developed to illustrate the expected engineering cost outlays in actual dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) for each WIP as the project is implemented. The cost-loaded schedule for engineering services, which are estimated to total about $37.9 million, is depicted graphically in Figure 5- 2 and in Tabular form in Table 5-1, and assumes that a portion of the upfront engineering costs are included in Year 1 of the project schedule. It should be noted that Figure 5-2 and Table 5-1 do not include the capital costs for the facilities. Base year costs are presented as 2014 dollars. For the purpose of estimating life cycle costs the present year (2014) is assumed to be Year 1. The capital outlays correspond to the costs shown on the right-hand side of Figure 5-1 for the preliminary engineering, permitting, field work, permitting, design, and construction administration. As illustrated in Figure 5-2, the engineering services costs gradually increase to a peak in Year 4 when the design effort is fully underway and property for the treatment facility and easements is acquired. For this analysis, the costs have been divided proportionally among the WIPs based on their respective facility capacity allocations as described in Section 2.1 above. The estimated life cycle costs for each WIP for the planning period, including the capital costs for the facilities, are included in Appendix A.
Table 5-1: Summary of Partner Cash Flows (Actual Dollars) for Engineering Services Through Construction Completion1 Year Chatham Co. Durham Comp. Durham Orange Co. OWASA Pittsboro Total (1) (2+3) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1‐5) 1 $281,000 $573,000 $519,000 $55,000 $65,000 $125,000 $1,045,000 2 $887,000 $1,812,000 $1,639,000 $172,000 $205,000 $394,000 $3,297,000 3 $1,922,000 $3,924,000 $3,551,000 $373,000 $444,000 $854,000 $7,144,000 4 $2,643,000 $5,118,000 $4,613,000 $505,000 $508,000 $1,212,000 $9,481,000 5 $1,217,000 $2,443,000 $2,208,000 $235,000 $266,000 $546,000 $4,472,000 6 $1,262,000 $2,576,000 $2,331,000 $245,000 $291,000 $561,000 $4,690,000 7 $1,265,000 $2,583,000 $2,337,000 $246,000 $292,000 $562,000 $4,702,000 8 $835,000 $1,705,000 $1,543,000 $162,000 $193,000 $371,000 $3,104,000
1 Base year costs are in 2014 dollars. For the purpose of estimating life cycle costs the present year (2014) is assumed to be Year 1.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 30 of 48
Figure 5-1: Draft Project Schedule
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 31 of 48
Figure 5-2: Partner Cash Flows (Actual Dollars) for Engineering Services through Construction Completion
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 32 of 48
6.0 Potential Partnership Structures and Interim Planning
If the WIPs agree to move forward with plans to collaborate on regional water facilities at Jordan Lake, the logical next step would be for the WIPs to obtain approval from their respective governing Boards and to establish a formal cost sharing agreement to initiate the next phase of project planning, such as preliminary engineering studies and associated field work. Following that phase, a subsequent agreement would cover project implementation, including but not limited to, securing permits, acquiring easements/land, and financing, designing, owning, constructing, managing, operating and maintaining the shared facilities.
North Carolina General Statutes provide numerous organizational options for intergovernmental cooperation for water service. Three models considered to most applicable for this effort are:
Interlocal Agreement (N.C.G.S. §160A-461) Water Authority (N.C.G.S. §§162A-1 to 162A-19) Metropolitan Water District (N.C.G.S. §§162A-31 to 162A-59)
Examples of each type of organizational model currently exist in North Carolina, and some are summarized below.
Traditional organizational theory suggests that local governments create organizations to provide services in a manner that accomplishes community goals and objectives. For municipal governments in North Carolina, community goals and objectives are generally determined through the political process and are translated into service requirements through the policy decisions of governing boards and the administrative actions of municipal managers. Service requirements are typically expressed as level of service, quality of service, and cost of service.
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 160A-312, local governments (including Water and Sewer Authorities) have the legal authority to acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, operate, and contract for the operation of, any public enterprise such as a water and/or sewer utility.
6.1 Interlocal Agreement Model
Under this organizational model, two or more local governments would execute an interlocal agreement for either one or all of them to provide a service that each is already authorized to provide by statute. This organizational model is very flexible and allows for centralized operation, maintenance and management of a local government service, while providing for local control over service levels.
There are two organizational models associated with interlocal agreements. The first model is the sales- and-purchase model, and the second is the joint agency model.
6.1.1 Sales and Purchase Model
The sales-and-purchase model is authorized by North Carolina General Statute §160A-461: Interlocal Cooperation Authorized. Under this organizational model, one local government, usually the largest or most centrally located, agrees to provide a service or program to other local governments at a negotiated price and for a negotiated duration. The interlocal agreement must be ratified by resolution by each local government before becoming a binding contract. Ownership of property, hiring of employees, and the setting of rates, fees and charges for the service are the responsibility of the local government providing the service.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 33 of 48
Example Application
This is the most common form of intergovernmental cooperation used in North Carolina. The City of Raleigh used this organizational model prior to the merger of their system with the Town of Garner for water supply services. Under the provisions of the interlocal agreement, the City of Raleigh agreed to provide the Town of Garner with finished water from the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant. The interlocal agreement stipulated the level of service to be provided, the methods for determining cost of service, and the methods for amending the interlocal agreement.
6.1.2 Joint Agency Model
The joint agency model is authorized by North Carolina General Statute §160A-462: Joint Agencies. Under this organizational model, two or more local governments enter into an agreement to create a joint agency for the delivery of services associated with a public enterprise, such as wastewater pumping, conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities. It is important to note that under this organizational model, the legal title to all real property associated with the program must be held by the participating local governments individually, or jointly as tenants in common, and in such proportions as determined by the participating local governments. On an annual basis, each local government must appropriate funds to the joint agency based on an annual budget recommendation prepared by the joint agency personnel. The annual budget recommendation must be submitted to the governing board of each local government for approval. With regard to staffing for the joint agency, North Carolina General Statute § 160A-463: Personnel, allows for three options:
1) The participating local governments jointly appoint the officers, agents, and employees necessary to execute the program;
2) The joint agency appoints all personnel required to execute the program, or
3) One of the local governments appoints all personnel required to execute the program, and the services of these personnel shall be contracted for by the other local governments or by the joint agency.
Example Application
The Town of Apex and the Town of Cary are currently using this organizational model for water supply and treatment services. Under the provisions of the interlocal agreement, Apex and Cary have agreed to create a joint agency for the planning, permitting, design, financing, construction, management, operation and maintenance of the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Facility, including raw water intake, pumping station and transmission pipelines. The interlocal agreement stipulates that the Town of Apex owns 23 percent of the facilities and the Town of Cary owns 77 percent of the facilities. The interlocal agreement further stipulates that the parties agree that the Town of Cary will serve as the lead agency for both local governments and be responsible for staffing, operations and maintenance, budgeting, management and administration.
6.2 Special Purpose District/Authority Model
Under this organizational model two or more local governments would work together to create a special purpose district/authority in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. Once established, the special purpose district/authority would be recognized as a separate and independent political subdivision within the State of North Carolina – having an independent governing body, set of ordinances, schedule of rates, fees and charges, etc.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 34 of 48
The members of the governing board for a special purpose district/authority are appointed by the jurisdictions involved in forming the entity. The presiding officer of the governing board is designated the Chair, and the Chair is elected by a majority of the governing board members. A special purpose district/authority has powers similar to a municipality including the right to sue; issue debt; set rates; assess and collect fees and charges ; exercise the right of eminent domain (in accord with applicable laws of North Carolina); and enter into interlocal agreements for services. Two alternatives have been evaluated for the special purpose district/authority organizational model. The first model is the water authority approach, and the second model is the metropolitan water district.
6.2.1 Water Authority
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §162A-3: Procedure for Creation, the governing body of a single county or the governing bodies of any two or more municipal local governments may organize a water authority. To create the water authority, each participating local government must prepare a resolution signifying their desire to create an authority, and a public hearing must be conducted to receive comments on the proposed resolution and the proposed articles of incorporation.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, certified copies of the resolutions, along with documentation of the public hearing, are to be submitted to the Secretary of State of North Carolina. If the Secretary of State finds that the documentation is in accordance with the requirements of North Carolina General Statute §162A-3: Procedure for Creation, then the Secretary of State shall issue a certificate of incorporation under the seal of the State of North Carolina. The certificate of incorporation shall constitute the authority as a public body of the State of North Carolina.
Joining or Withdrawing From an Existing Water Authority
Local governments may join, or withdraw from, an existing authority by preparing a resolution signifying their desire, and conducting a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed resolution. At the conclusion of the public hearing, certified copies of the resolution to join, or withdraw from, along with documentation of the public hearing, are to be submitted to the Secretary of State of North Carolina. If the Secretary of State finds that the documentation is in accordance with the requirements of North Carolina General Statute § 162A-4: Withdrawal from, or Joining to, an Authority, then the Secretary of State shall issue a certificate of withdrawal, or a certificate of joinder.
Governing Board Composition
North Carolina General Statutes do not prescribe the makeup and composition of the governing board for a water authority; rather, they simply indicate that the water authority shall consist of the number of members as may be agreed upon by the participating local governments, such members to be selected by the respective local governments.
Water Authority Powers
An authority is generally authorized and empowered to:
adopt bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its business;
sue, and be sued, in its own name, plead and be impleaded;
issue revenue bonds of the authority to pay the costs for acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement or equipment;
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 35 of 48
fix, revise and collect rates, fees and other charges for the use of services and facilities furnished by the authority;
acquire lands in the name of the authority by exercising the right of eminent domain;
make and enter into contracts and agreements as necessary for the performance of its duties and the execution of its powers;
enter into contracts with the government of the United States, any political subdivision, private corporation, association or individual for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement, operation or maintenance of the system;
receive and accept from any federal, State or other public agency and any private agency, person or other entity, donations, loans, grants, aid or contributions of any money, property, labor or other things of value for any system component;
enter into contracts with any political subdivision by which the authority shall assume the payment of the principal of, and interest on, indebtedness of such subdivision;
make special assessments against benefited property within the area served, or to be served, by the authority;
require the owners of developed property to connect the property to the water and sewer system and fix charges for the connections;
purchase real or personal property.
Example Application
The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) is an example of this organizational model. The PTRWA was formed in 1986 to provide a safe and dependable water supply for the Piedmont Triad Region through the construction of the 3,000 ± acre Randleman Regional Reservoir and the associated 12 mgd John Franklin Kime Water Treatment Plant. The PTRWA owns and maintains approximately 12 miles of finished water pipelines that vary in size from 18 to 48 inches and are used to deliver finished water to each of its six members: Greensboro, High Point, Randolph County, Archdale, Jamestown, and Randleman. The facility services a population of over 400,000 and has an annual operating budget of approximately $4 million.
A ten-member board, whose members are appointed by the local governments that comprise the authority, governs the PTRWA. The board is responsible for establishing organizational policies, adopting ordinances and setting rates, fees and charges. The chief executive officer for PTRWA is designated the Executive Director. The Executive Director is responsible for directing the activities of the organization to implement the policies and ordinances adopted by the governing board. The composition of the governing board was not prescribed by North Carolina General Statutes, but was mutually agreed upon by the participating local governments. The composition of the governing board is as follows:
City of Greensboro – 3 members City of High Point – 2 members Randolph County – 2 members City of Archdale – 1 member
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 36 of 48
Town of Jamestown – 1 member City of Randleman – 1 member
As an independent unit of local government, PTRWA must maintain a full complement of general support services for the operation and administration of the organization, including human resources, finance, purchasing, business information systems, customer service, and legal counsel. The full costs for these general support services are recovered through the schedule of rates, fees and charges.
6.2.2 Metropolitan Water Districts
Any two or more local governments in a county may petition the local board of commissioners for the creation of a metropolitan water district. The petition, along with a resolution from each local government, is to be submitted to the board of commissioners stating the necessity for the creation of the metropolitan water district and requesting the creation. Upon receipt of the petitions and resolutions requesting the creation of a metropolitan water district, the chair of the board of commissioners must notify the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and request that the EMC hold a public hearing with the board of commissioners concerning the creation of a metropolitan water district.
If, after the public hearing, the EMC and the board of commissioners determine that the creation of a metropolitan water district is warranted, the EMC would adopt a resolution creating the entity. The resolution would be distributed to the board of commissioners, as well as to each local government included in the metropolitan water district. The resolution shall constitute the metropolitan water district a public body of the State of North Carolina.
Joining an Existing Metropolitan Water District
A local government may join an existing metropolitan water district by filing a resolution with the district board. If the district board favors the addition of the local government, then the district board shall notify the board of commissioners, and submit a report to the board of commissioners and the EMC detailing the plans to add the local government and expand the service area boundaries of the district.
Upon receipt of the report detailing the plans to add a local government, the chair of the board of commissioners must request the EMC to hold a joint public hearing with the board of commissioners concerning the addition of a local government and the expansion of the service area boundary. If, after the public hearing, the EMC and the board of commissioners determine that the expansion of the service area boundary is warranted, the EMC would adopt a resolution adding the new local government. The resolution would be distributed to the board of commissioners, as well as to each local government included in the district. The resolution shall constitute the metropolitan water district as a public body of the State of North Carolina.
Governing Board Composition
North Carolina General Statutes prescribe the makeup and composition of the governing board for a metropolitan water district. The board of commissioners of the county must appoint to the district board three members who are qualified voters residing within the district. In addition, the governing board of each local government included in the district shall each appoint one member to the district board. However, if any local government within the district has a population greater than that of all other local governments within the district, then the governing body of that local government appoints three members to the governing board.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 37 of 48
Metropolitan Water District Powers
Each district shall be authorized and empowered to:
adopt bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its business not in conflict with this or other law;
sue and be sued in its own name, plead and be impleaded;
issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of the district to pay for the costs of the water system;
fix, revise and collect rents, rates, fees and other charges for the use of the services and facilities furnished by the district;
cause taxes to be levied and collected upon all taxable property within the district sufficient to meet the obligations of the district;
acquire property by exercising the right of eminent domain;
make and enter into contracts and agreements as necessary for the performance of its duties and the execution of its powers;
receive and accept from any federal, State or other public agency and any private agency, person or other entity, donations, loans, grants, aid or contributions of any money, property, labor or other things of value for the water system;
adopt ordinances to regulate and control the discharge of sewage into the water system;
require the owners of developed property to connect the property to the water system and fix charges for the connections;
do all acts and things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers granted by this Article;
assume all outstanding indebtedness of any local government in the district incurred for water system facilities, subject to approval by a majority of the qualified voters of the district at an election;
receive advance funds from any local government in the district in connection with the creation of the district and to provide for the preliminary expenses of the district.
Example Application
The only Metropolitan Water District currently active in North Carolina is the Seagrove-Ulah Metro Water District in Randolph County. This system has less than 1,000 metered connections and serves less than 2,300 people. The Seagrove-Ulah Metro Water district obtains all of its water through interconnections with the City of Asheboro, with whom it negotiates a yearly contract for up to 0.5 mgd of treated water.
North Carolina General Statute 162A-64 authorizes the establishment of Metropolitan Sewerage Districts, which have similar powers and authorities to water districts. A longstanding example is the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) of Buncombe County (District). The MSD of Buncombe County was formed in 1962 to address public health issues related to the discharge of raw sewage into the French Broad River
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 38 of 48
and its tributaries. The District was initially formed to finance, construct, own and operate approximately 19 miles of wastewater conveyance system and a 25 mgd wastewater treatment facility.
An eleven-member board, whose members are appointed by the local governments that comprise the district, governs the MSD of Buncombe County. The board is responsible for establishing organizational policies, adopting ordinances and setting rates, fees and charges. The chief executive officer for the MSD of Buncombe County is designated the General Manager. The General Manager is responsible for directing the activities of the 158-employee organization to implement the policies and ordinances adopted by the governing board. The composition of the governing board is prescribed by the North Carolina General Statutes, and is as follows:
County of Buncombe – 3 members City of Asheville – 3 members Town of Biltmore Forest – 1 member Town of Black Mountain – 1 member Town of Montreat – 1 member Town of Weaverville – 1 member Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District – 1 member
In 1990, the District executed a series of utility merger agreements to acquire the collections systems for each unit of local government that discharge to the District. The District currently owns and operates approximately 900 miles of collection and conveyance facilities, and a 40 mgd wastewater treatment facility.
As an independent unit of local government, the MSD of Buncombe County must maintain a full complement of general support services for the operation and administration of the organization, including human resources, finance, purchasing, business information systems, customer service, and legal counsel. The full costs for these general support services are recovered through the schedule of rates, fees and charges.
6.3 Application of Organizational Models
In evaluating the application of alternative organizational models for intergovernmental cooperation, the basic issues to address include:
Who will be the lead agency responsible for service delivery? What will be the scope of service delivery? What will be the costs for service delivery, and how will costs be allocated? What is the schedule for service delivery?
Recognizing that changes in environmental conditions (social, political, financial, regional, and regulatory) will present both challenges and opportunities, there is a need to select an organizational model with sufficient flexibility that would allow for continued efficient and effective service delivery under varying environmental conditions.
6.3.1 Lead Agency Responsible for Service Delivery
Regardless of which organizational model is selected, it is expected that delivery of the regional facilities and services would be provided by a lead agency of some form. The lead agency can be one of the local government participants, a joint agency created by the local governments, or a special purpose
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 39 of 48
district/authority created by the local governments. Once the lead agency has been designated, each local government would execute an interlocal agreement with the lead agency for the delivery of the facilities and services.
6.3.1.1 Service Delivery by Special Purpose District/Authority
The objective of this organizational model would be to create an organization that would have an independent governing body, staff, set of ordinances, schedule of rates, fees and charges, etc.
With regard to staffing, the special purpose district/authority could either hire independent staff for administration, management, operations and maintenance, or could contract with one of the participating local governments for some, or all, of these services. Once the special purpose district/authority has been established, the participating local governments would execute separate interlocal agreements with the district/authority for the delivery of the facilities and services.
As envisioned, the special purpose district/authority would provide wholesale water service and bill for such services based on each partner’s share of system capacity, and the volume of water used within the billing period.
6.3.1.2 Joint Agency
The objective of this organizational model would be to capture the efficiencies available from an existing service delivery organization as opposed to creating a new or independent organization. To establish the joint agency it would be necessary for the participating local governments to prepare an interlocal agreement that, at a minimum, would specify the following:
1) The purpose of the agreement;
2) The duration of the agreement;
3) The composition, organization, nature, and powers conferred on the joint agency;
4) The manner of appointing the personnel necessary to deliver the regional facilities and services;
5) The method of financing the permitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, management and administration of the regional facilities;
6) The methods to be used for determining the pro-rata proportions allocated to each local government for the total direct and indirect costs associated with the regional facilities;
7) The formula for allocating the ownership of real property associated with the facilities, and the procedures for the disposition of such property when the contract or agreement expires or is terminated;
8) The methods for allowing local governments to withdraw from the joint agency, as well as methods to allow additional local governments to join the joint agency;
9) The methods for amending the agreement; and
10) The methods for terminating the agreement.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 40 of 48
6.3.2 Scope of Service Delivery
It is anticipated that each local government would continue to own, operate, and maintain its existing water infrastructure facilities, to expand and control its water system, and be responsible for all activities related to water and sewer billing, revenue collection, management, administration and customer service. For example, it is not anticipated that the local governments will implement an organizational model for intergovernmental cooperation that would result in transferring responsibility for any existing infrastructure, such as the Jones Ferry Road WTP or Pittsboro WTP.
As envisioned, the scope of the facilities and services that would be subject to intergovernmental cooperation would include:
The regional raw water intake and raw water pump station; The regional water treatment facility; and The finished water pump station and shared finished water transmission mains.
The interface between the existing facilities to be retained by each local government and the new facilities to be provided through intergovernmental cooperation would be as defined by each partner, be a point outside the water treatment facility where the finished water piping is no longer shared. Accordingly, each local government would be responsible for permitting, planning, financing, designing and constructing all facilities required to deliver water into their respective water distribution systems.
The scope of service delivery is anticipated to be divided into multiple phases, and be designed to provide “off-ramps” or exit points for each partner that would not result in a derailment of the overall implementation process.
6.3.3 Costs for Service Delivery
It is anticipated that each local government (including water and sewer authorities) will continue to operate an enterprise fund for its respective water and sewer utility. As such, each local government would continue to adopt a balanced water and sewer utility budget on an annual basis; and the budget would be prepared to demonstrate that forecasted operating revenues are equal to, or exceed, forecasted operating expenditures. It is further anticipated that each local government would continue to maintain an independent schedule of rates, fees and charges, and that the schedule would be designed to fully recover the total direct and indirect costs associated with providing water and sewer services for the local government’s service area, including its share of the capital and operating costs for the Jordan Lake regional water supply facilities.
Consistent with the scope of service delivery, the costs for service delivery would be segregated into phases. It is anticipated that the local governments would use revenues from their water and sewer enterprise funds to contribute their pro-rata proportions of the costs for capital facilities constructed and the level of service received. It would be the responsibility of the lead agency to provide timely and accurate revenue requirement forecasts to each local government for costs related to the management, administration, operations and maintenance of the regional water withdrawal, treatment, and transmission facilities. The local governments would integrate this information into their respective budget planning processes for their water and sewer enterprise funds. Each local government would be responsible for adjusting their individual schedule of rates, fees and charges as necessary to support the revenue requirements of their water and sewer enterprise funds, including their obligations to the regional partnership.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 41 of 48
On an annual basis, the lead agency would present an operating budget to the local governments for the total direct and indirect costs required for the management, administration, operations and maintenance of the regional wastewater management facilities.
6.3.4 Schedule for Service Delivery
Based on current water demand projections, it is anticipated the regional facilities would be needed early in the next decade. The recent Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Volume II (TJCOG, 2014) indicates the WIPs will need to begin accessing their allocations from Jordan Lake by the year 2020.
There is not a specific proposed date for completion and start-up of the regional facilities; however, the schedule anticipates that at least 87 months would be required for project planning, permitting, preliminary engineering design, final design, and construction. Based on that, if it was determined that if the facilities need to be placed in service by mid-2021 to meet the projected demands of one or more partners, water quality assessment and preliminary engineering design would need to begin in the summer of 2014. If the partners desire to evaluate additional sites for regional water treatment facilities, then the schedule would need to be extended to accommodate that evaluation and subsequent purchase actions.
The schedule likely understates the time that will be required to discuss, negotiate, and execute inter-local agreements relating to the authorization and funding of subsequent phases of this regional effort, such as preliminary and final engineering and design, environmental assessment, bidding, and construction. To ensure that they can meet their respective water demands, the partners will likely need to implement interim arrangements to access their respective Jordan Lake allocations between now and the time that new regional facilities on the west side of Jordan Lake can be designed, built, and placed in service.
The complexity of organizational issues that the partners must deal with include differing levels of water supply capacity, water supply risk levels, financial capacity, need for upgrades/expansions to existing water supply, treatment, and distribution systems, and so on. This complexity will present substantial challenges—and require a significant time commitment—to arrive at a suitable agreement that aligns the partners’ individual needs with the project’s organizational and implementation requirements. In consideration thereof, the partners should consider interim interlocal agreements and related infrastructure improvements as a bridge between near- and long-term planning. A primary information source for planning interim arrangements will be the Phase 2 Potable Water Interconnection Study–Hydraulic Modeling, which is currently in progress for the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) and scheduled to be completed in 2015. The JLP, including members of the WIP, commissioned Hazen and Sawyer to complete this study in order to develop a regional approach for planning potable water interconnections that could increase the reliability and sustainability of drinking water sources and infrastructure by allowing the Partners to use their water resources cooperatively and thus defer construction of new facilities (on Jordan Lake or elsewhere).
Recognizing this complexity, one approach for advancing the regional project would be for one partner to take the lead in financing and arranging for the next phase of project engineering and design services, with the understanding that other partners would participate in the review process and would reimburse the lead partner for a proportionate share of the expenses incurred at such time as they formally decide to become a partner in the regional facilities.
6.4 Partnership Structure Comparison
As illustrated with the examples provided above, each of the organizational models presented herein have been used for water supply projects and are potentially viable for implementation, operation, and management of the Jordan Lake west regional intake, treatment, and major transmission facilities and
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 42 of 48
services. In an effort to aid decision-making by the Partners, the following Table 6-1 highlights some of the important characteristics of the two primary frameworks presented, i.e. the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) and District/Authority frameworks.
Table 6-1: Institutional Framework Organizational Model Comparison
Special Purpose Interlocal Agreement (ILA) District/Authority Flexibility Can be customized to any organization As prescribed by statute and financial structure, except as required or prohibited by law Major decisions can be delegated to one partner in advance, or can be reserved for contemporaneous approval Can be amended as needed, with the agreement of the partners
Efficiency and The Partners can make choices to limit the Creates an additional local Administrative administrative costs for operations, such governmental agency, which Costs as allowing one of the partners to operate may require additional all facilities within its existing organization personnel, an additional board, additional professional The Partners can create incentives for services, etc. efficient administration, if desired, or can agree to limit their respective outlay for Requires State approval overhead costs Requires public hearing
Independence Generally as defined by the agreement High degree of independence because it would be responsible to its own board, not directly to the Partners The new agency would be allowed to make final decisions without seeking approvals from the Partners
Authority Generally as defined by the agreement Broad powers as allowed by statute, including the power Individual Partners may authorize a lead of eminent domain in the partner to acquire property rights or name of the new agency perform other functions Ability of OWASA to join a district or authority may require legal counsel review
Experience Relatively common in North Carolina in a Less common: 13 Authorities variety of contexts (including OWASA), and 4 Special Purpose Districts in All Partners currently have experience with the State of NC these types of agreements
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 43 of 48
Based on our experience with other institutional frameworks for regional collaboration involving multiple water systems, Hazen and Sawyer believes the interlocal agreement model may be the most appropriate for the WIP to facilitate implementation, operation, and management of the Jordan Lake west regional intake, treatment, and major transmission facilities and services. Such an approach would likely be simpler to implement and support, while still being capable of ensuring that the needs of all project partners can be met in an equitable and timely manner. ILAs have been used successfully for several similar projects in the Triangle region, including Cary and Apex’s ILA for the existing regional intake and treatment facilities on the east side of Jordan Lake.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 44 of 48
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
1. Of the three Jordan Lake water supply alternatives that have been developed and evaluated collaboratively with the WIP to meet the individual partner and group water supply needs, Alternative 1 - Regional Water Treatment Facility appears to be the overall optimal alternative to be carried forward for facilities planning and potential implementation.
2. As summarized in Table 7-1, Alternative 1 has the lowest capital as well as life cycle costs, followed by Alternative 2 - South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities. Alternative 3 - Raw Water Only Facilities has the highest overall costs.
3. Alternative 1 is also estimated to provide the overall optimum use of resources and have the lowest environmental impacts. It is thus expected to be the easiest alternative to implement. Although the present study involved only conceptual design and did not include a detailed estimate of environmental impacts, a single RWTF at Jordan Lake tends to minimize environmental impacts. As noted in Table 7-1, Alternative 1 is estimated to have the lowest wetland and stream impacts. This is largely because this alternative has the lowest overall linear footage of water pipeline. An added advantage is that it maximizes the footage of finished water main and thus the potential for water sales along the pipeline routes.
4. At this conceptual level of study, cost estimates were prepared based on planning-level conceptual designs, desktop site evaluations, and simplifying assumptions. The processes assumed for the WTF assume advanced treatment processes that address multiple water quality concerns, and should be further evaluated following a site specific water quality monitoring study. No physical site evaluations or surveys were performed. Final costs of the project will depend on the concepts that are carried forward and developed during final design, and a wide range of factors to be determined during the design process.
5. The DWR and the USACE expect regional participation in any Jordan Lake water supply project and are likely to approve only one more municipal water supply intake on Jordan Lake. With the existing Cary-Apex located on the east side of the lake, the new intake would logically be located at a site on the western shores of the lake to serve communities on the west side.
6. This study assumes the development of a regional water intake at a location north of the Vista Point and use of OWASA’s property at Jordan Lake for construction of either a RWTF or a smaller facility to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro. In future studies the WIP may wish to consider alternative locations for the intake and/or RWTF.
7. Report Section 4 reviews a number of Other Project Considerations. Of these, evaluation of source water quality, with a focus on evaluations related to the configuration of the selected regional intake location, is judged to merit consideration for further study in the near term.
8. Report Section 5 includes a number of project implementation items that merit considerations for action by the WIP.
9. As discussed in Section 6, there are a number of institutional models under which the WIP could organize to collaboratively develop the Jordan Lake Regional Water Supply Project.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 45 of 48
10. Based on our experience with other institutional frameworks for regional collaboration involving multiple water systems, Hazen and Sawyer believes the interlocal agreement model may be the most appropriate for the WIP to facilitate implementation, operation, and management of the Jordan Lake west regional intake, treatment, and major transmission facilities and services. Such an approach would likely be simpler to implement and support, while still being capable of ensuring that the needs of all project partners can be met in an equitable and timely manner.
11. The local governments should begin the process of obtaining governing board approval to proceed with additional work on the western intake and/or RWTF.
12. In advance of construction for the first phase of facilities, it will be necessary for the lead WIP agency to complete a number of activities, including preliminary engineering and design, land acquisition, environmental permitting, and final design.
Table 7-1: Alternatives Comparison
Relative Capital Costs (2014 Million $) Total Total Wetland Life Cycle Pipeline Alternative and Initial Ultimate Costs Length Total Stream Facilities Facilities (2014 Million $) (ft) Impacts Alternative 1 – Regional Water $243.3 $73.5 $316.8 $694.3 ~151,000 Lowest Treatment Facility Alternative 2 – South Durham and Greater Jordan Lake Water $296.6 $75.4 $345.0 $752.4 ~200,000 than Alt 1 Treatment Facilities Alternative 3 – Raw Water Only $340.6 $71.0 $411.6 $1050.2 ~271,000 Greatest Facilities
7.2 Recommendations
1. Based on the foregoing, Hazen and Sawyer recommends that the WIP select Alternative 1 - RWTF as the preferred alternative for planning for the potential collaborative development of a regional Jordan Lake Supply. This recommendation was presented to and concurred with by technical staff of the WIPs at meetings held on May 9, 2014, and June 27, 2014.
2. Hazen and Sawyer has developed a list of anticipated permits, a draft schedule, and a cost-loaded schedule for the RWTF to assist the WIPs with continued discussions and planning efforts as they work to develop a shared intake and related facilities at Jordan Lake. Several actions are recommended to be completed by the WIPs in the following weeks and months to align with the draft project schedule presented. These include the following:
Present the study and findings to each local government’s Board;
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 46 of 48
Initiate a water quality monitoring study for the intake site on Jordan Lake to establish a baseline and continue to advance the project schedule;
Obtain approval of the governing Boards to proceed with additional work, including the interlocal agreement(s) necessary to initiate policy planning, preliminary engineering and design, and related consulting services;
Establish a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to guide the technical aspects of the Regional Facilities Preliminary Engineering and Design Process; and,
Form a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to review and provide guidance to the TAC.
3. In light of current and potential water quality conditions at Jordan Lake, it is recommended that future drinking water treatment facilities using water from Jordan Lake include advanced treatment processes to address taste and odor challenges, disinfection by-product formation, algal toxins, and other issues. Therefore, the cost estimates in this report assume that drinking water treatment facilities receiving water from Jordan Lake would include the following minimum processes: conventional treatment processes plus ozone and ultraviolet light disinfection and granular activated carbon treatment. Alternative 3 (which includes delivery of raw water to Durham’s and OWASA’s existing water treatment plants) includes estimated costs for construction and operation of major process improvements at those two existing facilities.
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 47 of 48
8.0 References
CH2MHill, “Water Intake Site Investigation B Everett Jordan Lake”, prepared for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro, North Carolina, 1991
City of Durham, “Draft Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation - Round 4 Level I Allocation Request”, prepared for NCDWR, 2014
Hazen and Sawyer, “Technical Memorandum Appendix VII, Option 3: Develop Jordan Lake in Partnership with Others”, prepared for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro North Carolina, 2010, http://www.owasa.org/Data/Sites/1/media/whatwedo/appendix%20vii.pdf
Triangle J Council of Governments, “Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Volume I – Regional Needs Assessment”, prepared for the Jordan Lake Partnership, 2012
Triangle J Council of Governments, “Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Volume II – Regional Water Supply Alternatives Analysis”, prepared for the Jordan Lake Partnership, 2014
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Page 48 of 48
Appendix A: Regional Water Treatment Facilities - Detailed Cost Summary
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Appendix A Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Summary Data Final Summary of Conceptual‐Level Cost Estimates Capital Costs Initial Interim Ultimate Unit Life‐Cycle Costs (2014 Million $) Total Pressure Existing Basis for Initial WTP Production Basis for Initial WTP Capacity Basis for Ultimate WTP Capacity per 1,000 gallons Life‐Cycle Partner Zone Jordan Lake Year Financed Total Per (2014 $) Costs (ft) Allocations MGD % of % of % of Total (2014 Level 1 Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Max. Day Ultimate Alloc'n Total Alloc'n Total Alloc'n Total Initial InterimMillion $) Usage Allocation Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Purchased Chatham Co. 740 6 18 3.0 1.5 5 21.7% 18 6.5 1.5 10.0 30.3% 18 10.5 1.5 16.0 29.6% $65.9 M $21.4 M $87.3 M $5.5 M $183.4 M $1.7 $0.6 Durham Comp.* 568 / 840 11 18.5 17.5 ‐‐ 18 78.3% 18.5 17.5 ‐‐ 18.0 54.5% 18.5 18.5 ‐‐ 24.0 44.4% $132.9 M $20.5 M $153.4 M $6.4 M $418.7 M $1.5 $1.4 Durham 568 10 16.5 16.5 1 17 73.9% 16.5 16.5 1 17.0 51.5% 16.5 16.5 1.25 21.0 38.9% $120.1 M $12.8 M $132.9 M $6.3 M $388.2 M $1.5 $1.5 Orange Co. 840 1 2 1.0 1 14.3%21.0 1 1.0 3.0% 2 2.0 1.5 3.0 5.6% $12.8 M $7.7 M $20.5 M $6.8 M $30.5 M $1.5 $1.0 OWASA 642 5 5 0.0 1 00.0%52.0 1 2.0 6.1% 5 5.0 1 5.0 9.3% $15.0 M $9.6 M $24.6 M $4.9 M $31.0 M $4.1 $0.4 Pittsboro 565 0 6 0.0 0 00.0%62.0 1.5 3.0 9.1% 6 6.0 1.5 9.0 16.7% $29.5 M $22.0 M $51.5 M $5.7 M $61.3 M $1.5 $0.7 Total ‐‐ 47.5 20.5 ‐‐ 23 100% 47.5 28.0 ‐‐ 33.0 100% 47.5 40.0 ‐‐ 54.0 100% $243.3 M $73.5 M $316.8 M $5.9 M $694.3 M *Durham Comp. represents composite costs for Durham and Orange County since Durham will be supplying Orange County with finished water under all project alternatives. Water Facilities Cost Share Distribution Shared Facilities Separate Facilities Partner Intake & RWPS WTP/PS Shared FW Main Chatham Durham OWASA Orange Pittsboro H'boro Pipelines Initial Expansion Initial Expansion Seg. 1Seg. 2 BPS BPS BPS BPS FW Main BPS ‐‐ Capacity (mgd): 54 33 (+21) 54 33 (+21) 54 69 29 1/1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1/3 9 3/9 ‐‐ Chatham County N 29.6% 30.3% 28.6% 30.3% 28.6% 35.6% 0.0% 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham 38.9% 51.5% 19.0% 51.5% 19.0% 46.7% 72.4% ‐‐ N/A ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ OWASA 9.3% 6.1% 14.3% 6.1% 14.3% 11.1% 17.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Orange County 5.6% 3.0% 9.5% 3.0% 9.5% 6.7% 10.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro 16.7% 9.1% 28.6% 9.1% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100.0% 100.0% ‐‐ Hillsborough 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ TOTAL: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
(1) Includes capital costs for a new Jordan Lake Western intake, raw water transmission facilities, a new water treatment plant (WTP), and related shared and separate finished water pumping and transmission lines. Also, where applicable, costs are included for purchase of land/easements, environmental mitigation, and water storage allocations. All costs are in constant year 2014 dollars and include costs for construction, contractor profit and overhead, engineering, legal and permitting expenses, and an overall 25% contingency. Consistent with the preliminary project schedule, capital funding for the initial facilities (see note 2 below) is assumed to occur in year 2018 and construction is assumed to be completed in year 2021. (2) The Western Jordan Lake intake and all pipelines are sized to meet ultimate (year 2060) maximum day demands. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's ultimate capacity to total ultimate facility capacity. The WTP and shared pumping facilities are assumed to be constructed in phases, with initial sizing to meet interim (year 2040) demands. For these facilities, capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's interim capacity to total interim facility capacity.
(3) Facility expansion is based on the ultimate capacity in year 2060. Financing is assumed to occur in 2035 and construction completion in 2040. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's incremental increase in capacity from year 2040 to year 2060 to the total increase in facility capacity.
(4) All capital and life‐cycle costs are in 2014 dollars. (5) The present analysis assumes that each partner will maintain/obtain a Level I Allocation. No costs are included for Level II Allocations. Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities SUMMARY of VARIABLES Description Value Units Notes General Current ENR CCI: 9795.92 May 2014 Project Cost Start Date: 2010 Project Cost Begin Capital Finance: 2015 Project Cost Complete Initial Construction: 2020 Project Cost Complete Expansion: 2040 Project Cost End Date: 2060 Project Cost Lifespan: 50 years
Calculation of Capital Costs Updated EPA cost curves (2010, ENR CCI 8802) for Water Treatment Facilities Includes ozone, UV, GAC, & residuals. Does not Include Land, Contractor Profit & Overhead, engineering, legal costs, or contingencies Add 10% for provisions for plant expansion Add 20% for expansion phasing Capacity Construction Cost = a*(Q+1)^b (mgd) Cost (2010 $) R^2 = 0.99958 42 $82,645,000 a = 3097698.29 62 $114,109,000 b = 0.8446521286 +20 $31,464,000
Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, and Profit: 15% Contingency: 25% Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Rural: $9.00 per inch‐diameter/ft 2011 Western Wake BCFM ‐ 26,000 lf 42‐inch, 26,000 lf 36‐inch. Project Cost $14 Million Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Urban: $15.00 per inch‐diameter/ft BCFMs were constructed in a similar corridor to the WIP pipelines. Calculate cost per inch diameter = Calculation of Life Cycle Costs Diameter Length Cost (M$) $/per inch d2014 Cost Escalate 20% to remove efficiency as pipes shared same corridor General Conditions Pipe 1 42 26000 Discount Rate: 1.295% Pipe 2 36 26000 Initial Construction Year: 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTAL 39 52000 $14 $6.90 $7.65 $9.18 Capital financing incurred as % of Total 30% 60% 90% 100%
Capital /Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs Issuing Expense: 0.0% Urban Cos Assume takes twice as long to construct are rural. Crew cost for BCFM was $3 Million Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% $1.97 Crew cost ~$2 per inch diameter per LF Financing Term (Years): 25 years $11.15 Revised Total Equipment Lifespan: 25 years $14.65 Add $3.5 per inch diameter per LF for additional borings Pipelines/Structures Lifespan: 50 years $15.00 Round up Equipment Replacement as % of Total Construction Cost: 15% NOTE: Pipeline unit costs include 15% contractor overhead and profit. This 15% is removed for each partner. Number of Years Replacement Equipment Defrayed Over: 5 years Cost multiplier for shared pumping facilities w/ high‐low head pumps: 1.2 not used Cost multiplier for WTPs with shared high‐low head pumping facilities: 1.02 not used
Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M Costs as Percent of Construction Costs: 10% Fixed O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 70% Variable O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 30% Variable O&M Cost Constant (mgd, 70% eff, Kw‐hr/yr): 2,195 Energy Cost: $0.092 per kW-hr electrical energy Level I Allocation Costs Total Purchase Cost: $91,040.76 per mgd Annual Cost for Subsequent Years: $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
Level II Allocation Costs Total Annual Cost : $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
USACE Easement Acquisition Easement for Intake and RW Main 2.1 Acres Estimated lump sum cost $200,000
WTP Site Land Acquisition OWASA WTP Site Acreage 125 acres Cost per Acre $10,000 per acre WTP Site EL: 332 ft Jordan Lake NP EL: 216 ft
Pipeline Sizing WTP Diam % Share of Pipeline, Capacity & Characteristics Partner (s) Served Fin P. Share (inch) Raw Fin. G1 Fin G2 G1 & G2 Fin_Ch. (mgd) V = 6 Chatham Co. 30% 36% 0% x 100% ‐‐ 16.0 30 Durham Comp. Durham 39% 47% 72% x ‐‐ ‐‐ 21.0 36 Orange Co. 6% 7% 10% x ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.0 12 OWASA 9% 11% 17% x ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.0 16 Pittsboro 17% 0% 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% 9.0 24 Hillsboro 0% 0% 0% Total: 100% 100% 100% ‐‐ 100% 100% Design Peak Pumping Capacity (mgd) 54 45 29 45, 29 16 9 Design Pipeline Velocity (ft/s): 6555, 56 6 Calculated Pipeline Diam. (inches): 54 54 42 54, 42 30 24 Length (ft): 3,000 48,800 62,905 111,705 ‐‐ 31,552 Calculated Velocity (ft/s): 5.3 4.4 4.7 4.4, 4.7 5.0 4.4 Pipeline head Loss (C=120) for use in calculating variable operating costs HL in Year 2020 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 0.8 40.9 42.6 83.5 ‐‐ 0.0 HL in Year 2040 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 1.4 52.5 52.1 104.5 ‐‐ 5.9 HL in Year 2060 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 2.8 74.3 73.5 147.8 ‐‐ 44.9 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Chatham County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 6 18 18 18 -- Chatham County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 5.0 10.0 16.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 3.0 6.5 10.5 ‐‐ WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 49 WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Chatham County Share of WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 10.0 6.0 inc. 16.0 16.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 30.3% 28.6% 29.6% 32.7% % Avg. Plant Production & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 14.6% 23.2% 26.3% -- % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 1: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 35.6% ‐‐ % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 2: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 84 106 151 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 508 530 575 ‐‐ Chatham County Pressure Zone (ft): 740
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Chatham County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 29.6% $2,815,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 29.6% $1,700,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 29.6% $830,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,260,000 $8,260,000 30.3% $2,503,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,020,000 $4,020,000 28.6% $1,149,000
4 Jordan Lake Regional WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, TDH = 100 ft) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $64,828,000 $64,828,000 30.3% $19,645,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $35,445,000 $35,445,000 28.6% $10,127,000
5 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Northern Segment No. 1 ‐ Rural 54 in 48,800 LF $423 $20,623,304 35.6% $7,333,000
6 Finished Water Booster Station (Chatham County) Interim Capacity 10 mgd 1 LS $2,960,000 $2,960,000 100.0% $2,960,000 Ultimate Capacity 16 mgd 1 LS $1,352,727 $1,352,727 100.0% $1,353,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $37,790,000 $12,630,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $5,669,000 $1,895,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $43,459,000 $14,525,000 10 ENGINEERING COST ALLOWANCES Engineering ‐ Policy Planning (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $189,000 $63,000 11 Engineering ‐ Preliminary Engineering( @ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $378,000 $126,000 12 Engineering ‐ Field Work (@ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $378,000 $126,000 13 Engineering ‐ Permitting (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $189,000 $63,000 14 Engineering ‐ Design (@ 8.0% x Line 7) 8.00% $3,023,000 $1,010,000 15 Engineering ‐ Construction Administration (@ 6.8% x Line 7) 6.75% $2,551,000 $853,000 16 Misc. Administration, Legal Fees, Permits, Approvals, & Other (@ 3.0% x Line 7) 3.00% $1,134,000 $379,000 17 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL $7,842,000 $2,620,000 18 LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS OWASA WTP Site 125 Acre $10,000 $1,250,000 32.7% $408,000 19 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 29.6% $59,000 20 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 21 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 101 LF $374 $37,599 100.0% $38,000 22 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.32 Acre $68,502 $22,164 100.0% $22,000 22 LAND ACQUISTIONS AND EASEMENTS SUBTOTAL $1,559,764 $577,000 $0 23 CONTINGENCY Contingency (@ 25% (Line 9+Line 17+Line 23)) 25% $12,970,000 $4,286,000 24 $64,848,000 $21,431,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 25 $86,279,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 26 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 12 mgd $91,041 $1,092,489 100.0% $1,093,000 27 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 28 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 29 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $1,093,000 $0 30 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $65,900,000 $21,400,000 31 $87,300,000 32 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $183,400,000 33 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.72 34 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.65 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Chatham County
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 74%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars Other Capital / Fixed Costs O&M Costs Total Annual Costs # Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Engineering, Running Present Yrs WTP Replace- Year Capital Legal Jordan Lake Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. ment & Fixed Variable Per 1,000 gal's Financing & OWASA Allocation Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage Salvage Pumped Land Allocation 1 0 $281,000 $281,000 $281,000 2 1 $887,000 $887,000 $876,000 3 2 $1,922,000 $1,922,000 $1,873,000 4 3 $2,643,000 $2,643,000 $2,543,000 5 4 $1,001,000 $1,217,000 $2,218,000 $2,107,000 6 5 $2,002,000 $1,262,000 $3,264,000 $3,061,000 7 6 18 3.00 $3,004,000 $1,265,000 $1,195,000 $1,098,000 $559,000 $7,121,000 $6,592,000 $2.64 $15.83 8 7 18 3.18 $3,337,000 $835,000 $44,000 $1,112,000 $585,000 $5,913,000 $5,404,000 $1.73 $10.09 9 8 33 18 3.35 $3,337,000 $45,000 $1,127,000 $613,000 $5,122,000 $4,621,000 $1.39 $7.87 10 9 33 18 3.53 $3,337,000 $45,000 $1,141,000 $641,000 $5,164,000 $4,599,000 $1.22 $6.71 11 10 33 18 3.70 $3,337,000 $46,000 $1,156,000 $670,000 $5,209,000 $4,580,000 $1.11 $5.98 12 11 33 18 3.88 $3,337,000 $46,000 $1,171,000 $699,000 $5,253,000 $4,560,000 $1.04 $5.46 13 12 33 18 4.05 $3,337,000 $47,000 $1,186,000 $729,000 $5,299,000 $4,541,000 $0.99 $5.07 14 13 33 18 4.23 $3,337,000 $47,000 $1,202,000 $759,000 $5,345,000 $4,522,000 $0.95 $4.76 15 14 33 18 4.40 $3,337,000 $48,000 $1,217,000 $791,000 $5,393,000 $4,504,000 $0.92 $4.50 16 15 33 18 4.58 $3,337,000 $49,000 $1,233,000 $823,000 $5,442,000 $4,487,000 $0.90 $4.28 17 16 33 18 4.75 $3,337,000 $49,000 $1,249,000 $855,000 $5,490,000 $4,469,000 $0.88 $4.09 18 17 33 18 4.93 $3,337,000 $50,000 $1,265,000 $889,000 $5,541,000 $4,452,000 $0.86 $3.92 19 18 33 18 5.10 $3,337,000 $51,000 $1,281,000 $923,000 $5,592,000 $4,436,000 $0.85 $3.77 20 19 33 18 5.28 $3,337,000 $51,000 $1,298,000 $957,000 $5,643,000 $4,419,000 $0.84 $3.64 21 20 33 18 5.45 $3,337,000 $52,000 $1,315,000 $993,000 $5,697,000 $4,404,000 $0.83 $3.52 22 21 33 18 5.63 $3,337,000 $53,000 $1,332,000 $1,029,000 $5,751,000 $4,389,000 $0.82 $3.40 23 22 33 18 5.80 $3,337,000 $53,000 $1,349,000 $1,066,000 $5,805,000 $4,374,000 $0.81 $3.30 24 23 33 18 5.98 $3,337,000 $54,000 $1,367,000 $1,104,000 $5,862,000 $4,360,000 $0.80 $3.20 25 24 33 18 6.15 $5,033,000 $55,000 $1,384,000 $1,143,000 $7,615,000 $5,592,000 $0.80 $3.15 26 25 33 18 6.33 $5,033,000 $55,000 $1,402,000 $1,182,000 $7,672,000 $5,562,000 $0.80 $3.10 27 26 33 18 6.50 $5,033,000 $56,000 $1,420,000 $1,223,000 $7,732,000 $5,534,000 $0.81 $3.05 28 27 33 18 6.7 $5,033,000 $57,000 $1,439,000 $1,267,000 $7,796,000 $5,508,000 $0.81 $3.00 29 28 54 18 6.9 $5,033,000 $58,000 $1,457,000 $1,313,000 $7,861,000 $5,483,000 $0.81 $2.95 30 29 54 18 7.1 $1,696,000 $58,000 $1,476,000 $1,360,000 $4,590,000 $3,161,000 $0.79 $2.85 31 30 54 18 7.3 $1,696,000 $59,000 $1,495,000 $1,408,000 $4,658,000 $3,166,000 $0.78 $2.75 32 31 54 18 7.5 $1,696,000 $2,899,000 $60,000 $1,515,000 $1,456,000 $7,626,000 $5,118,000 $0.78 $2.71 33 32 54 18 7.7 $1,696,000 $2,937,000 $61,000 $1,534,000 $1,506,000 $7,734,000 $5,124,000 $0.78 $2.66 34 33 54 18 7.9 $1,696,000 $2,975,000 $61,000 $1,554,000 $1,557,000 $7,843,000 $5,130,000 $0.78 $2.61 35 34 54 18 8.1 $1,696,000 $3,013,000 $62,000 $1,574,000 $1,609,000 $7,954,000 $5,136,000 $0.78 $2.57 36 35 54 18 8.3 $1,696,000 $3,052,000 $63,000 $1,595,000 $1,662,000 $8,068,000 $5,143,000 $0.78 $2.52 37 36 54 18 8.5 $1,696,000 $64,000 $1,615,000 $1,716,000 $5,091,000 $3,204,000 $0.77 $2.45 38 37 54 18 8.7 $1,696,000 $65,000 $1,636,000 $1,771,000 $5,168,000 $3,210,000 $0.76 $2.38 39 38 54 18 8.9 $1,696,000 $65,000 $1,658,000 $1,827,000 $5,246,000 $3,217,000 $0.76 $2.32 40 39 54 18 9.1 $1,696,000 $66,000 $1,679,000 $1,884,000 $5,325,000 $3,224,000 $0.75 $2.26 41 40 54 18 9.3 $1,696,000 $67,000 $1,701,000 $1,943,000 $5,407,000 $3,232,000 $0.74 $2.20 42 41 54 18 9.5 $1,696,000 $68,000 $1,723,000 $2,003,000 $5,490,000 $3,239,000 $0.73 $2.15 43 42 54 18 9.7 $1,696,000 $69,000 $1,745,000 $2,064,000 $5,574,000 $3,247,000 $0.73 $2.10 44 43 54 18 9.9 $1,696,000 $70,000 $1,768,000 $2,126,000 $5,660,000 $3,255,000 $0.72 $2.05 45 44 54 18 10.1 $1,696,000 $71,000 $1,791,000 $2,190,000 $5,748,000 $3,263,000 $0.71 $2.00 46 45 54 18 10.3 $1,696,000 $72,000 $1,814,000 $2,255,000 $5,837,000 $3,271,000 $0.71 $1.96 47 46 54 18 10.5 $1,696,000 $72,000 $1,837,000 $2,321,000 $5,926,000 $3,279,000 $0.70 $1.91 48 47 54 18 10.5 $1,696,000 $73,000 $1,861,000 $2,351,000 $5,981,000 $3,267,000 $0.70 $1.87 49 48 54 18 10.5 $1,696,000 ‐$23,843,947 $74,000 $1,885,000 $2,381,000 ‐$17,808,000 ‐$9,603,000 $0.65 $1.72 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 292.8 $121,821,000 $10,312,000 ‐$8,967,947 $3,626,000 $62,657,000 $58,203,000 $247,651,000 $183,416,000 $0.65 $1.72 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Durham Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 10 16.5 16.5 16.5 -- Durham Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 17.0 21.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 16.5 16.5 16.5 ‐‐ WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 52 WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham Share of WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 4.0 inc. 21.0 21.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 51.5% 19.0% 38.9% 40.4% % Avg. Plant Production & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 80.5% 58.9% 41.3% -- % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 1: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 46.7% ‐‐ % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 2: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 72.4% ‐‐ Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 84.3 106.0 150.6 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 336 358 403 ‐‐ Durham Pressure Zone (ft): 568
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Durham Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 38.9% $3,694,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 38.9% $2,232,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 38.9% $1,089,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,260,000 $8,260,000 51.5% $4,255,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,020,000 $4,020,000 19.0% $766,000
4 Jordan Lake Regional WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, TDH = 100 ft) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $64,828,000 $64,828,000 51.5% $33,396,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $35,445,000 $35,445,000 19.0% $6,751,000
5 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Northern Segment No. 1 ‐ Rural 54 in 48,800 LF $423 $20,623,304 47% $9,624,000 Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Rural 42 in 59,405 LF $329 $19,526,165 72% $14,140,000 Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 72% $1,388,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $69,820,000 $7,520,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $10,473,000 $1,128,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $80,293,000 $8,648,000 9 ENGINEERING COST ALLOWANCES Engineering ‐ Policy Planning (@ 0.5% x Line 6) 0.50% $349,000 $38,000 10 Engineering ‐ Preliminary Engineering( @ 1.0% x Line 6) 1.00% $698,000 $75,000 11 Engineering ‐ Field Work (@ 1.0% x Line 6) 1.00% $698,000 $75,000 12 Engineering ‐ Permitting (@ 0.5% x Line 6) 0.50% $349,000 $38,000 13 Engineering ‐ Design (@ 8.0% x Line 6) 8.00% $5,586,000 $602,000 14 Engineering ‐ Construction Administration (@ 6.8% x Line 6) 6.75% $4,713,000 $508,000 15 Misc. Administration, Legal Fees, Permits, Approvals, & Other (@ 3.0% x Line 6) 3.00% $2,095,000 $226,000 16 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL $14,488,000 $1,562,000 17 LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS OWASA WTP Site 125 Acre $10,000 $1,250,000 40.4% $505,000 18 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 38.9% $78,000 19 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 20 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 337 LF $374 $125,912 100.0% $126,000 21 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.80 Acre $68,502 $54,885 100.0% $55,000 22 LAND ACQUISTIONS AND EASEMENTS SUBTOTAL $1,730,797 $864,000 $0 23 Contingency (@ 25% (Line 8+Line 16+Line 22)) 25% $23,911,000 $2,553,000 24 $119,556,000 $12,763,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 25 $132,319,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 26 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 7 mgd $91,041 $591,765 100.0% $592,000 27 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 28 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 29 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $592,000 $0 30 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $120,100,000 $12,800,000 31 $132,900,000 32 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $388,173,000 33 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.50 34 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $1.50 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Durham
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 59%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars Other Capital / Fixed Costs O&M Costs Total Annual Costs # Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Engineering, Running Present Yrs WTP Replace- Year Capital Legal Jordan Lake Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. ment & Fixed Variable Per 1,000 gal's Financing & OWASA Allocation Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage Salvage Pumped Land Allocation 1 0 $519,000 $519,000 $519,000 2 1 $1,639,000 $1,639,000 $1,618,000 3 2 $3,551,000 $3,551,000 $3,461,000 4 3 $4,613,000 $4,613,000 $4,438,000 5 4 $1,851,000 $2,208,000 $4,059,000 $3,855,000 6 5 $3,702,000 $2,331,000 $6,033,000 $5,657,000 7 6 17 16.50 $5,552,000 $2,337,000 $663,000 $2,758,000 $3,053,000 $14,363,000 $13,296,000 $5.45 $5.45 8 7 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $1,543,000 $40,000 $2,794,000 $3,092,000 $13,638,000 $12,463,000 $3.76 $3.76 9 8 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $41,000 $2,830,000 $3,132,000 $12,172,000 $10,981,000 $3.12 $3.12 10 9 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $41,000 $2,867,000 $3,173,000 $12,250,000 $10,910,000 $2.79 $2.79 11 10 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $42,000 $2,904,000 $3,214,000 $12,329,000 $10,840,000 $2.59 $2.59 12 11 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $42,000 $2,941,000 $3,255,000 $12,407,000 $10,770,000 $2.46 $2.46 13 12 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $43,000 $2,979,000 $3,298,000 $12,489,000 $10,702,000 $2.36 $2.36 14 13 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $44,000 $3,018,000 $3,340,000 $12,571,000 $10,635,000 $2.29 $2.29 15 14 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $44,000 $3,057,000 $3,384,000 $12,654,000 $10,568,000 $2.23 $2.23 16 15 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $45,000 $3,097,000 $3,427,000 $12,738,000 $10,502,000 $2.18 $2.18 17 16 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $45,000 $3,137,000 $3,472,000 $12,823,000 $10,437,000 $2.14 $2.14 18 17 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $46,000 $3,177,000 $3,517,000 $12,909,000 $10,373,000 $2.10 $2.10 19 18 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $46,000 $3,218,000 $3,562,000 $12,995,000 $10,308,000 $2.07 $2.07 20 19 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $47,000 $3,260,000 $3,608,000 $13,084,000 $10,246,000 $2.05 $2.05 21 20 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $48,000 $3,302,000 $3,655,000 $13,174,000 $10,185,000 $2.02 $2.02 22 21 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $48,000 $3,345,000 $3,702,000 $13,264,000 $10,123,000 $2.00 $2.00 23 22 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $49,000 $3,388,000 $3,750,000 $13,356,000 $10,063,000 $1.98 $1.98 24 23 33 17 16.50 $6,169,000 $49,000 $3,432,000 $3,799,000 $13,449,000 $10,004,000 $1.96 $1.96 25 24 33 17 16.50 $7,179,000 $50,000 $3,477,000 $3,848,000 $14,554,000 $10,687,000 $1.95 $1.95 26 25 33 17 16.50 $7,179,000 $51,000 $3,522,000 $3,898,000 $14,650,000 $10,620,000 $1.94 $1.94 27 26 33 17 16.50 $7,179,000 $51,000 $3,567,000 $3,948,000 $14,745,000 $10,553,000 $1.94 $1.94 28 27 33 17 16.5 $7,179,000 $52,000 $3,614,000 $4,000,000 $14,845,000 $10,488,000 $1.93 $1.93 29 28 54 17 16.5 $7,179,000 $53,000 $3,660,000 $4,051,000 $14,943,000 $10,423,000 $1.92 $1.92 30 29 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $53,000 $3,708,000 $4,104,000 $8,875,000 $6,111,000 $1.88 $1.88 31 30 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $54,000 $3,756,000 $4,157,000 $8,977,000 $6,102,000 $1.85 $1.85 32 31 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $5,345,000 $55,000 $3,804,000 $4,211,000 $14,425,000 $9,680,000 $1.84 $1.84 33 32 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $5,414,000 $56,000 $3,854,000 $4,265,000 $14,599,000 $9,672,000 $1.83 $1.83 34 33 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $5,484,000 $56,000 $3,904,000 $4,321,000 $14,775,000 $9,663,000 $1.82 $1.82 35 34 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $5,555,000 $57,000 $3,954,000 $4,377,000 $14,953,000 $9,655,000 $1.81 $1.81 36 35 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $5,627,000 $58,000 $4,005,000 $4,433,000 $15,133,000 $9,646,000 $1.81 $1.81 37 36 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $58,000 $4,057,000 $4,491,000 $9,616,000 $6,051,000 $1.78 $1.78 38 37 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $59,000 $4,110,000 $4,549,000 $9,728,000 $6,043,000 $1.76 $1.76 39 38 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $60,000 $4,163,000 $4,608,000 $9,841,000 $6,035,000 $1.73 $1.73 40 39 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $61,000 $4,217,000 $4,667,000 $9,955,000 $6,027,000 $1.71 $1.71 41 40 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $62,000 $4,272,000 $4,728,000 $10,072,000 $6,020,000 $1.69 $1.69 42 41 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $62,000 $4,327,000 $4,789,000 $10,188,000 $6,011,000 $1.67 $1.67 43 42 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $63,000 $4,383,000 $4,851,000 $10,307,000 $6,004,000 $1.65 $1.65 44 43 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $64,000 $4,440,000 $4,914,000 $10,428,000 $5,997,000 $1.64 $1.64 45 44 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $65,000 $4,497,000 $4,978,000 $10,550,000 $5,989,000 $1.62 $1.62 46 45 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $66,000 $4,555,000 $5,042,000 $10,673,000 $5,982,000 $1.60 $1.60 47 46 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $66,000 $4,614,000 $5,107,000 $10,797,000 $5,974,000 $1.59 $1.59 48 47 54 16.5 16.5 $1,010,000 $67,000 $4,674,000 $5,173,000 $10,924,000 $5,967,000 $1.57 $1.57 49 48 54 17 16.5 $1,010,000 ‐$29,933,320 $68,000 $4,735,000 $5,240,000 ‐$18,880,000 ‐$10,181,000 $1.50 $1.50 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 709.5 $172,073,000 $18,741,000 ‐$2,508,320 $2,890,000 $157,373,000 $174,183,000 $522,752,000 $388,173,000 $1.50 $1.50 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Orange County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 1222-- Orange County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 3.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 2.0 -- WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 52 WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Orange County Share of WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 2.0 inc. 3.0 3.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 3.0% 9.5% 5.6% 0.1 % Avg. Plant Production & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 4.9% 3.6% 5.0% -- % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 1: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.7% ‐‐ % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 2: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.3% ‐‐ Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 84.3 106.0 150.6 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 608 630 675 ‐‐ Orange County Pressure Zone (ft): 840
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Orange County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 5.6% $528,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 5.6% $319,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 5.6% $156,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,260,000 $8,260,000 3.0% $250,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,020,000 $4,020,000 9.5% $383,000
4 Jordan Lake Regional WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, TDH = 100 ft) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $64,828,000 $64,828,000 3.0% $1,964,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $35,445,000 $35,445,000 9.5% $3,376,000
5 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Northern Segment No. 1 ‐ Rural 54 in 48,800 LF $423 $20,623,304 6.7% $1,375,000 Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Rural 42 in 59,405 LF $329 $19,526,165 10.3% $2,020,000 Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 10.3% $198,000
6 Finished Water Booster Station Interim Capacity 1.0 mgd 1 LS $530,000 $530,000 100.0% $530,000 Ultimate Capacity 3.0 mgd 1 LS $741,818 $741,818 100.0% $742,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $7,340,000 $4,510,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15.0% $1,101,000 $677,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $8,441,000 $5,187,000 10 ENGINEERING COST ALLOWANCES Engineering ‐ Policy Planning (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $37,000 $23,000 11 Engineering ‐ Preliminary Engineering( @ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $73,000 $45,000 12 Engineering ‐ Field Work (@ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $73,000 $45,000 13 Engineering ‐ Permitting (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $37,000 $23,000 14 Engineering ‐ Design (@ 8.0% x Line 7) 8.00% $587,000 $361,000 15 Engineering ‐ Construction Administration (@ 6.8% x Line 7) 6.75% $495,000 $304,000 16 Misc. Administration, Legal Fees, Permits, Approvals, & Other (@ 3.0% x Line 7) 3.00% $220,000 $135,000 17 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL $1,522,000 $936,000 18 LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS OWASA WTP Site 125 Acre $10,000 $1,250,000 5.8% $72,000 19 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 5.6% $11,000 20 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 21 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 48 LF $374 $17,987 100.0% $18,000 22 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.11 Acre $68,502 $7,841 100.0% $8,000 23 LAND ACQUISTIONS AND EASEMENTS SUBTOTAL $1,575,828 $209,000 $0 24 Contingency (@ 25% (Line 9+Line 17+Line 23)) 25.0% $2,543,000 $1,531,000 25 $12,715,000 $7,654,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 26 $20,369,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 27 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 1 mgd $91,041 $91,041 100.0% $91,000 28 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 29 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 30 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $91,000 $0 31 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $12,800,000 $7,700,000 32 $20,500,000 33 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $30,512,000 34 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.51 35 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.97 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Orange County
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 45%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars Other Capital / Fixed Costs O&M Costs Total Annual Costs # Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Engineering, Running Present Yrs WTP Replace- Year Capital Legal Jordan Lake Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. ment & Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing & OWASA Allocation Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage Salvage gal's Pumped Land Allocation 1 0 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 2 1 $172,000 $172,000 $170,000 3 2 $373,000 $373,000 $364,000 4 3 $505,000 $505,000 $486,000 5 4 $197,000 $235,000 $432,000 $410,000 6 5 $394,000 $245,000 $639,000 $599,000 7 6 2 1.00 $590,000 $246,000 $101,000 $13,000 $141,000 $1,091,000 $1,010,000 $4.24 $8.48 8 7 2 1.00 $656,000 $162,000 $5,000 $13,000 $143,000 $979,000 $895,000 $2.73 $5.46 9 8 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $13,000 $145,000 $819,000 $739,000 $2.16 $4.32 10 9 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $13,000 $147,000 $821,000 $731,000 $1.87 $3.74 11 10 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $14,000 $149,000 $824,000 $725,000 $1.69 $3.39 12 11 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $14,000 $151,000 $826,000 $717,000 $1.58 $3.15 13 12 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $14,000 $152,000 $827,000 $709,000 $1.49 $2.98 14 13 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $5,000 $14,000 $154,000 $829,000 $701,000 $1.42 $2.85 15 14 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $14,000 $156,000 $832,000 $695,000 $1.37 $2.74 16 15 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $15,000 $158,000 $835,000 $688,000 $1.33 $2.66 17 16 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $15,000 $161,000 $838,000 $682,000 $1.29 $2.58 18 17 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $15,000 $163,000 $840,000 $675,000 $1.26 $2.52 19 18 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $15,000 $165,000 $842,000 $668,000 $1.23 $2.47 20 19 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $15,000 $167,000 $844,000 $661,000 $1.21 $2.42 21 20 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $16,000 $169,000 $847,000 $655,000 $1.19 $2.38 22 21 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $16,000 $171,000 $849,000 $648,000 $1.17 $2.34 23 22 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $16,000 $173,000 $851,000 $641,000 $1.15 $2.31 24 23 33 2 1.00 $656,000 $6,000 $16,000 $176,000 $854,000 $635,000 $1.14 $2.28 25 24 33 2 1.00 $1,262,000 $6,000 $16,000 $178,000 $1,462,000 $1,074,000 $1.16 $2.31 26 25 33 2 1.00 $1,262,000 $6,000 $17,000 $180,000 $1,465,000 $1,062,000 $1.17 $2.34 27 26 33 2 1.00 $1,262,000 $6,000 $17,000 $183,000 $1,468,000 $1,051,000 $1.18 $2.37 28 27 33 2 1.1 $1,262,000 $7,000 $17,000 $194,000 $1,480,000 $1,046,000 $1.20 $2.38 29 28 54 2 1.1 $1,262,000 $7,000 $17,000 $205,000 $1,491,000 $1,040,000 $1.21 $2.39 30 29 54 2 1.2 $606,000 $7,000 $17,000 $216,000 $846,000 $583,000 $1.19 $2.35 31 30 54 2 1.2 $606,000 $7,000 $18,000 $228,000 $859,000 $584,000 $1.17 $2.30 32 31 54 2 1.3 $606,000 $568,000 $7,000 $18,000 $240,000 $1,439,000 $966,000 $1.18 $2.29 33 32 54 2 1.3 $606,000 $576,000 $7,000 $18,000 $253,000 $1,460,000 $967,000 $1.18 $2.28 34 33 54 2 1.4 $606,000 $583,000 $7,000 $18,000 $265,000 $1,479,000 $967,000 $1.19 $2.26 35 34 54 2 1.4 $606,000 $591,000 $7,000 $19,000 $278,000 $1,501,000 $969,000 $1.19 $2.25 36 35 54 2 1.5 $606,000 $598,000 $7,000 $19,000 $291,000 $1,521,000 $970,000 $1.20 $2.23 37 36 54 2 1.5 $606,000 $7,000 $19,000 $305,000 $937,000 $590,000 $1.19 $2.18 38 37 54 2 1.6 $606,000 $7,000 $19,000 $319,000 $951,000 $591,000 $1.17 $2.13 39 38 54 2 1.6 $606,000 $7,000 $20,000 $333,000 $966,000 $592,000 $1.16 $2.08 40 39 54 2 1.7 $606,000 $8,000 $20,000 $347,000 $981,000 $594,000 $1.15 $2.03 41 40 54 2 1.7 $606,000 $8,000 $20,000 $362,000 $996,000 $595,000 $1.14 $1.99 42 41 54 2 1.8 $606,000 $8,000 $20,000 $377,000 $1,011,000 $597,000 $1.13 $1.94 43 42 54 2 1.8 $606,000 $8,000 $21,000 $392,000 $1,027,000 $598,000 $1.13 $1.90 44 43 54 2 1.9 $606,000 $8,000 $21,000 $408,000 $1,043,000 $600,000 $1.12 $1.86 45 44 54 2 1.9 $606,000 $8,000 $21,000 $424,000 $1,059,000 $601,000 $1.11 $1.82 46 45 54 2 2.0 $606,000 $8,000 $21,000 $441,000 $1,076,000 $603,000 $1.10 $1.78 47 46 54 2 2.0 $606,000 $8,000 $22,000 $457,000 $1,093,000 $605,000 $1.10 $1.75 48 47 54 2 2.0 $606,000 $8,000 $22,000 $463,000 $1,099,000 $600,000 $1.09 $1.71 49 48 54 2 2.0 $606,000 ‐$6,467,693 $8,000 $22,000 $469,000 ‐$5,363,000 ‐$2,892,000 $0.97 $1.51 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 55.5 $30,763,000 $1,993,000 ‐$3,551,693 $378,000 $740,000 $10,649,000 $40,971,000 $30,512,000 $0.97 $1.51 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for OWASA Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 5555-- OWASA Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 ‐‐ WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ OWASA Share of WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 3.0 inc. 5.0 0.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 6.1% 14.3% 9.3% 0.0% % Avg. Plant Production & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 12.5% -- % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 1: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.1% ‐‐ % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 2: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17.2% ‐‐ Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 84.3 106.0 150.6 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 410 432 477 ‐‐ OWASA Pressure Zone (ft): 642
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to OWASA Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 9.3% $880,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 9.3% $531,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 9.3% $259,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,260,000 $8,260,000 6.1% $501,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,020,000 $4,020,000 14.3% $574,000
4 Jordan Lake Regional WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, TDH = 100 ft) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $64,828,000 $64,828,000 6.1% $3,929,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $35,445,000 $35,445,000 14.3% $5,064,000
5 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Northern Segment No. 1 ‐ Rural 54 in 48,800 LF $423 $20,623,304 11.1% $2,291,000 Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Rural 42 in 59,405 LF $329 $19,526,165 17.2% Northern Segment No. 2 ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 17.2% $331,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $8,730,000 $5,640,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $1,310,000 $846,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $10,040,000 $6,486,000 9 ENGINEERING COST ALLOWANCES Engineering ‐ Policy Planning (@ 0.5% x Line 6) 0.50% $44,000 $28,000 10 Engineering ‐ Preliminary Engineering( @ 1.0% x Line 6) 1.00% $87,000 $56,000 11 Engineering ‐ Field Work (@ 1.0% x Line 6) 1.00% $87,000 $56,000 12 Engineering ‐ Permitting (@ 0.5% x Line 6) 0.50% $44,000 $28,000 13 Engineering ‐ Design (@ 8.0% x Line 6) 8.00% $698,000 $451,000 14 Engineering ‐ Construction Administration (@ 6.8% x Line 6) 6.75% $589,000 $381,000 15 Misc. Administration, Legal Fees, Permits, Approvals, & Other (@ 3.0% x Line 6) 3.00% $262,000 $169,000 16 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL $1,811,000 $1,169,000 17 LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS OWASA WTP Site 0 Acre $10,000 $0 0.0% $0 18 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 9.3% $19,000 19 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 20 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 80 LF $374 $29,979 100.0% $30,000 21 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.19 Acre $68,502 $13,068 100.0% $13,000 22 LAND ACQUISTIONS AND EASEMENTS SUBTOTAL $343,047 $162,000 $0 23 Contingency (@ 25% (Line 8+Line 16+Line 22)) 25% $3,003,000 $1,914,000 24 $15,016,000 $9,569,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 25 $24,585,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 26 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 0 mgd $91,041 $0 100.0% $0 27 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 28 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 29 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $0.00 $0.00 30 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $15,000,000 $9,600,000 31 $24,600,000 32 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $30,996,000 33 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $4.14 34 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.39 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for OWASA
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 61%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars Other Capital / Fixed Costs O&M Costs Total Annual Costs # Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Engineering, Running Present Yrs WTP Replace- Year Capital Legal Jordan Lake Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. ment & Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing & OWASA Allocation Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage Salvage gal's Pumped Land Allocation 1 0 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 2 1 $205,000 $205,000 $202,000 3 2 $444,000 $444,000 $433,000 4 3 $508,000 $508,000 $489,000 5 4 $234,000 $266,000 $500,000 $475,000 6 5 $468,000 $291,000 $759,000 $712,000 7 6 5 0.0 $702,000 $292,000 $12,000 $42,000 $0 $1,048,000 $970,000 $1.83 $0.00 8 7 5 $780,000 $193,000 $12,000 $42,000 $0 $1,027,000 $939,000 $1.17 $0.00 9 8 33 5 $780,000 $13,000 $43,000 $0 $836,000 $754,000 $0.92 $0.00 10 9 33 5 $780,000 $13,000 $44,000 $0 $837,000 $745,000 $0.79 $0.00 11 10 33 5 $780,000 $13,000 $44,000 $0 $837,000 $736,000 $0.71 $0.00 12 11 33 5 0.5 $780,000 $13,000 $45,000 $48,000 $886,000 $769,000 $0.67 $39.94 13 12 33 5 $780,000 $13,000 $45,000 $0 $838,000 $718,000 $0.63 $43.87 14 13 33 5 $780,000 $13,000 $46,000 $0 $839,000 $710,000 $0.60 $47.76 15 14 33 5 $780,000 $14,000 $46,000 $0 $840,000 $702,000 $0.57 $51.61 16 15 33 5 $780,000 $14,000 $47,000 $0 $841,000 $693,000 $0.55 $55.41 17 16 33 5 1.0 $780,000 $14,000 $48,000 $101,000 $943,000 $768,000 $0.54 $19.87 18 17 33 5 $780,000 $14,000 $48,000 $0 $842,000 $677,000 $0.53 $21.11 19 18 33 5 $780,000 $14,000 $49,000 $0 $843,000 $669,000 $0.52 $22.33 20 19 33 5 $780,000 $14,000 $50,000 $0 $844,000 $661,000 $0.50 $23.54 21 20 33 5 $780,000 $15,000 $50,000 $0 $845,000 $653,000 $0.49 $24.73 22 21 33 5 1.5 $780,000 $15,000 $51,000 $162,000 $1,008,000 $769,000 $0.49 $13.07 23 22 33 5 $780,000 $15,000 $52,000 $0 $847,000 $638,000 $0.48 $13.65 24 23 33 5 $780,000 $15,000 $52,000 $0 $847,000 $630,000 $0.47 $14.23 25 24 33 5 $1,537,000 $15,000 $53,000 $0 $1,605,000 $1,179,000 $0.48 $15.30 26 25 33 5 $1,537,000 $16,000 $54,000 $0 $1,607,000 $1,165,000 $0.49 $16.37 27 26 33 5 2.0 $1,537,000 $16,000 $54,000 $231,000 $1,838,000 $1,315,000 $0.50 $10.54 28 27 33 5 $1,537,000 $16,000 $55,000 $0 $1,608,000 $1,136,000 $0.51 $11.16 29 28 54 5 $1,537,000 $16,000 $56,000 $0 $1,609,000 $1,122,000 $0.51 $11.78 30 29 54 5 $757,000 $16,000 $56,000 $0 $829,000 $571,000 $0.50 $12.09 31 30 54 5 $757,000 $17,000 $57,000 $0 $831,000 $565,000 $0.50 $12.40 32 31 54 5 2.8 $757,000 $671,000 $17,000 $58,000 $338,000 $1,841,000 $1,235,000 $0.50 $8.44 33 32 54 5 $757,000 $680,000 $17,000 $59,000 $0 $1,513,000 $1,002,000 $0.50 $8.79 34 33 54 5 $757,000 $689,000 $17,000 $59,000 $0 $1,522,000 $995,000 $0.51 $9.14 35 34 54 5 $757,000 $698,000 $17,000 $60,000 $0 $1,532,000 $989,000 $0.51 $9.49 36 35 54 5 $757,000 $707,000 $18,000 $61,000 $0 $1,543,000 $984,000 $0.51 $9.84 37 36 54 5 3.5 $757,000 $18,000 $62,000 $459,000 $1,296,000 $816,000 $0.51 $6.98 38 37 54 5 $757,000 $18,000 $62,000 $0 $837,000 $520,000 $0.50 $7.10 39 38 54 5 $757,000 $18,000 $63,000 $0 $838,000 $514,000 $0.49 $7.23 40 39 54 5 $757,000 $19,000 $64,000 $0 $840,000 $509,000 $0.49 $7.35 41 40 54 5 $757,000 $19,000 $65,000 $0 $841,000 $503,000 $0.48 $7.48 42 41 54 5 4.3 $757,000 $19,000 $66,000 $594,000 $1,436,000 $847,000 $0.48 $5.58 43 42 54 5 $757,000 $19,000 $67,000 $0 $843,000 $491,000 $0.47 $5.66 44 43 54 5 $757,000 $20,000 $67,000 $0 $844,000 $485,000 $0.47 $5.75 45 44 54 5 $757,000 $20,000 $68,000 $0 $845,000 $480,000 $0.46 $5.83 46 45 54 5 $757,000 $20,000 $69,000 $0 $846,000 $474,000 $0.46 $5.92 47 46 54 5 5.0 $757,000 $20,000 $70,000 $746,000 $1,593,000 $881,000 $0.46 $4.59 48 47 54 5 $757,000 $21,000 $71,000 $0 $849,000 $464,000 $0.45 $4.65 49 48 54 5 $757,000 ‐$7,938,861 $21,000 $72,000 $0 ‐$7,089,000 ‐$3,823,000 $0.39 $4.14 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20.5 $37,489,000 $2,264,000 ‐$4,493,861 $696,000 $2,392,000 $2,679,000 $41,026,000 $30,996,000 $0.39 $4.14 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Regional Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Pittsboro Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 0666-- Pittsboro Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 3.0 9.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 6.0 -- WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 52 WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro Share of WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 3.0 6.0 inc. 9.0 9.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 9.1% 28.6% 16.7% 17.3% % Avg. Plant Production & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 15.0% -- % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 1: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ $28,954,000 % Share of Common Finished Water Main, Section 2: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ $51,500,000 Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 0.8 7.3 47.7 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 250 256 297 ‐‐ Pittsboro Pressure Zone (ft): 565
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Pittsboro Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 16.7% $1,583,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 16.7% $957,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 16.7% $467,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,260,000 $8,260,000 9.1% $751,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,020,000 $4,020,000 28.6% $1,149,000
4 Jordan Lake Regional WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, TDH = 100 ft) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $64,828,000 $64,828,000 9.1% $5,893,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $35,445,000 $35,445,000 28.6% $10,127,000
5 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Western Segment ‐ Rural 24 in 31,552 LF $188 $5,926,289 100.0% $5,926,000
6 Finished Water Booster Station (Pittsboro) Interim Capacity 3 mgd 1 LS $1,210,000 $1,210,000 100.0% $1,210,000 Ultimate Capacity 9 mgd 1 LS $1,658,182 $1,658,182 100.0% $1,658,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $16,790,000 $12,940,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $2,519,000 $1,941,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $19,309,000 $14,881,000 10 ENGINEERING COST ALLOWANCES Engineering ‐ Policy Planning (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $84,000 $65,000 11 Engineering ‐ Preliminary Engineering( @ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $168,000 $129,000 12 Engineering ‐ Field Work (@ 1.0% x Line 7) 1.00% $168,000 $129,000 13 Engineering ‐ Permitting (@ 0.5% x Line 7) 0.50% $84,000 $65,000 14 Engineering ‐ Design (@ 8.0% x Line 7) 8.00% $1,343,000 $1,035,000 15 Engineering ‐ Construction Administration (@ 6.8% x Line 7) 6.75% $1,133,000 $873,000 16 Misc. Administration, Legal Fees, Permits, Approvals, & Other (@ 3.0% x Line 7) 3.00% $504,000 $388,000 17 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL $3,484,000 $2,684,000 18 LAND ACQUISITIONS AND EASEMENTS OWASA WTP Site 125 Acre $10,000 $1,250,000 17.3% $216,000 19 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 16.7% $33,000 20 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 21 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 144 LF $374 $53,725 100.0% $54,000 22 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.25 Acre $68,502 $17,126 100.0% $17,000 23 LAND ACQUISTIONS AND EASEMENTS SUBTOTAL $1,570,851 $370,000 $0 24 Contingency (@ 25% (Line 9+Line 17+Line 23)) 25% $5,791,000 $4,391,000 25 $28,954,000 $21,956,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 26 $50,910,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 27 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 6 mgd $91,041 $546,245 100.0% $546,000 28 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 29 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 30 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $546,000.00 $0.00 31 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $29,500,000 $22,000,000 32 $51,500,000 33 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $61,265,000 34 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.46 35 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.65 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Pittsboro
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 56%
Final Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars Other Capital / Fixed Costs O&M Costs Total Annual Costs # Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Engineering, Running Present Yrs WTP Replace- Year Capital Legal Jordan Lake Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. ment & Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing & OWASA Allocation Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage Salvage gal's Pumped Land Allocation 1 0 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 2 1 $394,000 $394,000 $389,000 3 2 $854,000 $854,000 $832,000 4 3 $1,212,000 $1,212,000 $1,166,000 5 4 $447,000 $546,000 $993,000 $943,000 6 5 $893,000 $561,000 $1,454,000 $1,363,000 7 6 6 0.00 $1,340,000 $562,000 $590,000 $112,000 $0 $2,604,000 $2,411,000 $3.30 $0.00 8 7 6 0.10 $1,489,000 $371,000 $15,000 $113,000 $5,000 $1,993,000 $1,821,000 $2.07 $247.95 9 8 33 6 0.20 $1,489,000 $15,000 $115,000 $11,000 $1,630,000 $1,471,000 $1.60 $96.08 10 9 33 6 0.30 $1,489,000 $15,000 $116,000 $17,000 $1,637,000 $1,458,000 $1.37 $54.70 11 10 33 6 0.40 $1,489,000 $15,000 $118,000 $23,000 $1,645,000 $1,446,000 $1.23 $36.78 12 11 33 6 0.50 $1,489,000 $16,000 $119,000 $29,000 $1,653,000 $1,435,000 $1.13 $27.14 13 12 33 6 0.60 $1,489,000 $16,000 $121,000 $35,000 $1,661,000 $1,423,000 $1.06 $21.24 14 13 33 6 0.70 $1,489,000 $16,000 $122,000 $42,000 $1,669,000 $1,412,000 $1.01 $17.31 15 14 33 6 0.80 $1,489,000 $16,000 $124,000 $48,000 $1,677,000 $1,401,000 $0.97 $14.53 16 15 33 6 0.90 $1,489,000 $16,000 $126,000 $55,000 $1,686,000 $1,390,000 $0.94 $12.47 17 16 33 6 1.00 $1,489,000 $17,000 $127,000 $62,000 $1,695,000 $1,380,000 $0.91 $10.89 18 17 33 6 1.10 $1,489,000 $17,000 $129,000 $69,000 $1,704,000 $1,369,000 $0.88 $9.65 19 18 33 6 1.20 $1,489,000 $17,000 $131,000 $76,000 $1,713,000 $1,359,000 $0.86 $8.64 20 19 33 6 1.30 $1,489,000 $17,000 $132,000 $83,000 $1,721,000 $1,348,000 $0.85 $7.81 21 20 33 6 1.40 $1,489,000 $17,000 $134,000 $91,000 $1,731,000 $1,338,000 $0.83 $7.12 22 21 33 6 1.50 $1,489,000 $18,000 $136,000 $99,000 $1,742,000 $1,330,000 $0.82 $6.53 23 22 33 6 1.60 $1,489,000 $18,000 $137,000 $107,000 $1,751,000 $1,319,000 $0.80 $6.03 24 23 33 6 1.70 $1,489,000 $18,000 $139,000 $115,000 $1,761,000 $1,310,000 $0.79 $5.59 25 24 33 6 1.80 $3,227,000 $18,000 $141,000 $123,000 $3,509,000 $2,577,000 $0.81 $5.42 26 25 33 6 1.90 $3,227,000 $19,000 $143,000 $132,000 $3,521,000 $2,553,000 $0.83 $5.24 27 26 33 6 2.00 $3,227,000 $19,000 $145,000 $140,000 $3,531,000 $2,527,000 $0.85 $5.07 28 27 33 6 2.2 $3,227,000 $19,000 $147,000 $156,000 $3,549,000 $2,507,000 $0.86 $4.89 29 28 54 6 2.4 $3,227,000 $19,000 $149,000 $173,000 $3,568,000 $2,489,000 $0.87 $4.70 30 29 54 6 2.6 $1,738,000 $20,000 $150,000 $190,000 $2,098,000 $1,445,000 $0.86 $4.40 31 30 54 6 2.8 $1,738,000 $20,000 $152,000 $207,000 $2,117,000 $1,439,000 $0.85 $4.13 32 31 54 6 3.0 $1,738,000 $1,294,000 $20,000 $154,000 $225,000 $3,431,000 $2,302,000 $0.86 $3.95 33 32 54 6 3.2 $1,738,000 $1,311,000 $20,000 $156,000 $243,000 $3,468,000 $2,298,000 $0.87 $3.78 34 33 54 6 3.4 $1,738,000 $1,328,000 $21,000 $158,000 $261,000 $3,506,000 $2,293,000 $0.88 $3.62 35 34 54 6 3.6 $1,738,000 $1,345,000 $21,000 $160,000 $280,000 $3,544,000 $2,288,000 $0.88 $3.47 36 35 54 6 3.8 $1,738,000 $1,363,000 $21,000 $163,000 $300,000 $3,585,000 $2,285,000 $0.89 $3.32 37 36 54 6 4.0 $1,738,000 $21,000 $165,000 $319,000 $2,243,000 $1,411,000 $0.88 $3.14 38 37 54 6 4.2 $1,738,000 $22,000 $167,000 $340,000 $2,267,000 $1,408,000 $0.87 $2.98 39 38 54 6 4.4 $1,738,000 $22,000 $169,000 $361,000 $2,290,000 $1,404,000 $0.86 $2.82 40 39 54 6 4.6 $1,738,000 $22,000 $171,000 $382,000 $2,313,000 $1,400,000 $0.86 $2.68 41 40 54 6 4.8 $1,738,000 $23,000 $173,000 $404,000 $2,338,000 $1,397,000 $0.85 $2.55 42 41 54 6 5.0 $1,738,000 $23,000 $176,000 $426,000 $2,363,000 $1,394,000 $0.85 $2.43 43 42 54 6 5.2 $1,738,000 $23,000 $178,000 $449,000 $2,388,000 $1,391,000 $0.84 $2.32 44 43 54 6 5.4 $1,738,000 $23,000 $180,000 $472,000 $2,413,000 $1,388,000 $0.83 $2.22 45 44 54 6 5.6 $1,738,000 $24,000 $182,000 $496,000 $2,440,000 $1,385,000 $0.83 $2.13 46 45 54 6 5.8 $1,738,000 $24,000 $185,000 $520,000 $2,467,000 $1,383,000 $0.82 $2.04 47 46 54 6 6.0 $1,738,000 $24,000 $187,000 $545,000 $2,494,000 $1,380,000 $0.82 $1.96 48 47 54 6 6.0 $1,738,000 $25,000 $190,000 $552,000 $2,505,000 $1,368,000 $0.81 $1.88 49 48 54 6 6.0 $1,738,000 ‐$27,895,251 $25,000 $192,000 $559,000 ‐$25,381,000 ‐$13,686,000 $0.65 $1.46 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 115.0 $78,888,000 $4,625,000 ‐$21,254,251 $1,407,000 $6,384,000 $9,222,000 $79,272,000 $61,265,000 $0.65 $1.46
Appendix B: South Durham and Jordan Lake Regional Water Treatment Facilities - Detailed Cost Summary
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Appendix B Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Summary Data Final Summary of Conceptual‐Level Cost Estimates Capital Costs Initial Interim Ultimate Unit Life‐Cycle Costs (2014 Million $) Total Pressure Existing Basis for Initial Facilities Production Basis for Initial Facilities Capacity Basis for Ultimate Facilities Capacity per 1,000 gallons Life‐Cycle Partner Zone Jordan Lake Year Financed Total Per (2014 $) Costs (ft) Allocations MGD % of % of % of Total (2014 Level 1 Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Max. Day Ultimate Alloc'n Total Alloc'n Total Alloc'n % Inc. Total Initial Interim Million $) Usage Allocation Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Purchased Chatham Co. 740 6 18 3.0 1.5 5 21.7% 18 6.5 1.5 10.0 30.3% 18 10.5 1.5 16.0 28.6% 29.6% $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $6.0 M $194.2 M $2.0 $0.7 Durham 568 10 16.5 16.5 1 17 73.9% 16.5 16.5 1 17.0 51.5% 16.5 16.5 1.25 21.0 19.0% 38.9% $128.2 M $13.8 M $142.0 M $6.8 M $417.4 M $1.7 $1.7 OWASA 642 5 5 0.0 1 00.0%52.0 1 2.0 6.1% 5 5.0 1 5.0 14.3% 9.3% $22.6 M $10.4 M $33.0 M $6.6 M $42.4 M $8.9 $0.6 Orange County 840 1 2 1.0 1 14.3%21.0 1 1.0 3.0% 2 2.0 1.5 3.0 9.5% 5.6% $14.6 M $8.2 M $22.8 M $7.6 M $33.8 M $1.8 $1.1 Pittsboro 565 0 6 0.0 0 00.0%62.0 1.5 3.0 9.1% 6 6.0 1.5 9.0 28.6% 16.7% $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $5.7 M $64.6 M $1.7 $0.7 Total ‐‐ 47.5 20.5 ‐‐ 23 100% 47.5 28.0 ‐‐ 33 100% 47.5 40.0 ‐‐ 54 21.0 100% $269.6 M $75.4 M $345.0 M $6.4 M $752.4 M $1.8 $1.1
Water Facilities Cost Share Distribution Shared Facilities Separate Facilities
Shared Shared Chatham Orange Partner Intake & RWPS Jordan Lake WTP South Durham WTP Durham OWASA Pittsboro Hillsboro RW FW County County Pipelines Main Main Initial Expansion Initial Expansion Initial Expansion FW Main BPS BPS BPS FW Main ‐‐ Capacity (mgd): 54 33 54 13 25 20 29 29 29 16 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1/3 9 ‐‐ Chatham County 29.6% 30.3% 28.6% 76.9% 50.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham 38.9% 51.5% 19.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 85.0% 44.4% 72.4% 72.4% ‐‐ N/A ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ OWASA 9.3% 6.1% 14.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.0% 33.3% 17.2% 17.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Orange County 5.6% 3.0% 9.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.0% 22.2% 10.3% 10.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro 16.7% 9.1% 28.6% 23.1% 50.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ Hillsborough 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ TOTAL: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
(1) Includes capital costs for a new Jordan Lake Western intake, raw water transmission facilities, new water treatment plants (WTPs) located at the Durham South District Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (to serve Durham, OWASA, Hillsboro, and Orange County) and at the OWASA Jordan Lake property (for Chatham County and Pittsboro), and related shared and separate finished water pumping and transmission lines. Also, where applicable, costs are included for purchase of land/easements, environmental mitigation, and water storage allocations. All costs are in constant year 2014 dollars and include costs for construction, contractor profit and overhead, engineering, legal and permitting expenses, and an overall 25% contingency. Capital funding for the initial facilities (see note 2 below) is assumed to occur in year 2015 and construction is assumed to be completed in year 2020. (2) The Western Jordan Lake intake and all pipelines are sized to meet ultimate (year 2060) maximum day demands. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's ultimate capacity to total ultimate facility capacity. The WTPs and pumping stations are assumed to be constructed in phases, with initial sizing to meet interim (year 2040) demands. For these facilities, capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's interim capacity to total interim facility capacity.
(3) Facility expansion is based on the ultimate capacity in year 2060. Financing is assumed to occur in 2037 and construction completion in 2040. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's incremental increase in capacity from year 2040 to year 2060 to the total increase in facility capacity.
(4) All capital and life‐cycle costs are in 2014 dollars. (5) The present analysis assumes that each partner will maintain/obtain a Level I Allocation. No costs are included for Level II Allocations. Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities SUMMARY of VARIABLES Description Value Units Notes General Current ENR CCI: 9795.92 May 2014 Project Cost Start Date: 2010 Project Cost Begin Capital Finance: 2015 Project Cost Complete Initial Construction: 2020 Project Cost Complete Expansion: 2040 Project Cost End Date: 2060 Project Cost Lifespan: 50 years
Calculation of Capital Costs Updated EPA cost curves (2010, ENR CCI 8802) for Water Treatment Facilities Includes ozone, UV, GAC, & residuals. Does not Include Land, Contractor Profit & Overhead, engineering, legal costs, or contingencies Add 10% for provisions for plant expansion Add 20% for expansion phasing Capacity Construction Cost = a*(Q+1)^b (mgd) Cost (2010 $) R^2 = 0.99958 42 $82,645,000 a = 3097698.29 62 $114,109,000 b = 0.8446521286 +20 $31,464,000
Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, and Profit: 15% Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services: 15% Land Acquisition and Easements: Project Specific Legal Fees, Permits, and Approvals: 5% Contingency: 25% Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Rural: $9.00 per inch‐diameter/ft Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Urban: $15.00 per inch‐diameter/ft
Calculation of Life Cycle Costs General Conditions Discount Rate: 1.295%
Capital /Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs Issuing Expense: 0.0% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% Financing Term (Years): 25 years Equipment Lifespan: 25 years Pipelines/Structures Lifespan: 50 years Equipment Replacement as % of Total Construction Cost: 15% Number of Years Replacement Equipment Defrayed Over: 5 years Cost multiplier for shared pumping facilities w/ high‐low pumps: 1.02
Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M Costs as Percent of Construction Costs: 10% Fixed O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 70% Variable O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 30% Variable O&M Cost Constant (mgd, 70% eff, Kw‐hr/yr): 2,195 Energy Cost: $0.092 per kW-hr electrical energy Level I Allocation Costs Total Purchase Cost: $91,040.76 per mgd Annual Cost for Subsequent Years: $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
Level II Allocation Costs Total Annual Cost : $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
USACE Easement Acquisition Easement for Intake and RW Main 2.1 Acres Estimated lump sum cost $200,000
WTP Site Land Acquisition OWASA WTP Site Acreage 125 acres Cost per Acre $10,000 per acre WTP Site EL: 332 ft Jordan Lake NP EL: 216 ft
Pipeline Sizing % Share of Pipeline, Capacity & WTP Diam Partner (s) Served Characteristics Fin Ch. Fin P. Share (inch) Raw Raw G1 Fin. G2 (mgd) V = 6 Chatham Co. 30% ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ 16.0 30 Durham 39% 72% 72% ‐‐ ‐‐ 21.0 36 OWASA 9% 17% 17% ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.0 16 Orange Co. 6% 10% 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.0 12 Pittsboro 17% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% 9.0 24 Hillsboro 0% 0% 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ Total: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Design Peak Pumping Capacity (mgd) 54 29 29 16 9 Design Pipeline Velocity (ft/s): 65 5 6 6 Calculated Pipeline Diam. (inches): 54 42 42 30 24 Length (ft): 3,000 91,800 18,800 48,800 31,552 Calculated Velocity (ft/s): 5.3 4.7 4.7 5.0 4.4 Pipeline head Loss (C=120) for use in calculating variable operating costs HL in Year 2020 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 0.8 63.0 12.9 23.8 0.0 HL in Year 2040 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 1.4 77.0 15.8 3.1 6.0 HL in Year 2060 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 2.8 108.8 22.3 23.8 45.5 Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Chatham County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 6 18 18 18 -- Chatham County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 5.0 10.0 16.0 ‐‐ Average Water Use: ‐‐ 3.0 6.5 10.5 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 ‐‐ System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Chatham County Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 10.0 6.0 inc. 16.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 30.3% 28.6% 29.6% ‐‐ % Average Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 14.6% 23.2% 26.3% Jordan Lake WTP Design Capacity ‐ Chatham County / Pittsboro (mgd): ‐‐ 13.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Jordan Lake WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ Chatham County Share of Jordan Lake WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 10.0 6.0 inc. 16.0 16 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 76.9% 50.0% 64.0% 64.0% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 25 5 27 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 449 429 451 ‐‐ Chatham County Pressure Zone (ft): 740
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Chatham County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 29.6% $2,815,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 29.6% $1,700,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 29.6% $830,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 30.3% $2,552,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 28.6% $1,174,000
4 Jordan Lake WTP (Shared with Pittsboro, includes High Service PS to deliver to Chatham/Pittsboro) Interim Capacity 13 mgd 1 LS $30,639,000 $30,639,000 76.9% $23,568,000 Ultimate Capacity 25 mgd 1 LS $22,958,000 $22,958,000 50.0% $11,479,000
5 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Chatham County Finished Water Transmission ‐ Rural 30 in 48,800 LF $235 $11,457,391 100.0% $11,457,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $42,930,000 $12,660,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $6,440,000 $1,899,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $49,370,000 $14,559,000 9 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $6,440,000 $1,899,000 10 Subtotal $55,810,000 $16,458,000 11 Land Acquisition and Easements Jordan Lake WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 64.0% $400,000 12 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 29.6% $59,000 13 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 14 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 268 LF $374 $100,145 100.0% $100,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.43 Acre $68,502 $29,228 100.0% $29,000 15 Subtotal $56,448,000 $16,458,000 16 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 8) 5% $2,469,000 $728,000 17 Subtotal $58,917,000 $17,186,000 18 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 17) 25% $14,729,000 $4,297,000 19 $73,646,000 $21,483,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 20 $95,129,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 21 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 12 mgd $91,041 $1,092,489 100.0% $1,093,000 22 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 23 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 24 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $1,093,000.00 $0.00 25 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $74,700,000 $21,500,000 26 $96,200,000 27 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $194,200,000 28 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.96 29 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.72 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Chatham County
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 67%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,336,000 3 2 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,280,000 4 3 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,226,000 5 4 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,172,000 6 5 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,118,000 7 6 33 18 3.0 $4,392,000 $1,195,000 $1,138,000 $528,000 $7,253,000 $6,714,000 $4.24 $25.43 8 7 33 18 3.2 $4,392,000 $44,000 $1,152,000 $552,000 $6,140,000 $5,611,000 $2.55 $14.84 9 8 33 18 3.4 $4,392,000 $45,000 $1,167,000 $577,000 $6,181,000 $5,576,000 $1.98 $11.23 10 9 33 18 3.5 $4,392,000 $45,000 $1,183,000 $602,000 $6,222,000 $5,542,000 $1.70 $9.36 11 10 33 18 3.7 $4,392,000 $46,000 $1,198,000 $628,000 $6,264,000 $5,508,000 $1.52 $8.19 12 11 33 18 3.9 $4,392,000 $46,000 $1,213,000 $654,000 $6,305,000 $5,473,000 $1.41 $7.38 13 12 33 18 4.1 $4,392,000 $47,000 $1,229,000 $681,000 $6,349,000 $5,441,000 $1.33 $6.77 14 13 33 18 4.2 $4,392,000 $47,000 $1,245,000 $708,000 $6,392,000 $5,407,000 $1.26 $6.30 15 14 33 18 4.4 $4,392,000 $48,000 $1,261,000 $736,000 $6,437,000 $5,376,000 $1.21 $5.91 16 15 33 18 4.6 $4,392,000 $49,000 $1,277,000 $765,000 $6,483,000 $5,345,000 $1.17 $5.58 17 16 33 18 4.8 $4,392,000 $49,000 $1,294,000 $794,000 $6,529,000 $5,314,000 $1.14 $5.30 18 17 33 18 4.9 $4,392,000 $50,000 $1,311,000 $824,000 $6,577,000 $5,285,000 $1.11 $5.05 19 18 33 18 5.1 $4,392,000 $51,000 $1,328,000 $855,000 $6,626,000 $5,256,000 $1.09 $4.84 20 19 33 18 5.3 $4,392,000 $51,000 $1,345,000 $886,000 $6,674,000 $5,227,000 $1.07 $4.64 21 20 33 18 5.5 $4,392,000 $52,000 $1,362,000 $918,000 $6,724,000 $5,198,000 $1.05 $4.47 22 21 33 18 5.6 $6,049,000 $53,000 $1,380,000 $951,000 $8,433,000 $6,436,000 $1.04 $4.36 23 22 33 18 5.8 $6,049,000 $53,000 $1,398,000 $984,000 $8,484,000 $6,392,000 $1.04 $4.26 24 23 33 18 6.0 $6,049,000 $54,000 $1,416,000 $1,018,000 $8,537,000 $6,350,000 $1.04 $4.16 25 24 33 18 6.2 $6,049,000 $55,000 $1,434,000 $1,053,000 $8,591,000 $6,309,000 $1.03 $4.06 26 25 33 18 6.3 $6,049,000 $55,000 $1,453,000 $1,088,000 $8,645,000 $6,267,000 $1.03 $3.97 27 26 54 18 6.5 $1,657,000 $56,000 $1,472,000 $1,124,000 $4,309,000 $3,084,000 $1.00 $3.80 28 27 54 18 6.7 $1,657,000 $57,000 $1,491,000 $1,164,000 $4,369,000 $3,087,000 $0.98 $3.64 29 28 54 18 6.9 $1,657,000 $58,000 $1,510,000 $1,205,000 $4,430,000 $3,090,000 $0.96 $3.49 30 29 54 18 7.1 $1,657,000 $58,000 $1,530,000 $1,247,000 $4,492,000 $3,093,000 $0.94 $3.36 31 30 54 18 7.3 $1,657,000 $3,250,000 $59,000 $1,549,000 $1,290,000 $7,805,000 $5,306,000 $0.93 $3.28 32 31 54 18 7.5 $1,657,000 $3,292,000 $60,000 $1,569,000 $1,333,000 $7,911,000 $5,309,000 $0.93 $3.20 33 32 54 18 7.7 $1,657,000 $3,335,000 $61,000 $1,590,000 $1,378,000 $8,021,000 $5,314,000 $0.92 $3.13 34 33 54 18 7.9 $1,657,000 $3,378,000 $61,000 $1,610,000 $1,423,000 $8,129,000 $5,317,000 $0.92 $3.06 35 34 54 18 8.1 $1,657,000 $3,422,000 $62,000 $1,631,000 $1,470,000 $8,242,000 $5,322,000 $0.91 $3.00 36 35 54 18 8.3 $1,657,000 $63,000 $1,652,000 $1,517,000 $4,889,000 $3,116,000 $0.90 $2.90 37 36 54 18 8.5 $1,657,000 $64,000 $1,674,000 $1,565,000 $4,960,000 $3,121,000 $0.89 $2.81 38 37 54 18 8.7 $1,657,000 $65,000 $1,695,000 $1,615,000 $5,032,000 $3,126,000 $0.87 $2.72 39 38 54 18 8.9 $1,657,000 $65,000 $1,717,000 $1,665,000 $5,104,000 $3,130,000 $0.86 $2.64 40 39 54 18 9.1 $1,657,000 $66,000 $1,740,000 $1,716,000 $5,179,000 $3,136,000 $0.85 $2.57 41 40 54 18 9.3 $1,657,000 $67,000 $1,762,000 $1,769,000 $5,255,000 $3,141,000 $0.84 $2.50 42 41 54 18 9.5 $1,657,000 $68,000 $1,785,000 $1,822,000 $5,332,000 $3,146,000 $0.83 $2.43 43 42 54 18 9.7 $1,657,000 $69,000 $1,808,000 $1,877,000 $5,411,000 $3,152,000 $0.82 $2.36 44 43 54 18 9.9 $1,657,000 $70,000 $1,831,000 $1,933,000 $5,491,000 $3,158,000 $0.81 $2.30 45 44 54 18 10.1 $1,657,000 $71,000 $1,855,000 $1,989,000 $5,572,000 $3,163,000 $0.80 $2.24 46 45 54 18 10.3 $1,657,000 $72,000 $1,879,000 $2,047,000 $5,655,000 $3,169,000 $0.79 $2.19 47 46 54 18 10.5 ‐$30,201,788 $72,000 $1,904,000 $2,107,000 ‐$26,119,000 ‐$14,451,000 $0.72 $1.96 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 271.8 $151,225,000 ‐$13,524,788 $3,479,000 $61,038,000 $49,058,000 $251,275,000 $194,188,000 $0.72 $1.96 Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Durham Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 10.0 16.5 16.5 16.5 -- Durham Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 17.0 21.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 16.5 16.5 16.5 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 ‐‐ System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 4.0 inc. 21.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 51.5% 19.0% 38.9% ‐‐ % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 80.5% 58.9% 41.3% ‐‐ South Durham WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 20.0 29.0 29.0 8.0 South Durham WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 9 ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham Share of South District WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 4.0 inc. 21.0 0.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 85.0% 44.4% 72.4% 0.0% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 76.8 94.2 133.9 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 329 346 386 ‐‐ Durham Pressure Zone (ft): 568
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Durham Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 38.9% $3,694,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 38.9% $2,232,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 38.9% $1,089,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 51.5% $4,338,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 19.0% $783,000
4 South Durham WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, includes High Service PS to deliver to Durham/Orange/OWASA) Interim Capacity 20 mgd 1 LS $43,153,000 $43,153,000 85.0% $36,680,000 Ultimate Capacity 29 mgd 1 LS $16,551,000 $16,551,000 44.4% $7,356,000
5 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to South Durham WTP ‐ Rural 42 in 91,800 LF $329 $30,174,261 72.4% $21,850,000
6 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Rural 42 in 15,300 LF $329 $5,029,043 72.4% $3,642,000 South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 72.4% $1,388,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $74,920,000 $8,140,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $11,238,000 $1,221,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $86,158,000 $9,361,000 10 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $11,238,000 $1,221,000 11 Subtotal $97,396,000 $10,582,000 12 Land Acquisition and Easements South Durham WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 0.0% $0 13 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 38.9% $78,000 14 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 403 LF $374 $150,901 100.0% $151,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.84 Acre $68,502 $57,707 100.0% $58,000 17 Subtotal $97,783,000 $10,582,000 18 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 9) 5% $4,308,000 $468,000 19 Subtotal $102,091,000 $11,050,000 20 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $25,523,000 $2,763,000 21 $127,614,000 $13,813,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 22 $141,427,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 23 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 7 mgd $91,041 $591,765 100.0% $592,000 24 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 25 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 26 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $592,000.00 $0.00 27 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $128,200,000 $13,800,000 28 $142,000,000 29 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $417,372,000 30 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.69 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $1.69 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Durham Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 62%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $7,611,000 $7,611,000 $7,514,000 3 2 $7,611,000 $7,611,000 $7,418,000 4 3 $7,611,000 $7,611,000 $7,323,000 5 4 $7,611,000 $7,611,000 $7,229,000 6 5 $7,611,000 $7,611,000 $7,137,000 7 6 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $663,000 $3,059,000 $3,227,000 $14,560,000 $13,478,000 $8.32 $8.32 8 7 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $40,000 $3,099,000 $3,269,000 $14,019,000 $12,812,000 $5.22 $5.22 9 8 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $41,000 $3,139,000 $3,312,000 $14,103,000 $12,724,000 $4.19 $4.19 10 9 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $41,000 $3,180,000 $3,354,000 $14,186,000 $12,635,000 $3.66 $3.66 11 10 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $42,000 $3,221,000 $3,398,000 $14,272,000 $12,549,000 $3.35 $3.35 12 11 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $42,000 $3,263,000 $3,442,000 $14,358,000 $12,463,000 $3.13 $3.13 13 12 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $43,000 $3,305,000 $3,486,000 $14,445,000 $12,378,000 $2.98 $2.98 14 13 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $44,000 $3,348,000 $3,532,000 $14,535,000 $12,296,000 $2.86 $2.86 15 14 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $44,000 $3,391,000 $3,577,000 $14,623,000 $12,212,000 $2.77 $2.77 16 15 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $45,000 $3,435,000 $3,624,000 $14,715,000 $12,132,000 $2.69 $2.69 17 16 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $45,000 $3,479,000 $3,671,000 $14,806,000 $12,051,000 $2.63 $2.63 18 17 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $46,000 $3,524,000 $3,718,000 $14,899,000 $11,972,000 $2.58 $2.58 19 18 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $46,000 $3,570,000 $3,766,000 $14,993,000 $11,893,000 $2.53 $2.53 20 19 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $47,000 $3,616,000 $3,815,000 $15,089,000 $11,816,000 $2.49 $2.49 21 20 33 16.5 16.5 $7,611,000 $48,000 $3,663,000 $3,864,000 $15,186,000 $11,740,000 $2.45 $2.45 22 21 33 16.5 16.5 $8,677,000 $48,000 $3,711,000 $3,915,000 $16,351,000 $12,479,000 $2.43 $2.43 23 22 33 16.5 16.5 $8,677,000 $49,000 $3,759,000 $3,965,000 $16,450,000 $12,395,000 $2.41 $2.41 24 23 33 16.5 16.5 $8,677,000 $49,000 $3,807,000 $4,017,000 $16,550,000 $12,310,000 $2.39 $2.39 25 24 33 16.5 16.5 $8,677,000 $50,000 $3,857,000 $4,069,000 $16,653,000 $12,229,000 $2.37 $2.37 26 25 33 16.5 16.5 $8,677,000 $51,000 $3,907,000 $4,121,000 $16,756,000 $12,147,000 $2.35 $2.35 27 26 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $51,000 $3,957,000 $4,175,000 $9,249,000 $6,619,000 $2.29 $2.29 28 27 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $52,000 $4,008,000 $4,229,000 $9,355,000 $6,609,000 $2.24 $2.24 29 28 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $53,000 $4,060,000 $4,283,000 $9,462,000 $6,600,000 $2.19 $2.19 30 29 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $53,000 $4,113,000 $4,339,000 $9,571,000 $6,590,000 $2.14 $2.14 31 30 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $5,632,000 $54,000 $4,166,000 $4,395,000 $15,313,000 $10,409,000 $2.13 $2.13 32 31 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $5,705,000 $55,000 $4,220,000 $4,452,000 $15,498,000 $10,400,000 $2.11 $2.11 33 32 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $5,779,000 $56,000 $4,275,000 $4,510,000 $15,686,000 $10,392,000 $2.10 $2.10 34 33 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $5,854,000 $56,000 $4,330,000 $4,568,000 $15,874,000 $10,382,000 $2.08 $2.08 35 34 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $5,929,000 $57,000 $4,386,000 $4,627,000 $16,065,000 $10,373,000 $2.07 $2.07 36 35 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $58,000 $4,443,000 $4,687,000 $10,254,000 $6,536,000 $2.04 $2.04 37 36 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $58,000 $4,501,000 $4,748,000 $10,373,000 $6,527,000 $2.01 $2.01 38 37 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $59,000 $4,559,000 $4,809,000 $10,493,000 $6,518,000 $1.98 $1.98 39 38 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $60,000 $4,618,000 $4,872,000 $10,616,000 $6,511,000 $1.95 $1.95 40 39 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $61,000 $4,678,000 $4,935,000 $10,740,000 $6,502,000 $1.93 $1.93 41 40 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $62,000 $4,738,000 $4,999,000 $10,865,000 $6,494,000 $1.90 $1.90 42 41 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $62,000 $4,800,000 $5,063,000 $10,991,000 $6,485,000 $1.88 $1.88 43 42 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $63,000 $4,862,000 $5,129,000 $11,120,000 $6,478,000 $1.86 $1.86 44 43 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $64,000 $4,925,000 $5,195,000 $11,250,000 $6,469,000 $1.84 $1.84 45 44 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $65,000 $4,989,000 $5,263,000 $11,383,000 $6,462,000 $1.82 $1.82 46 45 54 16.5 16.5 $1,066,000 $66,000 $5,053,000 $5,331,000 $11,516,000 $6,454,000 $1.80 $1.80 47 46 54 16.5 16.5 ‐$39,088,473 $66,000 $5,119,000 $5,400,000 ‐$28,503,000 ‐$15,770,000 $1.69 $1.69 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 676.5 $216,925,000 ‐$10,189,473 $2,755,000 $164,133,000 $173,151,000 $546,775,000 $417,372,000 $1.69 $1.69 Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for OWASA Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 -- OWASA Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ -- OWASA Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 3.0 inc. 5.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 6.1% 14.3% 9.3% -- % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 12.5% -- South Durham WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 20.0 29.0 29.0 8.0 South Durham WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 9 ‐‐ ‐‐ OWASA Share of South District WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 3.0 inc. 5.0 5.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 10.0% 33.3% 17.2% 62.5% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 76.8 94.2 133.9 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 403 420 460 ‐‐ OWASA Pressure Zone (ft): 642
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to OWASA Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 9.3% $880,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 9.3% $531,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 9.3% $259,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 6.1% $510,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 14.3% $587,000
4 South Durham WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, includes High Service PS to deliver to Durham/Orange/OWASA) Interim Capacity 20 mgd 1 LS $43,153,000 $43,153,000 10.0% $4,315,000 Ultimate Capacity 29 mgd 1 LS $16,551,000 $16,551,000 33.3% $5,517,000
5 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to South Durham WTP ‐ Rural 42 in 91,800 LF $329 $30,174,261 17.2% $5,202,000
6 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Rural 42 in 15,300 LF $329 $5,029,043 17.2% $867,000 South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 17.2% $331,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $12,900,000 $6,110,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $1,935,000 $917,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $14,835,000 $7,027,000 10 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $1,935,000 $917,000 11 Subtotal $16,770,000 $7,944,000 12 Land Acquisition and Easements South Durham WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 62.5% $391,000 13 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 9.3% $19,000 14 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 96 LF $374 $35,929 100.0% $36,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.20 Acre $68,502 $13,740 100.0% $14,000 17 Subtotal $17,330,000 $7,944,000 18 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 9) 5% $742,000 $351,000 19 Subtotal $18,072,000 $8,295,000 20 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $4,518,000 $2,074,000 21 $22,590,000 $10,369,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 22 $32,959,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 23 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 0 mgd $91,041 $0 100.0% $0 24 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 25 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 26 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $0.00 $0.00 27 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $22,600,000 $10,400,000 28 $33,000,000 29 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $42,407,000 30 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $8.94 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.57 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for OWASA
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 47%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 $1,330,000 3 2 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 $1,313,000 4 3 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 $1,296,000 5 4 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 $1,279,000 6 5 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 $1,263,000 7 6 33 5 0.0 $1,347,000 $12,000 $48,000 $0 $1,407,000 $1,302,000 $4.26 8 7 33 5 $1,347,000 $12,000 $49,000 $0 $1,408,000 $1,287,000 $2.48 9 8 33 5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $50,000 $0 $1,410,000 $1,272,000 $1.89 10 9 33 5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $50,000 $0 $1,410,000 $1,256,000 $1.59 11 10 33 5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $51,000 $0 $1,411,000 $1,241,000 $1.41 12 11 33 5 0.5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $52,000 $47,000 $1,459,000 $1,266,000 $1.29 $77.29 13 12 33 5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $52,000 $0 $1,412,000 $1,210,000 $1.20 $83.92 14 13 33 5 $1,347,000 $13,000 $53,000 $0 $1,413,000 $1,195,000 $1.13 $90.47 15 14 33 5 $1,347,000 $14,000 $54,000 $0 $1,415,000 $1,182,000 $1.08 $96.94 16 15 33 5 $1,347,000 $14,000 $54,000 $0 $1,415,000 $1,167,000 $1.03 $103.34 17 16 33 5 1.0 $1,347,000 $14,000 $55,000 $100,000 $1,516,000 $1,234,000 $1.00 $36.70 18 17 33 5 $1,347,000 $14,000 $56,000 $0 $1,417,000 $1,139,000 $0.97 $38.78 19 18 33 5 $1,347,000 $14,000 $57,000 $0 $1,418,000 $1,125,000 $0.94 $40.83 20 19 33 5 $1,347,000 $14,000 $57,000 $0 $1,418,000 $1,110,000 $0.92 $42.86 21 20 33 5 $1,347,000 $15,000 $58,000 $0 $1,420,000 $1,098,000 $0.90 $44.87 22 21 33 5 1.5 $2,147,000 $15,000 $59,000 $159,000 $2,380,000 $1,816,000 $0.90 $24.09 23 22 33 5 $2,147,000 $15,000 $60,000 $0 $2,222,000 $1,674,000 $0.90 $25.62 24 23 33 5 $2,147,000 $15,000 $60,000 $0 $2,222,000 $1,653,000 $0.90 $27.13 25 24 33 5 $2,147,000 $15,000 $61,000 $0 $2,223,000 $1,632,000 $0.90 $28.62 26 25 33 5 $2,147,000 $16,000 $62,000 $0 $2,225,000 $1,613,000 $0.90 $30.09 27 26 54 5 2.0 $800,000 $16,000 $63,000 $268,000 $1,147,000 $821,000 $0.88 $18.51 28 27 54 5 $800,000 $16,000 $64,000 $0 $880,000 $622,000 $0.86 $18.85 29 28 54 5 $800,000 $16,000 $64,000 $0 $880,000 $614,000 $0.83 $19.18 30 29 54 5 $800,000 $16,000 $65,000 $0 $881,000 $607,000 $0.81 $19.52 31 30 54 5 $800,000 $997,000 $17,000 $66,000 $0 $1,880,000 $1,278,000 $0.81 $20.22 32 31 54 5 2.0 $800,000 $1,010,000 $17,000 $67,000 $286,000 $2,180,000 $1,463,000 $0.81 $15.01 33 32 54 5 $800,000 $1,023,000 $17,000 $68,000 $0 $1,908,000 $1,264,000 $0.80 $15.51 34 33 54 5 $800,000 $1,036,000 $17,000 $69,000 $0 $1,922,000 $1,257,000 $0.80 $16.00 35 34 54 5 $800,000 $1,050,000 $17,000 $70,000 $0 $1,937,000 $1,251,000 $0.80 $16.49 36 35 54 5 $800,000 $18,000 $70,000 $0 $888,000 $566,000 $0.78 $16.71 37 36 54 5 2.0 $800,000 $18,000 $71,000 $305,000 $1,194,000 $751,000 $0.77 $13.23 38 37 54 5 $800,000 $18,000 $72,000 $0 $890,000 $553,000 $0.75 $13.39 39 38 54 5 $800,000 $18,000 $73,000 $0 $891,000 $546,000 $0.74 $13.56 40 39 54 5 $800,000 $19,000 $74,000 $0 $893,000 $541,000 $0.73 $13.73 41 40 54 5 $800,000 $19,000 $75,000 $0 $894,000 $534,000 $0.71 $13.89 42 41 54 5 2.0 $800,000 $19,000 $76,000 $325,000 $1,220,000 $720,000 $0.71 $11.54 43 42 54 5 $800,000 $19,000 $77,000 $0 $896,000 $522,000 $0.69 $11.67 44 43 54 5 $800,000 $20,000 $78,000 $0 $898,000 $516,000 $0.68 $11.80 45 44 54 5 $800,000 $20,000 $79,000 $0 $899,000 $510,000 $0.67 $11.93 46 45 54 5 $800,000 $20,000 $80,000 $0 $900,000 $504,000 $0.66 $12.05 47 46 54 5 2.0 ‐$11,325,738 $20,000 $81,000 $406,000 ‐$10,819,000 ‐$5,986,000 $0.57 $8.94 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.0 $53,675,000 ‐$6,209,738 $654,000 $2,600,000 $1,896,000 $52,615,000 $42,407,000 $0.57 $8.94 Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Orange County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 -- Orange County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 3.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 2.0 -- System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ -- Orange County Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 2.0 inc. 3.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 3.0% 9.5% 5.6% -- % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 4.9% 3.6% 5.0% -- South Durham WTP Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 20.0 29.0 29.0 8.0 South Durham WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 9 ‐‐ ‐‐ Orange County Share of South District WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 2.0 inc. 3.0 3.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 5.0% 22.2% 10.3% 37.5% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 76.8 94.2 133.9 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 601 618 658 ‐‐ Orange County Pressure Zone (ft): 840
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Orange County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 5.6% $528,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 5.6% $319,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 5.6% $156,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 3.0% $255,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 9.5% $391,000
4 South Durham WTP (Shared, includes High Service PS, includes High Service PS to deliver to Durham/Orange/OWASA) Interim Capacity 20 mgd 1 LS $43,153,000 $43,153,000 5.0% $2,158,000 Ultimate Capacity 29 mgd 1 LS $16,551,000 $16,551,000 22.2% $3,678,000
5 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to South Durham WTP ‐ Rural 42 in 91,800 LF $378 $34,700,400 10.3% $3,590,000
6 Shared Finished Water Transmission Pipeline South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Rural 42 in 15,300 LF $329 $5,029,043 10.3% $520,000 South Durham WTP to Durham / OWASA Interconnect ‐ Urban 42 in 3,500 LF $548 $1,917,391 10.3% $198,000
7 Finished Water Booster Station Interim Capacity 1 mgd 1 LS $530,000 $530,000 100.0% $530,000 Ultimate Capacity 3 mgd 1 LS $741,818 $741,818 100.0% $742,000
8 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $8,260,000 $4,820,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 9 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 8) 15.0% $1,239,000 $723,000 10 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $9,499,000 $5,543,000 11 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 8) 15.0% $1,239,000 $723,000 12 Subtotal $10,738,000 $6,266,000 13 Land Acquisition and Easements South Durham WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 37.5% $234,000 14 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 5.6% $11,000 15 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 58 LF $374 $21,557 100.0% $22,000 17 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.12 Acre $68,502 $8,244 100.0% $8,000 18 Subtotal $11,113,000 $6,266,000 19 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 10) 5.0% $475,000 $277,000 20 Subtotal $11,588,000 $6,543,000 21 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 20) 25.0% $2,897,000 $1,636,000 22 $14,485,000 $8,179,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 23 $22,664,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 24 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 1 mgd $91,041 $91,041 100.0% $91,000 25 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 26 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 27 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $91,000.00 $0.00 28 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $14,600,000 $8,200,000 29 $22,800,000 30 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $33,824,000 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.80 32 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $1.13 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Orange County Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 44%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $864,000 $864,000 $853,000 3 2 $864,000 $864,000 $842,000 4 3 $864,000 $864,000 $831,000 5 4 $864,000 $864,000 $821,000 6 5 $864,000 $864,000 $810,000 7 6 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $93,000 $15,000 $141,000 $1,113,000 $1,030,000 $7.11 $14.21 8 7 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $15,000 $143,000 $1,027,000 $939,000 $4.20 $8.39 9 8 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $15,000 $144,000 $1,028,000 $927,000 $3.22 $6.44 10 9 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $15,000 $146,000 $1,030,000 $917,000 $2.73 $5.46 11 10 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $16,000 $148,000 $1,033,000 $908,000 $2.43 $4.86 12 11 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $16,000 $150,000 $1,035,000 $898,000 $2.23 $4.46 13 12 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $16,000 $152,000 $1,037,000 $889,000 $2.09 $4.17 14 13 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $5,000 $16,000 $154,000 $1,039,000 $879,000 $1.98 $3.95 15 14 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $16,000 $156,000 $1,042,000 $870,000 $1.89 $3.78 16 15 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $17,000 $158,000 $1,045,000 $862,000 $1.82 $3.64 17 16 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $17,000 $160,000 $1,047,000 $852,000 $1.76 $3.52 18 17 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $17,000 $162,000 $1,049,000 $843,000 $1.71 $3.42 19 18 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $17,000 $164,000 $1,051,000 $834,000 $1.67 $3.33 20 19 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $17,000 $166,000 $1,053,000 $825,000 $1.63 $3.25 21 20 33 2 1.0 $864,000 $6,000 $18,000 $169,000 $1,057,000 $817,000 $1.59 $3.19 22 21 33 2 1.0 $1,495,000 $6,000 $18,000 $171,000 $1,690,000 $1,290,000 $1.60 $3.21 23 22 33 2 1.0 $1,495,000 $6,000 $18,000 $173,000 $1,692,000 $1,275,000 $1.61 $3.23 24 23 33 2 1.0 $1,495,000 $6,000 $18,000 $175,000 $1,694,000 $1,260,000 $1.62 $3.24 25 24 33 2 1.0 $1,495,000 $6,000 $19,000 $177,000 $1,697,000 $1,246,000 $1.62 $3.25 26 25 33 2 1.0 $1,495,000 $6,000 $19,000 $180,000 $1,700,000 $1,232,000 $1.63 $3.25 27 26 54 2 1.0 $631,000 $6,000 $19,000 $182,000 $838,000 $600,000 $1.59 $3.18 28 27 54 2 1.1 $631,000 $7,000 $19,000 $193,000 $850,000 $601,000 $1.55 $3.10 29 28 54 2 1.1 $631,000 $7,000 $20,000 $204,000 $862,000 $601,000 $1.52 $3.02 30 29 54 2 1.2 $631,000 $7,000 $20,000 $216,000 $874,000 $602,000 $1.49 $2.95 31 30 54 2 1.2 $631,000 $639,000 $7,000 $20,000 $227,000 $1,524,000 $1,036,000 $1.49 $2.92 32 31 54 2 1.3 $631,000 $648,000 $7,000 $20,000 $239,000 $1,545,000 $1,037,000 $1.49 $2.89 33 32 54 2 1.3 $631,000 $656,000 $7,000 $21,000 $251,000 $1,566,000 $1,037,000 $1.48 $2.86 34 33 54 2 1.4 $631,000 $664,000 $7,000 $21,000 $264,000 $1,587,000 $1,038,000 $1.48 $2.82 35 34 54 2 1.4 $631,000 $673,000 $7,000 $21,000 $277,000 $1,609,000 $1,039,000 $1.48 $2.79 36 35 54 2 1.5 $631,000 $7,000 $21,000 $290,000 $949,000 $605,000 $1.46 $2.71 37 36 54 2 1.5 $631,000 $7,000 $22,000 $303,000 $963,000 $606,000 $1.44 $2.64 38 37 54 2 1.6 $631,000 $7,000 $22,000 $317,000 $977,000 $607,000 $1.42 $2.57 39 38 54 2 1.6 $631,000 $7,000 $22,000 $331,000 $991,000 $608,000 $1.40 $2.51 40 39 54 2 1.7 $631,000 $8,000 $23,000 $345,000 $1,007,000 $610,000 $1.39 $2.44 41 40 54 2 1.7 $631,000 $8,000 $23,000 $360,000 $1,022,000 $611,000 $1.37 $2.38 42 41 54 2 1.8 $631,000 $8,000 $23,000 $374,000 $1,036,000 $611,000 $1.35 $2.32 43 42 54 2 1.8 $631,000 $8,000 $23,000 $390,000 $1,052,000 $613,000 $1.34 $2.27 44 43 54 2 1.9 $631,000 $8,000 $24,000 $405,000 $1,068,000 $614,000 $1.33 $2.21 45 44 54 2 1.9 $631,000 $8,000 $24,000 $421,000 $1,084,000 $615,000 $1.32 $2.16 46 45 54 2 2.0 $631,000 $8,000 $24,000 $437,000 $1,100,000 $616,000 $1.30 $2.11 47 46 54 2 2.0 ‐$8,137,889 $8,000 $25,000 $454,000 ‐$7,651,000 ‐$4,233,000 $1.13 $1.80 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 51.5 $37,375,000 ‐$4,857,889 $354,000 $792,000 $9,669,000 $43,332,000 $33,824,000 $1.13 $1.80 Jordan Lake Joint Development – South Durham and Jordan Lake Water Treatment Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Pittsboro Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 -- Pittsboro Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 3.0 9.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 6.0 -- System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 3.0 6.0 inc. 9.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 9.1% 28.6% 16.7% ‐‐ % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 15.0% -- Jordan Lake WTP Design Capacity ‐ Chatham County / Pittsboro (mgd): ‐‐ 13.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Jordan Lake WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro Share of Jordan Lake WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 3.0 6.0 inc. 9.0 9.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 23.1% 50.0% 36.0% 36.0% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 0.8 7.4 48.3 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 250 256 297 ‐‐ Pittsboro Pressure Zone (ft): 565
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Pittsboro Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 16.7% $1,583,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 16.7% $957,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 16.7% $467,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 9.1% $765,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 28.6% $1,174,000
4 Jordan Lake WTP (Shared with Pittsboro, includes High Service PS to deliver to Chatham/Pittsboro) Interim Capacity 13 mgd 1 LS $30,639,000 $30,639,000 23.1% $7,071,000 Ultimate Capacity 25 mgd 1 LS $22,958,000 $22,958,000 50.0% $11,479,000
5 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Western Segment ‐ Rural 24 in 31,552 LF $188 $5,926,289 100.0% $5,926,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $16,770,000 $12,660,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $2,516,000 $1,899,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $19,286,000 $14,559,000 9 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $2,516,000 $1,899,000 10 Subtotal $21,802,000 $16,458,000 11 Land Acquisition and Easements OWASA WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 36.0% $225,000 12 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 16.7% $33,000 13 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 14 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 144 LF $374 $53,725 100.0% $54,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.25 Acre $68,502 $17,126 100.0% $17,000 16 Subtotal $22,181,000 $16,458,000 17 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 8) 5% $964,000 $728,000 18 Subtotal $23,145,000 $17,186,000 19 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 18) 25% $5,786,000 $4,297,000 20 $28,931,000 $21,483,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 21 $50,414,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 22 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 6 mgd $91,041 $546,245 100.0% $546,000 23 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 24 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 25 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $546,000.00 $0.00 26 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $29,500,000 $21,500,000 27 $51,000,000 28 CAPITAL COST PER MGD ULTIMATE ALLOCATION: $8,500,000 28 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $64,617,000 29 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.72 30 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.72 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Pittsboro
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 56%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $1,725,000 3 2 $1,725,000 4 3 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,660,000 5 4 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,638,000 6 5 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,618,000 7 6 33 6 0.0 $1,725,000 $590,000 $112,000 $0 $2,427,000 $2,247,000 $3.27 8 7 33 6 0.1 $1,725,000 $15,000 $113,000 $6,000 $1,859,000 $1,699,000 $2.02 $242.32 9 8 33 6 0.2 $1,725,000 $15,000 $115,000 $11,000 $1,866,000 $1,683,000 $1.61 $96.21 10 9 33 6 0.3 $1,725,000 $15,000 $116,000 $17,000 $1,873,000 $1,668,000 $1.39 $55.73 11 10 33 6 0.4 $1,725,000 $15,000 $118,000 $23,000 $1,881,000 $1,654,000 $1.27 $37.97 12 11 33 6 0.5 $1,725,000 $16,000 $119,000 $29,000 $1,889,000 $1,640,000 $1.18 $28.31 13 12 33 6 0.6 $1,725,000 $16,000 $121,000 $35,000 $1,897,000 $1,626,000 $1.12 $22.35 14 13 33 6 0.7 $1,725,000 $16,000 $122,000 $42,000 $1,905,000 $1,612,000 $1.07 $18.34 15 14 33 6 0.8 $1,725,000 $16,000 $124,000 $48,000 $1,913,000 $1,598,000 $1.03 $15.48 16 15 33 6 0.9 $1,725,000 $16,000 $125,000 $55,000 $1,921,000 $1,584,000 $1.00 $13.35 17 16 33 6 1.0 $1,725,000 $17,000 $127,000 $62,000 $1,931,000 $1,572,000 $0.98 $11.70 18 17 33 6 1.1 $1,725,000 $17,000 $129,000 $69,000 $1,940,000 $1,559,000 $0.95 $10.40 19 18 33 6 1.2 $1,725,000 $17,000 $130,000 $76,000 $1,948,000 $1,545,000 $0.93 $9.34 20 19 33 6 1.3 $1,725,000 $17,000 $132,000 $83,000 $1,957,000 $1,533,000 $0.92 $8.47 21 20 33 6 1.4 $1,725,000 $17,000 $134,000 $91,000 $1,967,000 $1,521,000 $0.90 $7.74 22 21 33 6 1.5 $3,382,000 $18,000 $135,000 $99,000 $3,634,000 $2,774,000 $0.93 $7.40 23 22 33 6 1.6 $3,382,000 $18,000 $137,000 $107,000 $3,644,000 $2,746,000 $0.94 $7.09 24 23 33 6 1.7 $3,382,000 $18,000 $139,000 $115,000 $3,654,000 $2,718,000 $0.96 $6.79 25 24 33 6 1.8 $3,382,000 $18,000 $141,000 $123,000 $3,664,000 $2,691,000 $0.98 $6.50 26 25 33 6 1.9 $3,382,000 $19,000 $143,000 $132,000 $3,676,000 $2,665,000 $0.99 $6.24 27 26 54 6 2.0 $1,657,000 $19,000 $145,000 $140,000 $1,961,000 $1,403,000 $0.97 $5.83 28 27 54 6 2.2 $1,657,000 $19,000 $146,000 $156,000 $1,978,000 $1,397,000 $0.96 $5.44 29 28 54 6 2.4 $1,657,000 $19,000 $148,000 $173,000 $1,997,000 $1,393,000 $0.94 $5.08 30 29 54 6 2.6 $1,657,000 $20,000 $150,000 $190,000 $2,017,000 $1,389,000 $0.93 $4.74 31 30 54 6 2.8 $1,657,000 $1,277,000 $20,000 $152,000 $207,000 $3,313,000 $2,252,000 $0.93 $4.51 32 31 54 6 3.0 $1,657,000 $1,293,000 $20,000 $154,000 $225,000 $3,349,000 $2,247,000 $0.94 $4.30 33 32 54 6 3.2 $1,657,000 $1,310,000 $20,000 $156,000 $243,000 $3,386,000 $2,243,000 $0.94 $4.09 34 33 54 6 3.4 $1,657,000 $1,327,000 $21,000 $158,000 $261,000 $3,424,000 $2,239,000 $0.94 $3.90 35 34 54 6 3.6 $1,657,000 $1,344,000 $21,000 $160,000 $280,000 $3,462,000 $2,235,000 $0.95 $3.72 36 35 54 6 3.8 $1,657,000 $21,000 $162,000 $300,000 $2,140,000 $1,364,000 $0.93 $3.51 37 36 54 6 4.0 $1,657,000 $21,000 $164,000 $319,000 $2,161,000 $1,360,000 $0.92 $3.31 38 37 54 6 4.2 $1,657,000 $22,000 $166,000 $340,000 $2,185,000 $1,357,000 $0.92 $3.13 39 38 54 6 4.4 $1,657,000 $22,000 $169,000 $361,000 $2,209,000 $1,355,000 $0.91 $2.96 40 39 54 6 4.6 $1,657,000 $22,000 $171,000 $382,000 $2,232,000 $1,351,000 $0.90 $2.81 41 40 54 6 4.8 $1,657,000 $23,000 $173,000 $404,000 $2,257,000 $1,349,000 $0.89 $2.67 42 41 54 6 5.0 $1,657,000 $23,000 $175,000 $426,000 $2,281,000 $1,346,000 $0.88 $2.54 43 42 54 6 5.2 $1,657,000 $23,000 $178,000 $449,000 $2,307,000 $1,344,000 $0.87 $2.42 44 43 54 6 5.4 $1,657,000 $23,000 $180,000 $472,000 $2,332,000 $1,341,000 $0.87 $2.31 45 44 54 6 5.6 $1,657,000 $24,000 $182,000 $496,000 $2,359,000 $1,339,000 $0.86 $2.21 46 45 54 6 5.8 $1,657,000 $24,000 $185,000 $520,000 $2,386,000 $1,337,000 $0.85 $2.12 47 46 54 6 6.0 ‐$19,327,170 $24,000 $187,000 $545,000 ‐$18,571,000 ‐$10,275,000 $0.72 $1.72 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 103.0 $84,550,000 ‐$12,776,170 $1,357,000 $5,993,000 $8,112,000 $83,786,000 $64,617,000 $0.72 $1.72
Appendix C: Raw Water Only Facilities Alternative – Detailed Cost Summary
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Appendix C Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Summary Data Final Summary of Conceptual‐Level Cost Estimates Capital Costs Existing Initial Interim Ultimate Unit Life‐Cycle Costs (2014 Million $) Total Pressure WTP Jordan Basis for Initial Facilities Production Basis for Initial Facilities Capacity Basis for Ultimate Facilities Capacity per 1,000 gallons Life‐Cycle Partner Zone Gradient Lake Year Financed (2014 $) Total Costs (ft) (ft) Allocatio % of % of Max. % of Total Per MGD (2014 Level 1 ns Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Max. Day Avg. Peak Alloc'n Total Alloc'n Total Alloc'n Day % Inc. Total Initial Interim Ultimate Million $) Usage Allocation Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Usage factor Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Allocation Purchased Chatham Co. 740 6 18 3.0 1.5 5 21.7% 18 6.5 1.5 10.0 30.3% 18 10.5 1.5 16.0 28.6% 29.6% $74.7 M $21.5 M $96.2 M $5.3 M $193.2 M $1.9 $0.7 Durham 568 397 (W) 10 16.5 16.5 1 17 73.9% 16.5 16.5 1 17.0 51.5% 16.5 16.5 1.25 21.0 19.0% 38.9% $189.9 M $13.1 M $203.0 M $12.3 M $690.6 M $2.8 $2.8 OWASA 642 481 5 5 0.0 1 00.0%52.0 1 2.0 6.1% 5 5.0 1 5.0 14.3% 9.3% $27.8 M $7.1 M $34.9 M $7.0 M $47.7 M $10.0 $0.6 Orange County 840 1 2 1.0 1 14.3%21.0 1 1.0 3.0% 2 2.0 1.5 3.0 9.5% 5.6% $18.7 M $7.8 M $26.5 M $13.3 M $40.0 M $2.1 $1.3 Pittsboro 565 0 6 0.0 0 00.0%62.0 1.5 3.0 9.1% 6 6.0 1.5 9.0 28.6% 16.7% $29.5 M $21.5 M $51.0 M $8.5 M $78.7 M $2.1 $0.9 Total ‐‐ ‐‐ 47.5 20.5 ‐‐ 23 100% 47.5 28.0 ‐‐ 33 100% 47.5 40.0 ‐‐ 54 21.0 100% $340.6 M $71.0 M $411.6 M $8.7 M $1,050.2 M $2.6 $1.5
Water Facilities Cost Share Distribution Shared Facilities Separate Facilities
Williams WTP Shared Chatham RWPS Jordan Lake WTP Durham OWASA Pittsboro Hillsboro Partner Intake & Expansion Shared RW Main County Pipelines RW Main (Durham Initial Expansion Initial Expansion Initial Expansion /Orange) FW Main BPS RW Main FW Main ‐‐
Capacity (mgd): 54 33 54 13 25 18 24 29.0 24.0 16 ‐‐ 59‐‐ Chatham County 29.6% 30.3% 28.6% 76.9% 50.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham 38.9% 51.5% 19.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 72.4% 87.5% ‐‐ N/A ‐‐ ‐‐ OWASA 9.3% 6.1% 14.3% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17.2% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ Orange County 5.6% 3.0% 9.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.3% 12.5% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro 16.7% 9.1% 28.6% 23.1% 50.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100.0% ‐‐ Hillsborough 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ TOTAL: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
(1) Includes capital costs for a new Jordan Lake Western intake, raw water pumping and transmission facilities, a new water treatment plant (WTP) located at the OWASA Jordan Lake property to serve Chatham County and Pittsboro, advanced treatment upgrades to Durham's Williams WTP and OWASA's Jones Ferry Road WTP, and related shared and separate raw / finished water pumping and transmission lines. Also, where applicable, costs are included for purchase of land/easements, environmental mitigation, and water storage allocations. All costs are in constant year 2014 dollars and include costs for construction, contractor profit and overhead, engineering, legal and permitting expenses, and an overall 25% contingency. Capital funding for the initial facilities (see note 2 below) is assumed to occur in year 2015 and construction is assumed to be completed in year 2020. (2) The Western Jordan Lake intake and all pipelines are sized to meet ultimate (year 2060) maximum day demands. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's ultimate capacity to total ultimate facility capacity. The WTPs and pumping stations are assumed to be constructed in phases, with initial sizing to meet interim (year 2040) demands. For these facilities, capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's interim capacity to total interim facility capacity.
(3) Facility expansion is based on the ultimate capacity in year 2060. Financing is assumed to occur in 2035 and construction completion in 2040. Capital cost for each partner is calculated as a direct ratio of the partner's incremental increase in capacity from year 2040 to year 2060 to the total increase in facility capacity.
(4) All capital and life‐cycle costs are in 2014 dollars. (5) The present analysis assumes that each partner will maintain/obtain a Level I Allocation. No costs are included for Level II Allocations. Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities SUMMARY of VARIABLES Description Value Units Notes General Current ENR CCI: 9795.92 May 2014 Project Cost Start Date: 2010 Project Cost Begin Capital Finance: 2015 Project Cost Complete Initial Construction: 2020 Project Cost Complete Expansion: 2040 Project Cost End Date: 2060 Project Cost Lifespan: 50 years
Calculation of Capital Costs Updated EPA cost curves (2010, ENR CCI 8802) for Water Treatment Facilities Includes ozone, UV, GAC, & residuals. Does not Include Land, Contractor Profit & Overhead, engineering, legal costs, or contingencies Add 10% for provisions for plant expansion Add 20% for expansion phasing Capacity Construction Cost = a*(Q+1)^b (mgd) Cost (2010 $) R^2 = 0.99958 42 $82,645,000 a = 3097698.29 62 $114,109,000 b = 0.8446521286 +20 $31,464,000
Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, and Profit: 15% Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services: 15% Land Acquisition and Easements: Project Specific Legal Fees, Permits, and Approvals: 5% Contingency: 25% Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Rural: $9.00 per inch‐diameter/ft Raw and Finished Water Main ‐ Urban: $15.00 per inch‐diameter/ft
Calculation of Life Cycle Costs General Conditions Discount Rate: 1.295%
Capital /Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs Issuing Expense: 0.0% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% Financing Term (Years): 25 years Equipment Lifespan: 25 years Pipelines/Structures Lifespan: 50 years Equipment Replacement as % of Total Construction Cost: 15% Number of Years Replacement Equipment Defrayed Over: 5 years Cost multiplier for shared pumping facilities w/ high‐low head pumps: 1.02
Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual O&M Costs as Percent of Construction Costs: 10% Fixed O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 70% Variable O&M Costs as % of Total O&M Costs: 30% Variable O&M Cost Constant (mgd, 70% eff, Kw‐hr/yr): 2,195 Energy Cost: $0.092 per kW-hr electrical energy Level I Allocation Costs Total Purchase Cost: $91,040.76 per mgd Annual Cost for Subsequent Years: $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
Level II Allocation Costs Total Annual Cost : $2,218.85 per mgd/yr Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual): $250
USACE Easement Acquisition Easement for Intake and RW Main 2.1 Acres Estimated lump sum cost $200,000
WTP Site Land Acquisition OWASA WTP Site Acreage 125 acres Cost per Acre $10,000 per acre WTP Site EL: 332 ft Jordan Lake NP EL: 216 ft
Pipeline Sizing
% Share of Pipeline, Capacity & Characteristics Finished Raw Finished Diam Partner (s) Served Chatham OWASA Pitts. WTP (inch) S. Durham Share S. Durham Raw ‐OWASA (mgd) V = 6 Chatham Co. 30% ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ ‐‐ 16.0 30 Durham 39% 72% 88% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 21.0 36 OWASA 9% 17% ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% ‐‐ 5.0 16 Orange Co. 6% 10% 13% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.0 12 Pittsboro 17% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100% 9.0 24 Hillsboro 0% 0% 0% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Total: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Design Peak Pumping Capacity (mgd) 54 29 24 16 5 9 Design Pipeline Velocity (ft/s): 65 5 656 Calculated Pipeline Diam. (inches): 54 42 42 30 18 24 Length (ft): 3,000 68,300 82,000 48,800 32,500 31,552 Calculated Velocity (ft/s): 5.3 4.7 3.9 5.0 4.4 4.4 Pipeline head Loss (C=120) for use in calculating variable operating costs HL in Year 2020 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 0.8 46.9 56.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 HL in Year 2040 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 1.4 57.3 55.6 27.2 24.6 6.0 HL in Year 2060 @ Avg Pumped Flow (ft): 2.8 80.9 61.6 66.1 133.9 45.5 RW Water Static Head 181.0 265.0 Total RW Pump Head 326.3 401.7 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Chatham County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 6 18 18 18 -- Chatham County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 5.0 10.0 16.0 ‐‐ Average Water Use: ‐‐ 3.0 6.5 10.5 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 ‐‐ System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Chatham County Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 10.0 6.0 inc. 16.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 30.3% 28.6% 29.6% ‐‐ % Average Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 14.6% 23.2% 26.3% Jordan Lake WTP Design Capacity ‐ Chatham County / Pittsboro (mgd): ‐‐ 13.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Jordan Lake WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ Chatham County Share of Jordan Lake WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 10.0 6.0 inc. 16.0 16 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 76.9% 50.0% 64.0% 64.0% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 72969‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 431 453 493 ‐‐ Chatham County Pressure Zone (ft): 740
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Chatham County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 29.6% $2,815,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 29.6% $1,700,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 29.6% $830,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 30.3% $2,552,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 28.6% $1,174,000
4 Jordan Lake WTP (Shared with Pittsboro, includes High Service PS to deliver to Chatham/Pittsboro) Interim Capacity 13 mgd 1 LS $30,639,000 $30,639,000 76.9% $23,568,000 Ultimate Capacity 25 mgd 1 LS $22,958,000 $22,958,000 50.0% $11,479,000
5 Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Chatham County Finished Water Transmission ‐ Rural 30 in 48,800 LF $235 $11,457,391 100.0% $11,457,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $42,930,000 $12,660,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $6,440,000 $1,899,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $49,370,000 $14,559,000 9 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $6,440,000 $1,899,000 10 Subtotal $55,810,000 $16,458,000 11 Land Acquisition and Easements OWASA WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 64.0% $400,000 12 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 29.6% $59,000 13 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 14 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 268 LF $374 $100,145 100.0% $100,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.43 Acre $68,502 $29,228 100.0% $29,000 15 Subtotal $56,448,000 $16,458,000 16 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 8) 5% $2,469,000 $728,000 17 Subtotal $58,917,000 $17,186,000 18 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 17) 25% $14,729,000 $4,297,000 19 $73,646,000 $21,483,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 20 $95,129,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 21 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 12 mgd $91,041 $1,092,489 100.0% $1,093,000 22 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 23 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 24 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $1,093,000.00 $0.00 25 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $74,700,000 $21,500,000 26 $96,200,000 27 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $193,200,000 28 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $1.95 29 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.72 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Chatham County
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 67%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,336,000 3 2 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,280,000 4 3 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,226,000 5 4 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,172,000 6 5 $4,392,000 $4,392,000 $4,118,000 7 6 33 18.0 3.0 $4,392,000 $1,195,000 $1,138,000 $517,000 $7,242,000 $6,704,000 $4.24 $25.42 8 7 33 18.0 3.2 $4,392,000 $44,000 $1,152,000 $540,000 $6,128,000 $5,600,000 $2.54 $14.83 9 8 33 18.0 3.4 $4,392,000 $45,000 $1,167,000 $564,000 $6,168,000 $5,565,000 $1.98 $11.22 10 9 33 18.0 3.5 $4,392,000 $45,000 $1,183,000 $588,000 $6,208,000 $5,529,000 $1.69 $9.35 11 10 33 18.0 3.7 $4,392,000 $46,000 $1,198,000 $613,000 $6,249,000 $5,495,000 $1.52 $8.18 12 11 33 18.0 3.9 $4,392,000 $46,000 $1,213,000 $639,000 $6,290,000 $5,460,000 $1.41 $7.37 13 12 33 18.0 4.1 $4,392,000 $47,000 $1,229,000 $665,000 $6,333,000 $5,427,000 $1.32 $6.76 14 13 33 18.0 4.2 $4,392,000 $47,000 $1,245,000 $691,000 $6,375,000 $5,393,000 $1.26 $6.29 15 14 33 18.0 4.4 $4,392,000 $48,000 $1,261,000 $718,000 $6,419,000 $5,361,000 $1.21 $5.90 16 15 33 18.0 4.6 $4,392,000 $49,000 $1,277,000 $746,000 $6,464,000 $5,329,000 $1.17 $5.57 17 16 33 18.0 4.8 $4,392,000 $49,000 $1,294,000 $774,000 $6,509,000 $5,298,000 $1.14 $5.29 18 17 33 18.0 4.9 $4,392,000 $50,000 $1,311,000 $803,000 $6,556,000 $5,268,000 $1.11 $5.05 19 18 33 18.0 5.1 $4,392,000 $51,000 $1,328,000 $833,000 $6,604,000 $5,239,000 $1.09 $4.83 20 19 33 18.0 5.3 $4,392,000 $51,000 $1,345,000 $863,000 $6,651,000 $5,209,000 $1.07 $4.64 21 20 33 18.0 5.5 $4,392,000 $52,000 $1,362,000 $894,000 $6,700,000 $5,180,000 $1.05 $4.46 22 21 33 18.0 5.6 $6,049,000 $53,000 $1,380,000 $925,000 $8,407,000 $6,416,000 $1.04 $4.35 23 22 33 18.0 5.8 $6,049,000 $53,000 $1,398,000 $957,000 $8,457,000 $6,372,000 $1.04 $4.25 24 23 33 18.0 6.0 $6,049,000 $54,000 $1,416,000 $990,000 $8,509,000 $6,329,000 $1.03 $4.15 25 24 33 18.0 6.2 $6,049,000 $55,000 $1,434,000 $1,024,000 $8,562,000 $6,287,000 $1.03 $4.05 26 25 33 18.0 6.3 $6,049,000 $55,000 $1,453,000 $1,058,000 $8,615,000 $6,245,000 $1.03 $3.96 27 26 54 18.0 6.5 $1,657,000 $56,000 $1,472,000 $1,093,000 $4,278,000 $3,062,000 $1.00 $3.79 28 27 54 18.0 6.7 $1,657,000 $57,000 $1,491,000 $1,132,000 $4,337,000 $3,064,000 $0.98 $3.63 29 28 54 18.0 6.9 $1,657,000 $58,000 $1,510,000 $1,171,000 $4,396,000 $3,066,000 $0.95 $3.48 30 29 54 18.0 7.1 $1,657,000 $58,000 $1,530,000 $1,211,000 $4,456,000 $3,068,000 $0.93 $3.35 31 30 54 18.0 7.3 $1,657,000 $3,250,000 $59,000 $1,549,000 $1,253,000 $7,768,000 $5,280,000 $0.93 $3.27 32 31 54 18.0 7.5 $1,657,000 $3,292,000 $60,000 $1,569,000 $1,295,000 $7,873,000 $5,283,000 $0.92 $3.19 33 32 54 18.0 7.7 $1,657,000 $3,335,000 $61,000 $1,590,000 $1,338,000 $7,981,000 $5,287,000 $0.92 $3.12 34 33 54 18.0 7.9 $1,657,000 $3,378,000 $61,000 $1,610,000 $1,382,000 $8,088,000 $5,290,000 $0.91 $3.06 35 34 54 18.0 8.1 $1,657,000 $3,422,000 $62,000 $1,631,000 $1,426,000 $8,198,000 $5,293,000 $0.91 $2.99 36 35 54 18.0 8.3 $1,657,000 $63,000 $1,652,000 $1,472,000 $4,844,000 $3,088,000 $0.90 $2.89 37 36 54 18.0 8.5 $1,657,000 $64,000 $1,674,000 $1,519,000 $4,914,000 $3,092,000 $0.88 $2.80 38 37 54 18.0 8.7 $1,657,000 $65,000 $1,695,000 $1,566,000 $4,983,000 $3,096,000 $0.87 $2.72 39 38 54 18.0 8.9 $1,657,000 $65,000 $1,717,000 $1,615,000 $5,054,000 $3,099,000 $0.86 $2.63 40 39 54 18.0 9.1 $1,657,000 $66,000 $1,740,000 $1,664,000 $5,127,000 $3,104,000 $0.85 $2.56 41 40 54 18.0 9.3 $1,657,000 $67,000 $1,762,000 $1,715,000 $5,201,000 $3,109,000 $0.84 $2.49 42 41 54 18.0 9.5 $1,657,000 $68,000 $1,785,000 $1,767,000 $5,277,000 $3,114,000 $0.83 $2.42 43 42 54 18.0 9.7 $1,657,000 $69,000 $1,808,000 $1,819,000 $5,353,000 $3,118,000 $0.82 $2.35 44 43 54 18.0 9.9 $1,657,000 $70,000 $1,831,000 $1,873,000 $5,431,000 $3,123,000 $0.81 $2.29 45 44 54 18.0 10.1 $1,657,000 $71,000 $1,855,000 $1,928,000 $5,511,000 $3,129,000 $0.80 $2.23 46 45 54 18.0 10.3 $1,657,000 $72,000 $1,879,000 $1,984,000 $5,592,000 $3,134,000 $0.79 $2.18 47 46 54 18.0 10.5 ‐$30,201,788 $72,000 $1,904,000 $2,041,000 ‐$26,185,000 ‐$14,488,000 $0.72 $1.95 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 271.8 $151,225,000 ‐$13,524,788 $3,479,000 $61,038,000 $47,666,000 $249,883,000 $193,249,000 $0.72 $1.95 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Durham Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 10 16.5 17 17 -- Durham Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 17.0 21.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 16.5 16.5 16.5 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 ‐‐ System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 4.0 inc. 21.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 51.5% 19.0% 38.9% ‐‐ % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 80.5% 58.9% 41.3% ‐‐ % Share of Durham‐OWASA‐Orange Co. Raw Water Main ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 72.4% ‐‐ % Share of Durham‐Orange Co. Raw Water Main ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 87.5% ‐‐ Williams WTP Improvements Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 18.0 24.0 24.0 ‐‐ Williams WTP Improvements Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 ‐‐ ‐‐ Durham Share of Williams WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 17.0 4.0 inc. 21.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 94.4% 66.7% 87.5% ‐‐ Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 104 114 145 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 356 366 397 ‐‐ Durham Pressure Zone (ft): 568
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Durham Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 38.9% $3,694,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 38.9% $2,232,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 38.9% $1,089,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 51.5% $4,338,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 19.0% $783,000
4 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to Durham / OWASA Split ‐ Rural 42 in 68,300 LF $329 $22,449,913 72.4% $16,257,000
5 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Durham / OWASA Split to Williams WTP ‐ Rural 42 in 42,000 LF $329 $13,805,217 87.5% $12,080,000 Durham / OWASA Split to Williams WTP ‐ Urban 42 in 40,000 LF $548 $21,913,043 87.5% $19,174,000
6 Repurpose Williams WTP (Advanced Treatment) Cost Factor Repurpose Existing WTP 20% 1 LS $8,089,600 $8,089,600 100.0% $8,090,000 Interim Capacity 18 mgd 1 LS $40,448,000 $40,448,000 94.4% $38,201,000 Contingency 15% 1 LS $6,067,200 $6,067,200 100.0% $6,067,000 Ultimate Capacity 24 mgd 1 LS $10,420,000 $10,420,000 66.7% $6,947,000
7 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $111,230,000 $7,730,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 8 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $16,685,000 $1,160,000 9 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $127,915,000 $8,890,000 10 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 7) 15% $16,685,000 $1,160,000 11 Subtotal $144,600,000 $10,050,000 12 Land Acquisition and Easements Williams WTP Site 0 Acre $10,000 $0 0.0% $0 13 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 38.9% $78,000 14 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 510 LF $374 $190,677 100.0% $191,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.92 Acre $68,502 $63,277 100.0% $63,000 17 Subtotal $145,032,000 $10,050,000 18 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 9) 5% $6,396,000 $445,000 19 Subtotal $151,428,000 $10,495,000 20 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $37,857,000 $2,624,000 21 $189,285,000 $13,119,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 22 $202,404,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 23 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 7 mgd $91,041 $591,765 100.0% $592,000 24 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 25 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 26 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $592,000.00 $0.00 27 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $189,900,000 $13,100,000 28 $203,000,000 29 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $690,582,000 30 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $2.80 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $2.80 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Durham Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 82%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $11,289,000 $11,289,000 $11,145,000 3 2 $11,289,000 $11,289,000 $11,002,000 4 3 $11,289,000 $11,289,000 $10,862,000 5 4 $11,289,000 $11,289,000 $10,723,000 6 5 $11,289,000 $11,289,000 $10,586,000 7 6 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $663,000 $6,076,000 $5,345,000 $23,373,000 $21,636,000 $12.61 $12.61 8 7 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $40,000 $6,154,000 $5,414,000 $22,897,000 $20,925,000 $8.04 $8.04 9 8 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $41,000 $6,234,000 $5,484,000 $23,048,000 $20,794,000 $6.51 $6.51 10 9 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $41,000 $6,315,000 $5,555,000 $23,200,000 $20,663,000 $5.74 $5.74 11 10 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $42,000 $6,397,000 $5,627,000 $23,355,000 $20,535,000 $5.28 $5.28 12 11 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $42,000 $6,479,000 $5,700,000 $23,510,000 $20,407,000 $4.96 $4.96 13 12 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $43,000 $6,563,000 $5,774,000 $23,669,000 $20,283,000 $4.73 $4.73 14 13 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $44,000 $6,648,000 $5,849,000 $23,830,000 $20,160,000 $4.56 $4.56 15 14 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $44,000 $6,734,000 $5,924,000 $23,991,000 $20,036,000 $4.42 $4.42 16 15 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $45,000 $6,822,000 $6,001,000 $24,157,000 $19,917,000 $4.31 $4.31 17 16 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $45,000 $6,910,000 $6,079,000 $24,323,000 $19,797,000 $4.22 $4.22 18 17 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $46,000 $6,999,000 $6,158,000 $24,492,000 $19,680,000 $4.14 $4.14 19 18 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $46,000 $7,090,000 $6,237,000 $24,662,000 $19,563,000 $4.07 $4.07 20 19 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $47,000 $7,182,000 $6,318,000 $24,836,000 $19,450,000 $4.01 $4.01 21 20 33 16.5 16.5 $11,289,000 $48,000 $7,275,000 $6,400,000 $25,012,000 $19,337,000 $3.96 $3.96 22 21 33 16.5 16.5 $12,301,000 $48,000 $7,369,000 $6,483,000 $26,201,000 $19,997,000 $3.92 $3.92 23 22 33 16.5 16.5 $12,301,000 $49,000 $7,465,000 $6,567,000 $26,382,000 $19,878,000 $3.88 $3.88 24 23 33 16.5 16.5 $12,301,000 $49,000 $7,561,000 $6,652,000 $26,563,000 $19,758,000 $3.85 $3.85 25 24 33 16.5 16.5 $12,301,000 $50,000 $7,659,000 $6,738,000 $26,748,000 $19,642,000 $3.82 $3.82 26 25 33 16.5 16.5 $12,301,000 $51,000 $7,758,000 $6,825,000 $26,935,000 $19,526,000 $3.79 $3.79 27 26 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $51,000 $7,859,000 $6,914,000 $15,836,000 $11,333,000 $3.70 $3.70 28 27 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $52,000 $7,961,000 $7,003,000 $16,028,000 $11,324,000 $3.61 $3.61 29 28 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $53,000 $8,064,000 $7,094,000 $16,223,000 $11,315,000 $3.54 $3.54 30 29 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $53,000 $8,168,000 $7,186,000 $16,419,000 $11,306,000 $3.47 $3.47 31 30 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $8,354,000 $54,000 $8,274,000 $7,279,000 $24,973,000 $16,976,000 $3.44 $3.44 32 31 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $8,462,000 $55,000 $8,381,000 $7,373,000 $25,283,000 $16,967,000 $3.42 $3.42 33 32 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $8,571,000 $56,000 $8,490,000 $7,469,000 $25,598,000 $16,959,000 $3.40 $3.40 34 33 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $8,682,000 $56,000 $8,600,000 $7,565,000 $25,915,000 $16,949,000 $3.38 $3.38 35 34 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $8,795,000 $57,000 $8,711,000 $7,663,000 $26,238,000 $16,941,000 $3.36 $3.36 36 35 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $58,000 $8,824,000 $7,762,000 $17,656,000 $11,254,000 $3.31 $3.31 37 36 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $58,000 $8,938,000 $7,863,000 $17,871,000 $11,246,000 $3.26 $3.26 38 37 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $59,000 $9,054,000 $7,965,000 $18,090,000 $11,238,000 $3.22 $3.22 39 38 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $60,000 $9,171,000 $8,068,000 $18,311,000 $11,230,000 $3.18 $3.18 40 39 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $61,000 $9,290,000 $8,172,000 $18,535,000 $11,222,000 $3.14 $3.14 41 40 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $62,000 $9,410,000 $8,278,000 $18,762,000 $11,214,000 $3.10 $3.10 42 41 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $62,000 $9,532,000 $8,385,000 $18,991,000 $11,206,000 $3.07 $3.07 43 42 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $63,000 $9,655,000 $8,494,000 $19,224,000 $11,198,000 $3.03 $3.03 44 43 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $64,000 $9,780,000 $8,604,000 $19,460,000 $11,191,000 $3.00 $3.00 45 44 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $65,000 $9,907,000 $8,715,000 $19,699,000 $11,183,000 $2.97 $2.97 46 45 54 16.5 16.5 $1,012,000 $66,000 $10,035,000 $8,828,000 $19,941,000 $11,176,000 $2.95 $2.95 47 46 54 16.5 16.5 ‐$53,782,255 $66,000 $10,165,000 $8,943,000 ‐$34,608,000 ‐$19,148,000 $2.80 $2.80 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 676.5 $307,525,000 ‐$10,918,255 $2,755,000 $325,959,000 $286,753,000 $912,074,000 $690,582,000 $2.80 $2.80 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for OWASA Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 5 5 5 5 -- OWASA Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 5.0 ‐‐ System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ -- OWASA Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 3.0 inc. 5.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 6.1% 14.3% 9.3% -- % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 12.5% -- % Share of Durham‐OWASA‐Orange Co. Raw Water Main ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17.2% ‐‐ Jones Ferry Road WTP Improvements Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 5.0 5.0 -- Jones Ferry Road WTP Improvements Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 ‐‐ -- OWASA Share of Jones Ferry Road WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 2.0 3.0 inc. 5.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -- Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 47.7 83.3 217.6 ‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 374 409 544 ‐‐ OWASA Pressure Zone (ft): 642
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to OWASA Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 9.3% $880,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 9.3% $531,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 9.3% $259,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 6.1% $510,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 14.3% $587,000
4 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to Durham / OWASA Split ‐ Rural 42 in 68,300 LF $329 $22,449,913 17.2% $3,871,000
5 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Durham / OWASA Split to Jones Ferry Road WTP ‐ Rural 18 in 18,000 LF $141 $2,535,652 100.0% $2,536,000 Durham / OWASA Split to Jones Ferry Road WTP ‐ Urban 18 in 14,500 LF $235 $3,404,348 100.0% $3,404,000
6 Raw Water Booster Station Interim Capacity 2 mgd 1 LS $890,000 $890,000 100.0% $890,000 Ultimate Capacity 5 mgd 1 LS $949,091 $949,091 100.0% $949,000
7 Upgrades to Jones Ferry Road WTP (Advanced Treatment) Interim Capacity 2 mgd 1 LS $3,369,000 $3,369,000 100.0% $3,369,000 Ultimate Capacity 5 mgd 1 LS $2,643,000 $2,643,000 100.0% $2,643,000
8 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $16,250,000 $4,180,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 9 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 8) 15% $2,438,000 $627,000 10 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $18,688,000 $4,807,000 11 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 8) 15% $2,438,000 $627,000 12 Subtotal $21,126,000 $5,434,000 13 Land Acquisition and Easements Jones Ferry Road WTP Site 0 Acre $10,000 $0 0.0% $0 14 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 9.3% $19,000 15 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 162 LF $374 $60,408 100.0% $60,000 17 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.11 Acre $68,502 $7,716 100.0% $8,000 18 Subtotal $21,313,000 $5,434,000 19 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 10) 5% $934,000 $240,000 20 Subtotal $22,247,000 $5,674,000 21 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 20) 25% $5,562,000 $1,419,000 22 $27,809,000 $7,093,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 23 $34,902,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 24 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 0 mgd $91,041 $0 100.0% $0 25 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 26 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 27 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $0.00 $0.00 28 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $27,800,000 $7,100,000 29 $34,900,000 30 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $47,658,000 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $10.04 32 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.64 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for OWASA
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 71%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $1,659,000 $1,659,000 $1,638,000 3 2 $1,659,000 $1,659,000 $1,617,000 4 3 $1,659,000 $1,659,000 $1,596,000 5 4 $1,659,000 $1,659,000 $1,576,000 6 5 $1,659,000 $1,659,000 $1,556,000 7 6 33 5.0 0.0 $1,659,000 $12,000 $91,000 $0 $1,762,000 $1,631,000 $5.27 $0.00 8 7 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $12,000 $92,000 $0 $1,763,000 $1,611,000 $3.08 $0.00 9 8 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $13,000 $93,000 $0 $1,765,000 $1,592,000 $2.34 $0.00 10 9 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $13,000 $94,000 $0 $1,766,000 $1,573,000 $1.97 $0.00 11 10 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $13,000 $96,000 $0 $1,768,000 $1,555,000 $1.75 $0.00 12 11 33 5.0 0.5 $1,659,000 $13,000 $97,000 $43,000 $1,812,000 $1,573,000 $1.60 $95.99 13 12 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $13,000 $98,000 $0 $1,770,000 $1,517,000 $1.49 $104.30 14 13 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $13,000 $99,000 $0 $1,771,000 $1,498,000 $1.41 $112.51 15 14 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $101,000 $0 $1,774,000 $1,482,000 $1.34 $120.63 16 15 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $102,000 $0 $1,775,000 $1,463,000 $1.29 $128.65 17 16 33 5.0 1.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $103,000 $92,000 $1,868,000 $1,520,000 $1.25 $45.66 18 17 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $105,000 $0 $1,778,000 $1,429,000 $1.21 $48.27 19 18 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $106,000 $0 $1,779,000 $1,411,000 $1.17 $50.85 20 19 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $14,000 $107,000 $0 $1,780,000 $1,394,000 $1.14 $53.39 21 20 33 5.0 $1,659,000 $15,000 $109,000 $0 $1,783,000 $1,378,000 $1.12 $55.91 22 21 33 5.0 1.5 $2,206,000 $15,000 $110,000 $148,000 $2,479,000 $1,892,000 $1.11 $29.68 23 22 33 5.0 $2,206,000 $15,000 $112,000 $0 $2,333,000 $1,758,000 $1.10 $31.29 24 23 33 5.0 $2,206,000 $15,000 $113,000 $0 $2,334,000 $1,736,000 $1.10 $32.87 25 24 33 5.0 $2,206,000 $15,000 $115,000 $0 $2,336,000 $1,715,000 $1.09 $34.44 26 25 33 5.0 $2,206,000 $16,000 $116,000 $0 $2,338,000 $1,695,000 $1.08 $35.99 27 26 54 5.0 2.0 $547,000 $16,000 $118,000 $290,000 $971,000 $695,000 $1.05 $21.97 28 27 54 5.0 $547,000 $16,000 $119,000 $0 $682,000 $482,000 $1.01 $22.24 29 28 54 5.0 $547,000 $16,000 $121,000 $0 $684,000 $477,000 $0.98 $22.50 30 29 54 5.0 $547,000 $16,000 $122,000 $0 $685,000 $472,000 $0.95 $22.76 31 30 54 5.0 $547,000 $1,227,000 $17,000 $124,000 $0 $1,915,000 $1,302,000 $0.94 $23.47 32 31 54 5.0 2.0 $547,000 $1,243,000 $17,000 $125,000 $309,000 $2,241,000 $1,504,000 $0.93 $17.35 33 32 54 5.0 $547,000 $1,259,000 $17,000 $127,000 $0 $1,950,000 $1,292,000 $0.93 $17.86 34 33 54 5.0 $547,000 $1,276,000 $17,000 $129,000 $0 $1,969,000 $1,288,000 $0.92 $18.36 35 34 54 5.0 $547,000 $1,292,000 $17,000 $130,000 $0 $1,986,000 $1,282,000 $0.91 $18.86 36 35 54 5.0 $547,000 $18,000 $132,000 $0 $697,000 $444,000 $0.89 $19.04 37 36 54 5.0 2.0 $547,000 $18,000 $134,000 $329,000 $1,028,000 $647,000 $0.87 $15.00 38 37 54 5.0 $547,000 $18,000 $135,000 $0 $700,000 $435,000 $0.85 $15.14 39 38 54 5.0 $547,000 $18,000 $137,000 $0 $702,000 $431,000 $0.83 $15.27 40 39 54 5.0 $547,000 $19,000 $139,000 $0 $705,000 $427,000 $0.82 $15.40 41 40 54 5.0 $547,000 $19,000 $141,000 $0 $707,000 $423,000 $0.80 $15.53 42 41 54 5.0 2.0 $547,000 $19,000 $143,000 $351,000 $1,060,000 $625,000 $0.79 $12.86 43 42 54 5.0 $547,000 $19,000 $144,000 $0 $710,000 $414,000 $0.77 $12.96 44 43 54 5.0 $547,000 $20,000 $146,000 $0 $713,000 $410,000 $0.76 $13.07 45 44 54 5.0 $547,000 $20,000 $148,000 $0 $715,000 $406,000 $0.74 $13.17 46 45 54 5.0 $547,000 $20,000 $150,000 $0 $717,000 $402,000 $0.73 $13.27 47 46 54 5.0 2.0 ‐$10,834,674 $20,000 $152,000 $530,000 ‐$10,133,000 ‐$5,606,000 $0.64 $10.04 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.0 $55,150,000 ‐$4,537,674 $654,000 $4,875,000 $2,092,000 $58,233,000 $47,658,000 $0.64 $10.04 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Orange County Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 1 2 2 2 -- Orange County Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 3.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 1.0 1.0 2.0 -- System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ -- Orange County Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 2.0 inc. 3.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 3.0% 9.5% 5.6% -- % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 4.9% 3.6% 5.0% -- % Share of Durham‐OWASA‐Orange Co. Raw Water Main ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.3% ‐‐ % Share of Durham‐Orange Co. Raw Water Main ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.5% ‐‐ Williams WTP Improvements Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 18.0 24.0 24.0 -- Williams WTP Improvements Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 6 ‐‐ -- Orange County Share of Williams WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 1.0 2.0 inc. 3.0 -- % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 5.6% 33.3% 12.5% -- Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 104 114 145 -- Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 628 638 669 -- Orange County Pressure Zone (ft): 840
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Orange County Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 5.6% $528,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 5.6% $319,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 5.6% $156,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 3.0% $255,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 9.5% $391,000
4 Shared Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Jordan Lake RWPS to Durham / OWASA Split ‐ Rural 42 in 68,300 LF $329 $22,449,913 10.3% $2,322,000
5 Raw Water Transmission Pipeline Durham / OWASA Split to Williams WTP 42 in 42,000 LF $329 $13,805,217 12.5% $1,726,000 Durham / OWASA Split to Williams WTP 42 in 40,000 LF $548 $21,913,043 12.5% $2,739,000
6 Repurpose Williams WTP (Advanced Treatment) Interim Capacity 18 mgd 1 LS $40,448,000 $40,448,000 5.6% $2,247,000 Ultimate Capacity 24 mgd 1 LS $10,420,000 $10,420,000 33.3% $3,473,000
7 Finished Water Booster Station Interim Capacity 1 mgd 1 LS $530,000 $530,000 100.0% $530,000 Ultimate Capacity 3 mgd 1 LS $741,818 $741,818 100.0% $742,000
8 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $10,830,000 $4,610,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 9 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 8) 15.0% $1,625,000 $692,000 10 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12,455,000 $5,302,000 11 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 8) 15.0% $1,625,000 $692,000 12 Subtotal $14,080,000 $5,994,000 13 Land Acquisition and Easements Williams WTP Site 0 Acre $10,000 $0 0.0% $0 14 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 5.6% $11,000 15 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 100.0% $100,000 16 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 73 LF $374 $27,240 100.0% $27,000 17 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.13 Acre $68,502 $9,040 100.0% $9,000 18 Subtotal $14,227,000 $5,994,000 19 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 10) 5.0% $623,000 $265,000 20 Subtotal $14,850,000 $6,259,000 21 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 20) 25.0% $3,713,000 $1,565,000 22 $18,563,000 $7,824,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 23 $26,387,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 24 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 1 mgd $91,041 $91,041 100.0% $91,000 25 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 26 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 27 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $91,000.00 $0.00 28 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $18,700,000 $7,800,000 29 $26,500,000 30 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $40,032,000 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $2.13 32 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $1.34 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Orange County Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 74%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $1,107,000 $1,107,000 $1,093,000 3 2 $1,107,000 $1,107,000 $1,079,000 4 3 $1,107,000 $1,107,000 $1,065,000 5 4 $1,107,000 $1,107,000 $1,051,000 6 5 $1,107,000 $1,107,000 $1,038,000 7 6 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $93,000 $32,000 $158,000 $1,390,000 $1,287,000 $9.06 $18.12 8 7 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $32,000 $160,000 $1,304,000 $1,192,000 $5.35 $10.69 9 8 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $32,000 $162,000 $1,306,000 $1,178,000 $4.10 $8.20 10 9 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $33,000 $164,000 $1,309,000 $1,166,000 $3.48 $6.95 11 10 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $33,000 $167,000 $1,312,000 $1,154,000 $3.10 $6.19 12 11 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $34,000 $169,000 $1,315,000 $1,141,000 $2.84 $5.68 13 12 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $34,000 $171,000 $1,317,000 $1,129,000 $2.66 $5.31 14 13 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $5,000 $35,000 $173,000 $1,320,000 $1,117,000 $2.52 $5.03 15 14 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $35,000 $175,000 $1,323,000 $1,105,000 $2.40 $4.81 16 15 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $35,000 $178,000 $1,326,000 $1,093,000 $2.31 $4.63 17 16 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $36,000 $180,000 $1,329,000 $1,082,000 $2.24 $4.48 18 17 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $36,000 $182,000 $1,331,000 $1,070,000 $2.17 $4.35 19 18 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $37,000 $185,000 $1,335,000 $1,059,000 $2.12 $4.24 20 19 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $37,000 $187,000 $1,337,000 $1,047,000 $2.07 $4.14 21 20 33 2.0 1.0 $1,107,000 $6,000 $38,000 $189,000 $1,340,000 $1,036,000 $2.03 $4.05 22 21 33 2.0 1.0 $1,711,000 $6,000 $38,000 $192,000 $1,947,000 $1,486,000 $2.03 $4.05 23 22 33 2.0 1.0 $1,711,000 $6,000 $39,000 $194,000 $1,950,000 $1,469,000 $2.03 $4.05 24 23 33 2.0 1.0 $1,711,000 $6,000 $39,000 $197,000 $1,953,000 $1,453,000 $2.02 $4.05 25 24 33 2.0 1.0 $1,711,000 $6,000 $40,000 $199,000 $1,956,000 $1,436,000 $2.02 $4.04 26 25 33 2.0 1.0 $1,711,000 $6,000 $40,000 $202,000 $1,959,000 $1,420,000 $2.02 $4.03 27 26 54 2.0 1.0 $604,000 $6,000 $41,000 $205,000 $856,000 $613,000 $1.96 $3.92 28 27 54 2.0 1.1 $604,000 $7,000 $41,000 $216,000 $868,000 $613,000 $1.91 $3.81 29 28 54 2.0 1.1 $604,000 $7,000 $42,000 $228,000 $881,000 $614,000 $1.86 $3.70 30 29 54 2.0 1.2 $604,000 $7,000 $42,000 $240,000 $893,000 $615,000 $1.82 $3.60 31 30 54 2.0 1.2 $604,000 $819,000 $7,000 $43,000 $253,000 $1,726,000 $1,173,000 $1.81 $3.55 32 31 54 2.0 1.3 $604,000 $830,000 $7,000 $44,000 $265,000 $1,750,000 $1,174,000 $1.80 $3.51 33 32 54 2.0 1.3 $604,000 $841,000 $7,000 $44,000 $278,000 $1,774,000 $1,175,000 $1.80 $3.46 34 33 54 2.0 1.4 $604,000 $851,000 $7,000 $45,000 $292,000 $1,799,000 $1,177,000 $1.79 $3.41 35 34 54 2.0 1.4 $604,000 $863,000 $7,000 $45,000 $305,000 $1,824,000 $1,178,000 $1.78 $3.36 36 35 54 2.0 1.5 $604,000 $7,000 $46,000 $319,000 $976,000 $622,000 $1.75 $3.26 37 36 54 2.0 1.5 $604,000 $7,000 $46,000 $333,000 $990,000 $623,000 $1.72 $3.17 38 37 54 2.0 1.6 $604,000 $7,000 $47,000 $348,000 $1,006,000 $625,000 $1.70 $3.08 39 38 54 2.0 1.6 $604,000 $7,000 $48,000 $362,000 $1,021,000 $626,000 $1.67 $2.99 40 39 54 2.0 1.7 $604,000 $8,000 $48,000 $378,000 $1,038,000 $628,000 $1.65 $2.91 41 40 54 2.0 1.7 $604,000 $8,000 $49,000 $393,000 $1,054,000 $630,000 $1.63 $2.83 42 41 54 2.0 1.8 $604,000 $8,000 $49,000 $409,000 $1,070,000 $631,000 $1.60 $2.75 43 42 54 2.0 1.8 $604,000 $8,000 $50,000 $425,000 $1,087,000 $633,000 $1.58 $2.68 44 43 54 2.0 1.9 $604,000 $8,000 $51,000 $441,000 $1,104,000 $635,000 $1.57 $2.61 45 44 54 2.0 1.9 $604,000 $8,000 $51,000 $458,000 $1,121,000 $636,000 $1.55 $2.54 46 45 54 2.0 2.0 $604,000 $8,000 $52,000 $476,000 $1,140,000 $639,000 $1.53 $2.47 47 46 54 2.0 2.0 ‐$9,001,272 $8,000 $53,000 $493,000 ‐$8,447,000 ‐$4,674,000 $1.34 $2.13 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 51.5 $42,775,000 ‐$4,797,272 $354,000 $1,692,000 $10,701,000 $50,725,000 $40,032,000 $1.34 $2.13 Jordan Lake Joint Development – Raw Water Only Facilities Conceptual‐Level Estimate of Water Facilities Project Capital and Life‐Cycle Costs for Pittsboro Final Summary of Water Facilities Capacity & Cost Sharing Initial Ultimate WTP Land Description Existing Interim (2040) (2020) (2060) Cost Sharing Water Supply Storage Allocation (mgd): 0 6 6 6 -- Pittsboro Capacity (equal to maximum day demand, mgd): ‐‐ 0.0 3.0 9.0 -- Average Water Use: ‐‐ 0.0 2.0 6.0 -- System Design Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 33 54 54 -- System Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro Share of System Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 3.0 6.0 inc. 9.0 ‐‐ % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 9.1% 28.6% 16.7% ‐‐ % Avg. Capacity & Variable Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 0.0% 7.1% 15.0% -- Jordan Lake WTP Design Capacity ‐ Chatham County / Pittsboro (mgd): ‐‐ 13.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Jordan Lake WTP Expansion Increment (mgd): ‐‐ ‐‐ 12 ‐‐ ‐‐ Pittsboro Share of Jordan Lake WTP Capacity (mgd): ‐‐ 3.0 6.0 inc. 9.0 9.0 % Total Capacity & Fixed Operating Cost Share: ‐‐ 23.1% 50.0% 36.0% 36.0% Friction Head Applied to Variable Operating Costs (ft): ‐‐ 1748‐‐ Raw and Finished Water Pump TDH applied to Variable Op. Costs (ft): ‐‐ 250 256 297 ‐‐ Pittsboro Pressure Zone (ft): 565
CAPITAL COSTS (2014 Dollars) Allocated to Pittsboro Costs Subtotals % of Total Initial Const. Expansion No. Description Pipe Diam. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost (2015‐2020) (2035‐2040) 1 Raw Water Intake Structure (Shared) Steel Frame Tower w/ Multiple Level Screens (designed for 54 mgd total) 1 LS $9,500,000 $9,500,000 16.7% $1,583,000
2 Intake Piping (Shared) Dual Microtunneled Intake Lines (sized for 54 mgd total) 48 in 2,000 LF $2,870 $5,739,130 16.7% $957,000 Pipeline to New Raw Water Pump Station 54 in 6,625 LF $423 $2,799,783 16.7% $467,000
3 Raw Water Pump Station (Shared, Dual Lift) Interim Capacity 33 mgd 1 LS $8,420,000 $8,420,000 9.1% $765,000 Ultimate Capacity 54 mgd 1 LS $4,110,000 $4,110,000 28.6% $1,174,000
4 Jordan Lake WTP (Shared with Pittsboro, includes High Service PS to deliver to Chatham/Pittsboro) Interim Capacity 13 mgd 1 LS $30,639,000 $30,639,000 23.1% $7,071,000 Ultimate Capacity 25 mgd 1 LS $22,958,000 $22,958,000 50.0% $11,479,000
5 Pittsboro Finished Water Transmission Pipeline Western Segment ‐ Rural 24 in 31,552 LF $188 $5,926,289 100.0% $5,926,000
6 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $16,770,000 $12,660,000 CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 7 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $2,516,000 $1,899,000 8 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $19,286,000 $14,559,000 9 Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 15% x Line 6) 15% $2,516,000 $1,899,000 10 Subtotal $21,802,000 $16,458,000 11 Land Acquisition and Easements OWASA WTP Site 63 Acre $10,000 $625,000 36.0% $225,000 12 USACE Jordan Lake Easement 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 16.7% $33,000 13 Allowance for Additional Land/Easement 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 100.0% $50,000 14 Mitigation Costs for Stream Impacts 144 LF $374 $53,725 100.0% $54,000 15 Mitigation Costs for Wetlands Impacts 0.25 Acre $68,502 $17,126 100.0% $17,000 16 Subtotal $22,181,000 $16,458,000 17 Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 5% x Line 8) 5% $964,000 $728,000 18 Subtotal $23,145,000 $17,186,000 19 Contingency (@ 25% x Line 18) 25% $5,786,000 $4,297,000 20 $28,931,000 $21,483,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST: 21 $50,414,000 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost % Total 22 Round 4 Level 1 Allocation Purchase Cost (+ $250 fee) 2022 6 mgd $91,041 $546,245 100.0% $546,000 23 Annual Allocation O&M cost (included in life‐cycle analysis) Varies mgd $2,219 24 Additional Fixed Administration Cost (annual) 1 LS $250 25 Subtotal Allocation Capital Costs: $546,000.00 $0.00 26 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST INCLUDING ALLOCATION PURCHASES: $29,500,000 $21,500,000 27 $51,000,000 28 CAPITAL COST PER MGD ULTIMATE ALLOCATION: $8,500,000 29 ESTIMATED PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS: $78,694,000 30 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS CONSUMED: $2.09 31 ESTIMATED UNIT LIFE‐CYCLE COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF LEVEL 1 ALLOCATION PURCHASED: $0.88 Final CALCULATION OF O&M & LIFE-CYCLE COSTS for Pittsboro
Discount Rate: 1.295% Capital Recovery Interest Rate: 3.225% % Construction Cost Applied to O&M: 56%
Year and Water Usage Actual (Inflated) Dollars 2014 Dollars # Other Capital / O&M Costs Total Annual Costs Water Quantity (mgd) Construction Yrs WTP Fixed Costs Running Present Year Capital Total Net Present Per 1,000 from Capacity Jordan Lake Avg. Replace- Jordan Lake Fixed Variable Per 1,000 Financing Annual Worth gal's 2014 Allocation Usage ment & Salvage Allocation gal's Pumped Allocation
10 2 1 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,703,000 3 2 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,681,000 4 3 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,660,000 5 4 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,638,000 6 5 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,618,000 7 6 33 6 0.0 $1,725,000 $590,000 $112,000 $0 $2,427,000 $2,247,000 $4.82 8 7 33 6 0.1 $1,725,000 $15,000 $113,000 $6,000 $1,859,000 $1,699,000 $2.80 $334.85 9 8 33 6 0.2 $1,725,000 $15,000 $115,000 $11,000 $1,866,000 $1,683,000 $2.12 $127.08 10 9 33 6 0.3 $1,725,000 $15,000 $116,000 $17,000 $1,873,000 $1,668,000 $1.78 $71.18 11 10 33 6 0.4 $1,725,000 $15,000 $118,000 $23,000 $1,881,000 $1,654,000 $1.58 $47.24 12 11 33 6 0.5 $1,725,000 $16,000 $119,000 $29,000 $1,889,000 $1,640,000 $1.44 $34.49 13 12 33 6 0.6 $1,725,000 $16,000 $121,000 $35,000 $1,897,000 $1,626,000 $1.34 $26.76 14 13 33 6 0.7 $1,725,000 $16,000 $122,000 $42,000 $1,905,000 $1,612,000 $1.26 $21.65 15 14 33 6 0.8 $1,725,000 $16,000 $124,000 $48,000 $1,913,000 $1,598,000 $1.20 $18.05 16 15 33 6 0.9 $1,725,000 $16,000 $125,000 $55,000 $1,921,000 $1,584,000 $1.16 $15.41 17 16 33 6 1.0 $1,725,000 $17,000 $127,000 $62,000 $1,931,000 $1,572,000 $1.12 $13.39 18 17 33 6 1.1 $1,725,000 $17,000 $129,000 $69,000 $1,940,000 $1,559,000 $1.08 $11.81 19 18 33 6 1.2 $1,725,000 $17,000 $130,000 $76,000 $1,948,000 $1,545,000 $1.05 $10.53 20 19 33 6 1.3 $1,725,000 $17,000 $132,000 $83,000 $1,957,000 $1,533,000 $1.03 $9.49 21 20 33 6 1.4 $1,725,000 $17,000 $134,000 $91,000 $1,967,000 $1,521,000 $1.01 $8.62 22 21 33 6 1.5 $3,382,000 $18,000 $135,000 $99,000 $3,634,000 $2,774,000 $1.02 $8.18 23 22 33 6 1.6 $3,382,000 $18,000 $137,000 $107,000 $3,644,000 $2,746,000 $1.04 $7.77 24 23 33 6 1.7 $3,382,000 $18,000 $139,000 $115,000 $3,654,000 $2,718,000 $1.05 $7.39 25 24 33 6 1.8 $3,382,000 $18,000 $141,000 $123,000 $3,664,000 $2,691,000 $1.06 $7.04 26 25 33 6 1.9 $3,382,000 $19,000 $143,000 $132,000 $3,676,000 $2,665,000 $1.06 $6.72 27 26 54 6 2.0 $1,657,000 $19,000 $145,000 $140,000 $1,961,000 $1,403,000 $1.04 $6.27 28 27 54 6 2.2 $1,657,000 $19,000 $146,000 $156,000 $1,978,000 $1,397,000 $1.03 $5.84 29 28 54 6 2.4 $1,657,000 $19,000 $148,000 $173,000 $1,997,000 $1,393,000 $1.01 $5.44 30 29 54 6 2.6 $1,657,000 $20,000 $150,000 $190,000 $2,017,000 $1,389,000 $0.99 $5.07 31 30 54 6 2.8 $1,657,000 $1,277,000 $20,000 $152,000 $207,000 $3,313,000 $2,252,000 $0.99 $4.81 32 31 54 6 3.0 $1,657,000 $1,293,000 $20,000 $154,000 $225,000 $3,349,000 $2,247,000 $1.00 $4.57 33 32 54 6 3.2 $1,657,000 $1,310,000 $20,000 $156,000 $243,000 $3,386,000 $2,243,000 $1.00 $4.34 34 33 54 6 3.4 $1,657,000 $1,327,000 $21,000 $158,000 $261,000 $3,424,000 $2,239,000 $1.00 $4.13 35 34 54 6 3.6 $1,657,000 $1,344,000 $21,000 $160,000 $280,000 $3,462,000 $2,235,000 $1.00 $3.93 36 35 54 6 3.8 $1,657,000 $21,000 $162,000 $300,000 $2,140,000 $1,364,000 $0.99 $3.70 37 36 54 6 4.0 $1,657,000 $21,000 $164,000 $319,000 $2,161,000 $1,360,000 $0.97 $3.49 38 37 54 6 4.2 $1,657,000 $22,000 $166,000 $340,000 $2,185,000 $1,357,000 $0.96 $3.29 39 38 54 6 4.4 $1,657,000 $22,000 $169,000 $361,000 $2,209,000 $1,355,000 $0.95 $3.11 40 39 54 6 4.6 $1,657,000 $22,000 $171,000 $382,000 $2,232,000 $1,351,000 $0.94 $2.95 41 40 54 6 4.8 $1,657,000 $23,000 $173,000 $404,000 $2,257,000 $1,349,000 $0.93 $2.80 42 41 54 6 5.0 $1,657,000 $23,000 $175,000 $426,000 $2,281,000 $1,346,000 $0.92 $2.66 43 42 54 6 5.2 $1,657,000 $23,000 $178,000 $449,000 $2,307,000 $1,344,000 $0.92 $2.54 44 43 54 6 5.4 $1,657,000 $23,000 $180,000 $472,000 $2,332,000 $1,341,000 $0.91 $2.42 45 44 54 6 5.6 $1,657,000 $24,000 $182,000 $496,000 $2,359,000 $1,339,000 $0.90 $2.31 46 45 54 6 5.8 $1,657,000 $24,000 $185,000 $520,000 $2,386,000 $1,337,000 $0.89 $2.21 47 46 54 6 6.0 $24,000 $187,000 $545,000 $756,000 $418,000 $0.88 $2.09 Totals: ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 103.0 $84,550,000 $6,551,000 $1,357,000 $5,993,000 $8,112,000 $106,563,000 $78,694,000 $0.88 $2.09
Appendix D: Jordan Lake Water Quality Data Summary
FINAL Report: Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study 31118-102 \ October 16, 2014 Appendix D Water Quality Data Available for Jordan Lake
With increasing population in the greater Research Triangle area, a reliance on surface water supply and the potential impact of growth on the water quality of those surface water sources, various water quality monitoring efforts were launched starting in 1988. Local governments collaborating with the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) formed the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, a systematic evaluation of water supply sources in the region, including Jordan Lake. Water quality and water quantity monitoring efforts have been carried out with collaboration of several agencies including the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). An ample array of data can be retrieved from data bases available for each of these agencies monitoring stations.
NCDENR Data:
NCDENR has been collecting data at nine existing monitoring stations on Jordan Lake as shown on Figure 1. Records at some of these monitoring stations date back to the year 2000. Sampling at these stations occurs twice monthly during the algae growing season (May through September) and monthly during the non‐growing season. The purpose of these monitoring stations is to facilitate evaluation of nutrient reduction and nutrient related pollution in Jordan Lake. Monitoring in these stations occurs in the photic zone and throughout the water column. Parameters evaluated include secchi depth, chlorophyll a, nutrients (TP, TKN, NH3, NO2+NO3), turbidity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Some stations records include metals concentrations but sampling for this parameter has not occurred with the same frequency.
In addition to the existing monitoring stations, NCDENR has recently added eleven new monitoring stations to be evaluated once a month annually for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the newly installed mechanical water circulators (SolarBees). The locations of these Mechanical Water Circulator monitoring stations is also shown on Figure 1. The water quality data collected at these additional stations is intended to gauge the performance of the mechanical water circulators independent of meteorological or hydrological variability.
Table 1 provides a summary of the parameters evaluated at the twenty (20) NCDENR stations and the number of measurements taken at each location to date.
USGS Data:
The USGS has monitored water quality at Jordan Lake for over twenty years. The location of the USGS monitoring stations are shown on Figure 2. Parameters monitored include nutrients, major ions, and total organic carbon.
During the period of 1988 to 1994 the USGS, in addition sampling the regular ambient parameters, conducted sampling at the listed monitoring stations for pesticides, PCBs, and other synthetic organic compounds that were of concern to local water suppliers (Childress et al., 1995).
During 2002 through 2005 the USGS conducted a study to address concerns due to presence of selected organic wastewater compounds, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics (Giorgino et al., 2007). Jordan Lake was sampled twice during this period. Of twenty four compounds detected at least once in the samples from Jordan Lake, 3 were pharmaceutical compounds, 2 were antibiotics, 2 were fire retardants, and 1 was a pesticide.
Due to the highly eutrophic nature of the reservoir and in an effort to analyze the effects of algal blooms on water treatment costs and recreation, several “blue‐green algae” toxins such as microcystins, cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin‐a, and saxitoxin (toxins that target the nervous system and liver of mammals) are being targeted by the USGS monitoring program for 2014. Also taste and odor compounds such as Geosmin and 2‐methylsoborneol are monitored to assess levels of concern.
Currently the USGS is conducting a Triangle Water Supply water quality investigation at Jordan Lake which spans from July 2012 to June 2017 and involves sampling at each monitoring station from four to six times a year for the above parameters and up until June 2014 the USGS has sampled twice a year for trace elements. However, beginning in June 2014 the USGS will discontinue sampling for all trace elements and will monitor only iron and manganese to address water supply treatment issues.
Table 2 provides data observed on various constituents at the Jordan Lake USGS monitoring stations labelled in Figure 2 during the 2007‐2008 drought, to include the Jordan Lake at Bells Landing near Griffin Crossroads station which is the closest station to the proposed Western Jordan Lake intake site. It is interesting to note that the monitoring program found that there are instances where some parameters exceeded concentrations recommended by NC water quality standards during the drought.
WQ Historical Overview – 2010 Cary/Apex Source Water Quality Evaluation – Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
A study was conducted for the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Facility by Hazen and Sawyer in 2009/2010 to assess poor water quality conditions in Jordan Lake as a result of prolonged drought conditions. The evaluation consisted of five major components including:
Review of existing infrastructure and operating data during water quality excursions Review of treatment facility experiences with difficult to treat source water Preliminary determination of plant upgrades, and costs to manage events Development of Operating Procedures for use during water quality excursions
Water treatment for raw water parameters of interest included turbidity, pH, manganese, UV‐254, TOC and color. A pilot treatment facility of the Cary/Apex Treatment Facility was constructed at the plant. Pilot testing of the process train (raw water oxidation, coagulation, settling, intermediate ozone, filtration, etc.) was performed to evaluate process performance for meeting finished water quality goals, as well as any limitations of current processes to handle drought source water quality excursions.
References:
NC DENR, Study Plan for the Assessment of In‐Lake Mechanical Reductions of Adverse Impacts Related to Excess Nutrients in the Morgan Creek and Haw River Arms of Jordan Lake, Draft, 2013.
NC DENR, Study Plan for the Ongoing Assessment of Water Quality in Jordan Lake, 2009
Giorgino, M.J., Rasmussen, R.B., and Pfeifle, C.M., 2007, Occurrence of Organic Wastewater Compounds in Selected Surface Water Supplies, Triangle Area of North Carolina, 2002‐2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5054, 28 p., available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007‐5054. Giorgino, M.J., Rasmussen, R.A., and Pfeifle, C.A., 2012, Quality of surface‐water supplies in the Triangle area of North Carolina, water year 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Open‐File Report 2012–1013, 12 p.
Childress C.J.O. and Bathala Neeti, Water quality Trends for Streams and Reservoirs in the Research Triangle Area of North Carolina 1983‐95, U.S. Geological Survey, 1995 Figure 1. Jordan Lake Monitoring Locations
Mechanical Water Circulators
Figure obtained from NC DENR
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Table 1: NCDENR Sampling Parameters and Stations Parameter CPF055C CPF055D CPF055E CPF081A1CCPF081A1CUPS CPF086C CPF086CUPS CPF086F Ammonia-nitrogen as N 214 63 213 217 91 217 91 217 Arsenic 1 1 Cadmium 10 7 7 7 10 Calcium 10 7 7 7 10 Chloride 12 9 9 9 12 Chlorophyll a 118 63 115 120 11 122 12 123 Chromium 10 7 7 7 10 Copper 10 7 7 7 10 Dissolved oxygen (DO) 911 678 1575 509 60 522 75 781 Fecal Coliform 1 1 1 1 1 Fluoride 1 1 1 1 1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) as N 215 63 214 217 91 217 91 218 Iron 10 7 7 7 10 Kjeldahl nitrogen as N 212 62 213 213 91 213 91 216 Lead 10 7 7 7 10 Magnesium 10 7 7 7 10 Manganese 10 7 7 7 10 Nickel 10 7 7 7 10 Orthophosphate as P 127 129 129 93 129 99 129 pH 905 678 1563 505 58 518 72 775 Phosphorus as P 213 62 213 216 91 216 90 216 Specific conductance 911 678 1575 509 60 522 75 781 Sulfate 1 1 1 1 1 Temperature, water 911 678 1575 509 60 522 75 781 Total solids 74 74 72 24 72 26 73 Total suspended solids 74 74 72 25 73 26 74 Turbidity 111 63 110 113 113 114 Zinc 10 7 7 7 10 Table 1: NCDENR Sampling Parameters and Stations Parameter CPF087B CPF087B3 CPF087D CPF08801A CPF0880A CPF0880Aa CPF0880Ab CPF0880Ac Ammonia-nitrogen as N 102 219 210 146 116 102 100 101 Arsenic 1 1 Cadmium 10 7 7 10 Calcium 10 7 7 10 Chloride 12 9 9 12 Chlorophyll a 12 122 116 52 109 10 11 11 Chromium 10 7 7 10 Copper 10 7 7 10 Dissolved oxygen (DO) 164 1017 1166 741 1145 276 270 255 Fecal Coliform 1 1 1 1 1 Fluoride 1 1 1 1 Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) as N 102 217 210 144 116 102 101 102 Iron 10 7 7 10 Kjeldahl nitrogen as N 102 217 206 144 114 102 100 101 Lead 10 7 7 10 Magnesium 10 7 7 10 Manganese 10 7 7 10 Nickel 10 7 7 10 Orthophosphate as P 106 129 128 128 23 106 105 106 pH 157 1008 1154 731 1145 266 260 245 Phosphorus as P 102 218 209 146 115 102 101 102 Specific conductance 164 1017 1166 741 1145 276 270 255 Sulfate 1 1 1 1 Temperature, water 164 1017 1166 741 1145 276 270 255 Total solids 25 73 70 71 48 26 26 26 Total suspended solids 25 74 71 72 49 25 25 26 Turbidity 113 108 45 112 Zinc 10 7 7 10 Table 1: NCDENR Sampling Parameters and Stations Parameter CPF0884A CPFJLSB1 CPFJLSB2 CPFJLSB3 CPFJLSB4 Ammonia-nitrogen as N 99 Arsenic Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chlorophyll a 11 Chromium Copper Dissolved oxygen (DO) 309 7 Fecal Coliform 1 2 2 2 2 Fluoride Inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) as N 99 Iron Kjeldahl nitrogen as N 97 Lead Magnesium Manganese Nickel Orthophosphate as P 105 pH 297 7 Phosphorus as P 99 Specific conductance 309 7 Sulfate Temperature, water 309 7 Total solids 26 Total suspended solids 24 Turbidity Zinc Water Resources of the United States—National Water Information System (NWI... Page 1 of 2
National Water Information System: Mapper
JORDAN LAKE AT BUOY 9 AT FARRINGTON, NC
B.E. JORDAN LK AT BELLS LANDNG NR GRIFFINS XRDS,NC
B. EVERETT JORDAN LAKE, HAW R ARM NR HANKS CHAPEL
0 2 4mi -78.795, 35.969 State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS
http://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.html?state=ncYou created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com7/)10/2014 Table 2. Summary of water-quality results for sampling sites in the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, October 2007 through September 2008.
Jordan Lake, Haw Jordan Lake at Jordan Lake at US Jordan Lake at Bells River arm buoy 12 Highway 64 Landing NCDWQ MCL or Constituent standard1 SDWR 2 n range range n range n range Color (platinum cobalt units) -- 15 6 25-70 25-60 6 20-50 6 18-30 Transparency, Secchi (m) -- -- 6 0.7-1.4 0.3-0.7 6 0.7-1.4 6 0.7-1.3 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L ) <5.0 -- 6 6.5-10.9 4.2-11.4 6 5.3-10.9 6 8.2-12.9 Dissolved oxygen (percent saturation) 110 -- 6 83-123 56-102 6 60-118 6 75-130 pH (standard units ) 6.0-9.0 6.5-8.5 6 7.4-8.7 7.2-8.1 6 7.2-8.9 6 7.2-9.1 Specific cond at 25 degrees C (µS/cm) -- -- 6 191-371 158-244 6 176-194 6 168-204 Temperature, water (degrees C ) 32 -- 6 7.9-29.8 8.4-30.4 6 8.9-30.9 6 9.7-30.3
Hardness, water (mg/L as CaCO3) 100 -- 6 36-43 31-40 6 30-37 6 31-37 Calcium, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 6 8.45-10.8 7.79-10.4 6 7.49-9.43 6 7.50-9.25 Magnesium, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 6 3.54-4.00 2.79-3.49 6 2.78-3.32 6 2.91-3.34 Potassium, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 6 3.33-6.86 3.36-5.59 6 3.79-4.17 6 3.73-4.18 Sodium, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 6 22.4-61.8 16.9-33.1 6 20.0-24.8 6 19.0-27.0
Acid neutralizng capacity (mg/L as CaCO3) -- -- 6 35-64 29-45 6 32-41 6 32-39
Bicarbonate, unfiltered (mg/L as CaCO3) -- -- 6 42-78 35-55 6 39-50 6 39-48 Chloride, filtered (mg/L) 230 (AL) 250 6 18.7-45.9 15.4-25.2 6 16.6-19.9 6 15.4-21.6 Fluoride, filtered (mg/L) 1.8 4 6 0.17-0.47 0.16-0.34 6 0.17-0.26 6 0.19-0.27 Silica, filtered (mg/L) -- - 6 2.08-6.59 0.28-4.82 6 0.47-4.90 6 0.77-5.35 Sulfate, filtered (mg/L) 250 250 6 19.3-34.3 17.0-30.4 6 12.5-21.8 6 10.4-21.3 Residue, ROE@180C, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 6 127-223 112-151 6 111-128 6 94-128 NH3+orgN, unfiltered (mg/L as N) -- -- 6 0.53-1.1 0.91-1.3 6 0.65-1.1 6 0.61-0.92 Ammonia, filtered (mg/L as N) -- -- 6 <0.020-0.076 <0.020-0.092 6 <0.020-0.106 6 <0.020-0.033 NO3+NO2, filtered (mg/L as N) 10 (WS) 10 6 0.024-0.976 <0.016-0.435 6 <0.016-0.363 6 <0.016-0.456 Nitrite, filtered (mg/L as N) -- 1 6 0.003-0.020 <0.002-0.012 6 <0.002-0.082 6 <0.002-0.014 Orthophosphate, filtered (mg/L as P) -- -- 6 0.004-0.018 <0.006-0.005 6 <0.006-0.004 6 <0.006-0.004 Phosphorus, unfiltered (mg/L as P) -- -- 6 0.065-0.104 0.067-0.112 6 0.033-0.072 6 0.025-0.047 Organic carbon, filtered (mg/L) -- -- 5 5.0-6.5 6.7-9.5 6 5.9-7.9 6 5.8-7.3 Organic carbon, unfiltered (mg/L) -- -- 6 6.2-9.0 10.6-12.8 6 7.6-10.2 6 7.4-10.9 Chlorophyll a (µg/L ) 40 -- 6 4.2-44.8 24.4-57.5 6 15.3-52.3 6 10.4-50.3 Pheophytin a (µg/L ) -- -- 6 5.8-17.0 15.2-32.4 6 4.8-19.3 6 3.1-14.6 Aluminum, unfiltered (µg/L ) -- 50-200 2 101-253 201-327 2 60-154 2 22-94 10 (WS, Arsenic, unfiltered (µg/L ) HH) 10 2 0.49-0.66 0.63-0.85 2 0.49-0.75 2 0.50-0.77 Cadmium, unfiltered (µg/L ) 2 5 2 0.06-0.09 <0.01-0.02 2 <0.01-0.02 2 0.01 Chromium, unfiltered (µg/L ) 50 100 2 0.38-1.0 0.37-0.54 2 <0.40-0.35 2 <0.40-0.37 Cobalt, unfiltered (µg/L ) -- -- 2 0.66-0.94 0.36-0.38 2 0.13-0.18 2 0.10-0.17 3 Copper, unfiltered (µg/L ) 7 (AL) 1,300 2 1.1-2.5 <1.2-2.4 2 <1.2-1.3 2 <1.2-1.2
Iron, unfiltered (µg/L ) 1,000 (AL) 300 6 180-907 256-665 6 61-570 6 41-236 3 Lead, unfiltered (µg/L ) 25 15 2 0.24-0.79 0.56-0.74 2 0.19-0.34 2 0.07-0.21
Page 1 Table 2. Summary of water-quality results for sampling sites in the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, October 2007 through September 2008.
Jordan Lake, Haw Jordan Lake at Jordan Lake at US Jordan Lake at Bells River arm buoy 12 Highway 64 Landing NCDWQ MCL or Constituent standard1 SDWR 2 n range range n range n range Manganese, unfiltered (µg/L ) 200 (WS) 50 6 61.3-145 101-249 6 55.6-302 6 48.1-166 Mercury, filtered (µg/L ) 0.012 2 6 <0.010-0.037 <0.010 6 <0.010-0.020 6 <0.010-0.025 Mercury, unfiltered (µg/L ) 0.012 2 6 <0.010-0.049 <0.010-0.012 6 <0.010-0.023 6 <0.010-0.113 Molybdenum, unfiltered (µg/L ) -- -- 2 0.9-4.7 2.2-9.6 2 2.1-4.5 2 1.8-3.3 Nickel, unfiltered (µg/L ) 25 (WS) -- 2 2.3-3.1 1.1-1.3 2 0.56-1.1 2 0.48-1.1 Selenium, unfiltered (µg/L ) 5 50 2 0.17-0.19 0.17-0.21 2 0.17-0.17 2 0.17-0.17 Silver, unfiltered (µg/L ) 0.06 (AL) 100 2 <0.02-0.01 <0.02 2 <0.02 2 <0.02 Zinc, unfiltered (µg/L ) 50 (AL) 5,000 2 3.9-10.0 2.8-3.4 2 2.1-2.2 2 <2.0-2.3 Suspended sediment (mg/L) ------
1 North Carolina Division of Water Quality criteria listed are the most stringent of either freshwater aquatic life, water supply (WS), or human health (HH) standards; (AL)=Action Level for freshwater aquatic life (accessed November 28, 2008 at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/documents/ncactable290807.pdf). 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water are listed if available; Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are listed in italics if MCLs are not available (accessed January 16, 2009 at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html)
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Treatment Technique action level (accessed January 16, 2009 at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html)
[NCDWQ, North Carolina Division of Water Quality; MCL, maximum contaminant level; SDWR, secondary drinking water regulation; n, number of observations; range, minimum and maximum values; --, not available or constituent not sampled; m, meter; mg/L, milligram per liter; <, less than; µS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; C, Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; µg/L, microgram per liter; bold text indicates an exceedance of the NCDWQ water-quality criterion]
Page 2 www.hazenandsawyer.com Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix I- Chatham County Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plan
16-Oct-20 16
Hazen and Sawyer 4011 WestChase Blvd, Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27607 • 919.833.7152
Chatham County Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Utility Master Plan
FINAL - Executive Summary Hazen No. 32449-000 January 27, 2020 (Revision to November 8, 2019 version) Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Table of Contents 1. Introduction & Background ...... 1 1.1 Methodology ...... 1 1.2 Projections ...... 1
1.3 System Characteristics ...... 3
1.4 Alternatives ...... 4 2. Recommended Alternatives Summary...... 7 2.1 Water Alternatives ...... 7 2.1.1 Chatham County ...... 7
2.1.2 Pittsboro ...... 8
2.1.3 Siler City ...... 8 2.2 Wastewater Alternatives ...... 9
2.2.1 Pittsboro ...... 9
2.2.2 Siler City ...... 10 3. Conclusions ...... 12 3.1 Recommended Water Alternative ...... 12 3.2 Recommended Wastewater Alternatives...... 13
3.2.1 Pittsboro ...... 13
3.2.2 Siler City ...... 13 3.3 Dashboard Tool ...... 13
| Table of Contents i Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
List of Figures Figure 1 - Population and Employee Projection ...... 2 Figure 2 - Wastewater Flow Projections ...... 3 Figure 3 - Water Distribution System ...... 4 Figure 4 - Alternatives Summary ...... 5 Figure 5 - Alternatives Comparison ...... 6 Figure 6 - Financial Variables ...... 6
List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Water Alternatives for Chatham North (mgd) ...... 7 Table 2 Summary of Water Alternatives for Pittsboro (mgd) ...... 8 Table 3 Summary of Water Alternatives for Siler City (mgd) ...... 9 Table 4 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives for Pittsboro (mgd) ...... 10 Table 5 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives for Siler City (mgd) ...... 10
List of Appendices Appendix A: Chatham County Utility Master Plan Dashboard – User Guide Appendix B: Water Alternatives Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives
| Table of Contents ii Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
1. Introduction & Background
Chatham County is located in the Piedmont region of North Carolina just southwest of the large and rapidly growing cities of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, commonly referred to as “The Triangle.” The Triangle hosts the Research Triangle Park (RTP), which is home to many large technology and pharmaceutical companies such as IBM, GlaxoSmithKline and Cisco Systems. Northwest of Chatham County is “The Triad,” which includes the cities of Greensboro, High Point and Winston- Salem. Chatham County is anticipating rapid growth as the surrounding areas continue to grow and more people look outside the cities for available land and affordable housing.
Chatham County teamed with the Town of Goldston, the Town of Siler City, and the Town of Pittsboro, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Partners,’ to develop a comprehensive water and wastewater utility master plan. The County’s Comprehensive Plan outlines their strategic plan to manage residential growth pressure and stimulate economic growth while maintaining a rural atmosphere and character. A result of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan was the action item to develop a county-wide water/sewer master plan to identify key infrastructure upgrades, regional connections, and water supply solutions. The interactive dashboard can be used as a decision-making tool to communicate comparative cost and system capacity impacts of proposed alternatives, as well as facilitate adaptation of the master plan to dynamic future goals and planning efforts.
Appendix A includes a user guide to familiarize the user with the dashboard framework, specifically the free version of Microsoft’s Power BI. The user guide also includes contact information to address any additional questions specific to the dashboard.
1.1 Methodology
The master plan utilizes realistic population and flow projections for the service areas to guide the development of an array of water and wastewater treatment and conveyance solutions for each of the Partners and the County as a whole. Opportunities for new or expanded treatment facilities, decentralized facilities, intra- and inter-county connections, distribution and collection system capacity improvements, and privately-owned facilities were considered, identified, assessed and incorporated into the master plan as appropriate with guidance from the Partners.
1.2 Projections
Anticipated growth was quantified and projected at the residential and non-residential level utilizing available Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data and US Census Data. Population increases were distributed proportionally for each municipality and the County, and in accordance with the County's comprehensive plan. Service areas for each Partner were limited to the development corridors prescribed in the County's comprehensive plan. Growth projections were further refined based on input from each Partner and displayed so that the usage type (residential or non-residential) and associated timeframe could be selected as shown in Figure 1.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 1
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Figure 1 - Population and Employee Projection
In order to correlate the population projections to water demand, available billing data and treatment plant operations data were utilized to estimate the per capita demand within each service area. Water plant production data was utilized to establish total existing water demand. Future water usage for non-residential users was assumed to be proportional to current usage. Additionally, two "megasites," recognized by the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina (EDPNC), were accounted for as part of the non-residential usage and modeled within the dashboard so the implementation year could be adjusted and the impact of the industrial development on projected capacity assessed (Figure 2). The Mountaire Farms chicken processing facility, which represents a large water/wastewater user in Siler City, was also accounted for separately in the model. Based on the projected growth related to these industrial sites, as well as other commercial areas and residential growth, future water demands were projected from the base year 2017 to an "ultimate" demand at year 2070 (complying with state regulatory planning guidance for 50-year water supply planning). Similarly, existing wastewater treatment plant flow data was used to establish wastewater flows proportional to the population projections for the planning period.
Multiple service areas included in the master plan are experiencing above average per capita water demand and per capita wastewater flows. The additional water demand and wastewater flows are due to several common issues such as leaks in the distribution system and ongoing infiltration and inflow challenges in the collection system. Consequently, the upward demand pressure may be at least partially offset by the future installation of low flow fixtures and water conservation practices. If the 2017 conversion factors are held constant through all planning years, the projections could vary significantly from collected data the further out projections are made. Thus, the dashboard tool was designed to allow the user to vary the overall per capita demand and wastewater flow by service area
| FINAL - Executive Summary 2
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary as more data becomes available as well as equip the user to perform a sensitivity analysis on the impact of changing the per capita gallon per day conversion factors (see lower left side of Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Wastewater Flow Projections
1.3 System Characteristics
Summary characteristics were quantified for all the treatment, distribution, and collection systems for each Partner. These characteristics include treatment capacity, treatment processes, system interconnections/capacities, and overall miles and diameters of existing collection system piping. ArcGIS information provided by the Partners, including water and sewer lines, were processed and the associated attributes were analyzed using the dashboard framework in Microsoft's Power BI as shown in Figure 3. Additionally, existing NPDES discharge permit limits and locations were added to the dashboard framework for reference.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 3
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Figure 3 - Water Distribution System
1.4 Alternatives
Alternatives were developed using a wholistic approach to meet the Partners’ anticipated water supply demands. Alternatives included various combinations of expansion of existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and interconnections with adjacent municipalities. Potential hydraulic limitations and necessary improvements in each service area to implement a proposed alternative were identified. While the entire service area is in the Cape Fear River basin, the Partners need to remain mindful of the potential of an option to require an Interbasin Transfer Certificate as the County is divided into three major river basins; 2-1 Haw River, 2-2 Deep River, and 2-3 Cape Fear River.
Additionally, alternatives were developed for new wastewater collection and treatment to meet projected flows. Alternatives included several combinations of expansion of existing facilities, construction of new facilities, utilization of "decentralized systems," and transfers with adjacent municipalities. Areas with public sewer needs were identified and reviewed through this process to plan for future infrastructure.
The dashboard facilitates a streamlined explanation of alternatives while providing sufficient data to make an informed decision on a path forward for each Partner. The alternatives summary page for water and wastewater provides an illustration of each alternative, a brief summary, a detailed list of the infrastructure required, and the associated present value capital cost as shown in Figure 4 for Water Alternative 5 (designated W05). Alternatives were split into two phases, with inputs for start
| FINAL - Executive Summary 4
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary and end years for each phase allowing the user to evaluate the cost-benefit of deferring alternatives or components of alternatives to a later date.
Figure 4 - Alternatives Summary
In addition to capital costs, preliminary operations and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed and presented in the dashboard framework using conceptual level cost data for selected feasible alternatives. Because flows are projected to increase over time, O&M costs were calculated based on the projections for each Partner in a given year, summed over the life of the alternative then brought back to a present value for comparison. The Alternatives Comparison page, illustrated with water alternatives W03 and W06 in Figure 5 on the following page, allows the user to directly compare two alternatives. The graphs assist the user in defining a start year based on flow projections and automatically updates and summarizes the present value capital and O&M costs for the selected alternatives. The treatment facility evaluations assume typical treatment technologies for water and wastewater plants commonly required to meet water treatment standards and NPDES limits in the piedmont of North Carolina. The dashboard tool provides the ability to escalate facility costs if more advanced treatment is required.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 5
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Figure 5 - Alternatives Comparison
Adapting and updating the dashboard over time is not exclusive to the water demand and wastewater flow projections. The dashboard includes variables for capital and O&M costs that can be set and modified within a predefined range of values to simulate economic variability further refining the master plan as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Financial Variables
| FINAL - Executive Summary 6
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
2. Recommended Alternatives Summary
The recommended alternatives as presented herein for water and wastewater reflect the alternative that appears to best meet the needs for the Partners as a whole, and may not represent the preferred alternative for each individual Partner. Each Partner’s preferred alternative may be different based on their own particular circumstances and the value or weighting they place on a particular variable to include cost, potential implementation issues including institutional arrangement issues, water quality concerns, permitting issues, land acquisition availability, and implementation schedule feasibility.
2.1 Water Alternatives
2.1.1 Chatham County
Chatham County currently has three different water districts; Asbury, Southwest, and North. The population and demand projections show the majority of growth for the County is anticipated to occur in the North district. The Asbury and Southwest districts are currently capable of meeting all their demands for the foreseeable future with water provided through existing interconnections with Sanford. Water demand in the North district is predicted to increase from 3.3 mgd to approximately 4.5 mgd in year 2070. Chatham is currently meeting demands in the North system via their existing Water Treatment Plant on the east side of Jordan Lake, and from an interconnection with the City of Durham for up to 3 mgd. The interlocal agreement with Durham currently expires in the year 2029, though it is understood by both parties that the agreement can be extended until such time a new Water Treatment Plant is constructed on the west side of Jordan Lake (hereinafter referred to as the New Jordan Lake WTP). A nuance to Chatham County North system demands is the Moncure megasite. Chatham County has committed to provide 1 mgd of water to this site and has partnered with Sanford to construct a new interconnection to make the water available.
Alternatives evaluated for Chatham to meet projected demands in the North Service area are shown in the dashboard and summarized in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Appendix B.
Table 1 Summary of Water Alternatives for Chatham North (mgd)
Partner with New Jordan Maintain Abandon Total Capacity Alternative Sanford Lake WTP Existing WTP Existing WTP (mgd) W01, W02, 2 3 No 5 W03, W04 W05 1 4 Yes 5 W06 3 3 No 6 W07, W08, 1 4 Yes 5 W09 W10 1 1 3 No 5
| FINAL - Executive Summary 7
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
2.1.2 Pittsboro
Pittsboro is expected to see the most growth in Chatham County primarily due to the new Chatham Park development that is being constructed east of downtown. Maximum day water demands are projected to increase from 1.5 mgd in 2018 to 11 mgd in year 2070. Pittsboro’s water is currently supplied by a 2 mgd treatment facility with a run-of-river intake on the Haw River. The capacity of the plant is projected to be exceeded by 2024. Consequently, in order to continue to meet projected demands Pittsboro should develop new or expand their existing treatment capacity as soon as possible.
Pittsboro, through an engineering subconsultant (CDM Smith) has been evaluating the potential to expand their existing plant from 2 to 6 mgd. If feasible, expansion of the existing facility has the advantage of being completely under the Town’s control. The cost of expanding the existing facility may be more than other options due to the potential for higher levels of contaminants in the Haw River when compared with Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River. These contaminants could require advanced treatment technologies be designed and would increase operating costs. An additional benefit of expanding the existing facility would be system resiliency, presuming Pittsboro elects to participate in the New Jordan Lake WTP. Having two different water sources provides additional security in the event of a drought or of a major pipeline break, etc.
Alternatives evaluated for Pittsboro to meet their projected demands are shown in the dashboard and summarized in Table 2. More detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Appendix B.
Table 2 Summary of Water Alternatives for Pittsboro (mgd)
Maintain or Total Partner with New Jordan Expand Existing Abandon Capacity Alternative Sanford Lake WTP WTP Existing WTP (mgd) W01, W02, W03 9 2 No 11 W04 12 No 12 W05 3 8 Yes 11 W06, W07 5 6 No 11 W08, W09 3 8 Yes 11 W10 3 6 2 No 11
2.1.3 Siler City
Siler City is continuing to grow at a steady pace, in part due to the recent opening of the Mountaire Farms chicken processing facility. When the previous facility shut down in 2011 the Town lost a major water user reducing their water revenues, and as the primary employer this loss also affected the tax base. Siler City maximum day water demands are projected to increase from 3.0 mgd in 2018 to 9 mgd in year 2070. Siler City’s water is currently supplied by a 4 mgd treatment facility that draws from the Charles L. Turner Reservoir to the north side of Downtown. The capacity of the plant is projected to be exceeded in 2023. Consequently, in order to continue to meet projected demands Siler City should develop new treatment capacity as soon as possible. Expanding the existing facility is not a viable alternative as the safe yield of the Charles L. Turner Reservoir is reported as 4 mgd. This could not be independently verified because the only design drawings available were for the lowest portion of the “tiered” reservoir system. Another alternative that should be pursued is to
| FINAL - Executive Summary 8
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary identify and address leaks in the system and/or illegal taps. Siler City’s per capita usage for residents and employees is significantly higher than those seen in other parts of the County.
While costly, the only options available to the Town are to connect with another system with a long pipeline, and/or to augment their supply by rerouting the wastewater treatment facility discharge upstream of the reservoir. This later alternative could boost the safe yield by 2 mgd or more. The most plausible near-term option appears to be to partner with Sanford and design and construct a pipeline to the Sanford WTP. Depending on the path forward selected by the other Partners, the cost of this alternative for Siler City could be reduced if the pipeline capacity is shared.
Alternatives evaluated for Siler City to meet their projected demands are shown in the dashboard and summarized in Table 3. Alternatives W03 to W08 are not presented as expansion of the existing Water Treatment Plant is not feasible due to the limited safe yield. Alternatives W09 and W10 assume the existing wastewater treatment facility discharge is relocated to be upstream of the reservoir. More detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Appendix B.
Table 3 Summary of Water Alternatives for Siler City (mgd)
Maintain or Total Partner with New Jordan Expand Existing Abandon Capacity Alternative Sanford Lake WTP WTP Existing WTP (mgd) W01, W02 4 4 No 8 W09, W10 2 6 No 8
2.2 Wastewater Alternatives
2.2.1 Pittsboro
Maximum month wastewater flows are projected to increase from 0.5 mgd in 2018 to 6.0 mgd in year 2070. Pittsboro’s wastewater treatment plant is permitted for 0.75 mgd, and Pittsboro is currently in the process of permitting a new pump station and pipeline that will convey up to 2 mgd to Sanford’s Big Buffalo WWTP. In addition, Chatham Park is currently constructing a 0.5 mgd Water Reclamation Facility. Based on current projections Pittsboro needs to plan for a future facility capable of treating between 3 and 4 mgd. The Chatham Park development intends to incorporate reclaimed water into the facilities design, however it is currently unclear how much, if any, the reclaimed water would reduce the amount of required treatment capacity. Pittsboro’s current NPDES permit allows for a total combined discharge of 3.22 mgd (1.249 mgd to Robeson Creek; 1.971 mgd to the Haw River).
Alternatives identified for the Town of Pittsboro to meet its projected maximum month wastewater demands include a new WWTP sited near the current facility with discharges to the currently permitted locations, a New WWTP with a discharge to the Western Wake Outfall near Moncure, and/or increasing the amount of wastewater conveyed to the Big Buffalo WWTP for treatment. These alternatives and their assumed capacities are summarized in Table 4. More detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Appendix C.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 9
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Table 4 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives for Pittsboro (mgd)
New WWTP New WWTP (Discharge to (Robeson Discharge to Total Western Wake Creek/Haw Sanford’s Big Capacity Alternative Outfall) Discharge) Buffalo WWTP (mgd) WW06 3 2 5 WW07 3 2 5 WW08 2 4 6
All alternatives assume Pittsboro will continue to discharge a minimum of 2 mgd to the Big Buffalo WTP. Consequently, WW07 and WW08 will require the Town to obtain an interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate as both options assume an additional 2 mgd is transferred from the Haw River basin. However, an IBT would not be needed for these alternatives if Pittsboro partnered with Sanford for treated water at the Sanford WTP.
2.2.2 Siler City
Maximum month wastewater flows are projected to increase from 2.4 mgd in 2018 to 7.0 mgd in year 2070. The Town of Siler City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently permitted for 4 mgd. The NPDES permit includes a “Nutrient Reopener” that requires additional monitoring and may require limits for total nitrogen and total phosphorus due to the high nutrient wastewater that will be accepted from the new Mountaire chicken processing facility. The Town has agreed to provide up to 1.25 mgd of treatment capacity for Mountaire. With the 1.25 mgd in additional capacity, and with a minimum of 0.3 mgd required for the Chatham-Siler City Advanced Manufacturing Site (CAM), the facility is near 100% of its capacity.
Alternatives identified for the Town of Siler City to meet its projected maximum month wastewater demands included expanding the existing plant, expanding the existing plant and relocating the discharge upstream of the Charles L. Turner Reservoir, building a pump station and pipeline to convey wastewater to Sanford’s Big Buffalo WWTP for treatment, and/or constructing a new Land Application Facility. These alternatives and their assumed capacities are summarized in Table 5. More detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Appendix C.
Table 5 Summary of Wastewater Alternatives for Siler City (mgd)
Expand Existing Plant w/Discharge Discharge to Existing Upstream of Sanford’s Big Land Total Capacity Alternative Plant Reservoir Buffalo WWTP Application (mgd) WW01 8 8 WW02 8 8 WW03 4 4 8 WW04 6 2 8 WW05 1 1
The data reviewed indicate the Town has a significant amount of infiltration and inflow. An expansion of 2 mgd in the near-term is warranted, and it may be possible to avoid a future expansion
| FINAL - Executive Summary 10
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary if the infiltration and inflow issues are addressed. If a site near the Mountaire facility could be used for Land Application the flows could be offset by around 1 mgd, and the level of treatment required to be designed, constructed and maintained at the wastewater treatment facility may be able to be reduced given the Mountaire flows are high in nutrients. Alternatives that do not include conveying flow to Sanford appear to be the more economical. Further, if the Town is able to obtain a new NPDES permit discharge upstream of Charles L. Turner this would increase the safe yield of the Town’s water supply and facilitate an expansion of the Water Treatment Plant. All options are likely to require high levels of treatment to meet stricter nutrient standards.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 11
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
3. Conclusions
3.1 Recommended Water Alternative
The recommended alternative is W09. This alternative assumes Chatham County, Pittsboro, and Siler City partner with Sanford to meet their water demands in Phase A (Chatham @ 1 mgd, Pittsboro @ 3 mgd, Siler City @ 2 mgd). Phase B assumes Pittsboro and Chatham County demolish their existing facilities and codevelop a new water treatment plant on Jordan Lake, while Siler City expands their existing facility by 2 mgd. This alternative also assumes Siler City will relocate its existing wastewater treatment plant discharge 5 miles upstream of the Charles L. Turner Reservoir (alternative WW02) which is required to increase the reliable safe yield of the reservoir.
While this alternative is not the least cost alternative it is most favorable as it is able to be implemented more quickly than alternatives that involve a new Jordan Lake WTP, it improves system resiliency by utilizing two different water sources, and would provide flexibility with regard to the Town of Pittsboro’s wastewater treatment options by receiving water from Sanford that will offset wastewater flows transferred to the Big Buffalo WWTP. Further, this alternative may result in better water quality for Pittsboro as contaminants in the Haw River are likely more concentrated than those in Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River.
Chatham North can utilize its existing connection with the City of Durham until the new Jordan Lake WTP is constructed. Participating in the expansion of the Sanford WTP provides system resiliency by adding a second water source. When the new Jordan Lake plant comes online, Chatham North can meet all future demand requirements via the new Jordan Lake WTP and can abandon their existing WTP while maintaining the Sanford connection to provide water to the southern portion of the Chatham North service area.
The Town of Siler City does not have the yield needed in the Charles L. Turner reservoir to meet future capacity by simply expanding their existing plant. Coupling alternative W09 with wastewater alternative WW02 would provide system resiliency by adding the Cape Fear River as a second water source via the Sanford WTP. In Phase B the yield from the Charles L. Turner Reservoir could be increased by discharging treated effluent from Siler City’s WWTP upstream of the reservoir (minimum of five miles).
The Town of Pittsboro would add system resiliency by having two water sources; the Haw River via their existing WTP, and the Cape Fear River via the Sanford WTP. Pittsboro would also be able to meet their urgent need to increase water capacity by participating in a Sanford WTP expansion. Long term needs could then be met by partnering in the new Jordan Lake WTP and abandoning the existing Pittsboro WTP. Both Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River have significantly higher safe yields and are therefore more reliable as a water resource than the Haw River. In addition, Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River likely have much lower concentration of contaminants such as 1-4 Dioxane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 12
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
3.2 Recommended Wastewater Alternatives
3.2.1 Pittsboro
WW06 is the recommended alternative for the Town of Pittsboro. This alternative assumes the Town will construct a new WWTP and take advantage of their existing NPDES discharge permit with a new discharge to the Haw River. The permit allows for a total combined discharge of 3.22 mgd (1.249 mgd to Robeson Creek; 1.971 mgd to the Haw River). This alternative assumes Pittsboro will continue to send up to 2 mgd to Sanford’s Big Bufflao WWTP for treatment. This alternative was the least cost alternative.
3.2.2 Siler City
WW02 is the recommended alternative for the Town of Siler City. This alternative assumes Siler City expands their existing facility by 4 mgd in two phases of 2 mgd each. Siler City urgently needs additional wastewater capacity, therefore an expedited expansion is warranted. Due to impairment concerns in the Rocky River, and the recent opening of the Mountaire chicken processing facility, the expanded wastewater facilities will also require some advanced treatment processes to address nutrient loading. Efforts to reduce I&I should be simultaneously pursued and will serve to reduce per capita flow rates potentially reducing the urgency and magnitude of Phase B expansion. As part of the Phase B expansion this alternative assumes the wastewater discharge will be relocated upstream of the Charles L. Turner reservoir. The relocated discharge location is needed to increase the safe yield in the reservoir and provide the ability for Siler City’s existing WTP to be expanded to 6 MGD.
3.3 Dashboard Tool
By creating a master plan with an integrated dashboard framework like Microsoft's Power BI, the master plan includes powerful functionality to allow the Partners to quickly compare a variety of alternatives to meet their water and wastewater needs and visualize cost and timing impacts associated with each alternative. Furthermore, the master plan is designed to facilitate continuous updates and adaptations to refine decision-making for future alternatives. Adaptable conversion factors for water and wastewater flow, associated impact of cost for the various options, combined with the ability to select parameters for implementation dates and types, provide a fully interactive tool for the Partners. The dashboard serves as a tool to tell an everchanging narrative and provides a unique alternative to industry standard practice of developing a report style master plan. Finally, the ability to communicate necessary improvements, timing of those improvements and their financial impact to all stakeholders, such as town council members and public representatives, surpasses performance of previously implemented approaches due to the “working document” nature of an interactive dashboard.
| FINAL - Executive Summary 13
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Appendix A: Chatham County Utility Master Plan Dashboard – User Guide Downloading Power BI Desktop
To view the Chatham County Utility Master Plan dashboard, download Power BI Desktop (free version) at the link below. All transmitted .pbix files can then be viewed through the desktop application. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=45331
Power BI is updated monthly. The same link can be used to update to the most recent version of Power BI. This will ensure all current functionality is available for your use. As of the creation of this document, the most recent version was released in August 2019.
Preview Features
Prior to opening the dashboard .pbix file, open Power BI Desktop.
Select: File → Options & settings → Options → Preview features
Microsoft makes new features available here without forcing the user to take on all the features at once and allows the consumer to give feedback on new features. The Chatham County dashboard uses the Shape map visual which should be enabled under the Preview features tab shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Preview features currently available in Power BI
| User Guide 1
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Lock Objects
After opening the .pbix file, enable the Lock Objects option found under the View ribbon as shown in Figure 2. This allows the user to seamlessly navigate the dashboard without accidentally moving objects and visualizations.
Figure 2: View ribbon options within Power Bi
Changing the File Source Parameter and Updating the Data
While all data is cached into the Dashboard, a need may arise for updated data to be included. In order to upload new files, all the data must be linked to a local computer. First, save the “Data” folder and PowerBI dashboard on the computer or local network. Once the dashboard is open the data must be reconnected through a file source path to the local computer.
To reconnect:
Under the Home tab select: Edit Queries Icon → Manage Parameters Icon → Scroll to “Chatham_Data”
Copy the file path that leads to the location of the “Data” folder.
Example: O:\ RAL\32449\Engineering\Power BI\
Ensure the file path includes a "\" on the end to properly reference the file location then paste into the fields shown in Figure 3.
Select: OK → Close & Apply
The dashboard may take a few minutes to load but should return successfully to the main page.
Once completed, the files in the "Data" folder can be utilized to update the dashboard. The provided "Data Links Summary" document can be referenced to understand which files apply to each component of the dashboard.
| User Guide 2
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Figure 3: Managing parameters within the Query Editor
Notes
Power BI Desktop allows immediate access to the dashboard and all essential data is loaded into the .pbix file. This version requires the user to Ctrl + left click to utilize any buttons in the dashboard.
Currently, data associated with ESRI maps is stored in ArcGIS Online. If the user has an ArcGIS Online account, please let Hazen know and we can help make this data connection. We are also available to discuss obtaining an ArcGIS Online account if you are not familiar with this product.
For any additional questions or comments please contact: James Hennessy, PE Principal Engineer | Hazen and Sawyer 4011 WestChase Blvd, Raleigh, NC 27607 919 755-8603 (direct) | 919 833-7152 (main) [email protected] | hazenandsawyer.com
Alysondria Campos Eason, PE Senior Principal Engineer | Hazen and Sawyer 4011 WestChase Blvd., Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27607 919 833-7152 (main) | 919 863-9270 (direct) [email protected] | hazenandsawyer.com
| User Guide 3
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Appendix B: Water Alternatives
Description:
Expand Sanford WTP and maintain all existing plants. In Phase A all pipes are installed, Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. Phase B, Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro 6 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 1
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Expand Sanford WTP and maintain all existing plants. In Phase A, Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. Phase B, Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro 6 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. Phase B parallels Phase A pipes to increase capacity and defer capital costs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 2
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro and Chatham expand Sanford WTP in two phases. In Phase A, Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD. In Phase B Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro gets 6 MGD. Siler City expands their WTP in two phases in increments of 2 MGD to meet all future needs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 3
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro meets all future needs through the new Jordan Lake Plant, Phase A - 3 MGD, Phase B - 9 MGD. Chatham partners with Sanford to meet all future needs in Phase A (2 MGD). Siler City expands their WTP in two phases in increments of 2 MGD to meet all future needs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 4
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
All partners expand Sanford WTP in Phase A, Chatham 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. In Phase B Pittsboro and Chatham abandon their existing WTPs and partner with the new Jordan Lake Plant. Chatham gets 4 MGD, Pittsboro gets 8 MGD. In Phase B, Siler City expands their plant by 4 MGD.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 5
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro expands their existing plant in Phase A by 4 MGD. Pittsboro and Chatham join the new Jordan Lake Plant in Phase B, Chatham 3 MGD, Pittsboro 5 MGD. Siler City expands their WTP in two phases in increments of 2 MGD to meet all future needs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 6
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Chatham expands Sanford by 1 MGD and Pittsboro expands existing plant by 4 MGD in Phase A. Chatham and Pittsboro join Jordan Lake Plant in Phase B, Chatham 4 MGD, Pittsboro 5 MGD and Chatham abandons their existing WTP. Siler City expands their WTP in two phases in increments of 2 MGD to meet all future needs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 7
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro and Chatham expand Sanford WTP in Phase A, Chatham 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD. Pittsboro and Chatham join the Jordan Lake Plant in Phase B, Chatham 4 MGD, Pittsboro 8 MGD and both abandon existing WTPs. Siler City expands their WTP in two phases in increments of 2 MGD to meet all future needs.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 8
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
All partners expand Sanford WTP in Phase A, Chatham 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. In Phase B, Pittsboro and Chatham abandon their existing WTPs and partner with the new Jordan Lake Plant. Chatham gets 4 MGD, Pittsboro gets 8 MGD. In Phase B, Siler City expands their plant by 2 MGD.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 9
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
All partners expand Sanford WTP in Phase A, Chatham 1 MGD, Pittsboro 3 MGD, Siler City 2 MGD. In Phase B Pittsboro and Chatham partner with the new Jordan Lake Plant to meet future needs. Chatham gets 1 MGD, Pittsboro gets 6 MGD. In Phase B, Siler City expands their plant by 2 MGD.
| Appendix B: Water Alternatives 10
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives
Description:
Siler City expands their existing WWTP in two phases in 2 MGD increments utilizing their existing discharge.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 1
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Siler City expands their existing WWTP in two phases in 2 MGD increments but utilizes a new discharge upstream of the existing WTP.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 2
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Siler City sends 4 MGD to Sanford in two phases in 2 MGD increments. Phase B may result in an IBT.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 3
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Siler City sends 2 MGD to Sanford in Phase A. Expands existing WWTP by 2 MGD in Phase B.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 4
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Siler City implements a new 1 MGD land application process.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 5
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro builds a new 2 MGD WWTP with discharge to the Haw River in Phase A. Expands new WWTP by 1 MGD in Phase B.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 6
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro builds a new 2 MGD WWTP with discharge to the Western Wake Outfall in Phase A (results in an IBT if not offset with water from Sanford). Expands new WWTP by 1 MGD in Phase B.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 7
Chatham County Utility Master Plan FINAL - Executive Summary
Description:
Pittsboro increases discharge to Sanford by 2 MGD in Phase A and builds a new 2 MGD WWTP in Phase B. IBT in Phase A if not offset with water from Sanford.
| Appendix C: Wastewater Alternatives 8
Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix J- 1,4 Dioxane discharge data https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Resources/GIS/Data/Emerging_Co mpounds_Mastersheet_12202019.pdf
16-Oct-20 17 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report
-Appendix K- CDM Smith Draft Report Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study
16-Oct-20 18 TOWN OF PITTSBORO
Photo courtesy: flickr.com/Donald Lee Pardue
DRAFT REPORT Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study August 2019 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 tel: 919 325-3500
August 1, 2019
Ms. Elizabeth Goodson, P.E. Town Engineer 480 Hillsboro Street Chatham Mills, Suite 400 Pittsboro, NC 27312
Subject: Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study Draft Report
Dear Ms. Goodson:
Enclosed please find five copies of the Town of Pittsboro Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study draft report for your review. Also enclosed is a USB drive with the draft document in PDF format. This report summarizes the work performed under this project including updates to water demand projections, assessment of existing water treatment facilities, evaluation of future water supply sources, and recommendations. The final Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants report dated May 29, 2019 is included as Appendix A of the draft report.
We look forward to receiving your comments on the draft report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. We thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Sincerely,
Sheryl D. Smith, P.E., PMP CDM Smith Inc.
Enclosures: 5 copies of draft report One USB drive with PDF files Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction 1.1 Project Purpose and Description...... 1-1 1.2 Background...... 1-1 1.2.1 Existing Water System ...... 1-1 1.2.2 Water Service Planning Area...... 1-1 1.2.3 Previous Studies...... 1-3 1.3 Report Format ...... 1-3 Section 2 – Water Demand Projections 2.1 Historical Data and Unit Demand Factors ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Residential Water Use Factor...... 2-1 2.1.2 Commercial, Industrial & Institutional Water Use Factor ...... 2-2 2.2 Population Projections (Excluding Chatham Park)...... 2-3 2.2.1 Scenario 1...... 2-5 2.2.2 Scenario 2...... 2-5 2.2.3 Scenario 3...... 2-5 2.2.4 Summary and Recommended Population Projections...... 2-5 2.3 Chatham Park Water Demand ...... 2-7 2.4 Bulk Sales...... 2-8 2.5 Non-Revenue Water...... 2-8 2.6 Total Projected Water Demands...... 2-9 Section 3 – Existing WTP Facilities Assessment 3.1 Existing Treatment Process...... 3-1 3.2 Existing Facilities Condition and Operational Assessment...... 3-1 3.2.1 Flow Data ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Chemical Dosage Data ...... 3-1 3.2.3 Raw Water Pump Station...... 3-2 3.2.4 Conventional Treatment Train...... 3-3 3.3 Treatment Assessment ...... 3-5 3.4 Recommendations for Expansion ...... 3-5 Section 4 – Water Supply and Treatment Options 4.1 Water Supply Options ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Haw River...... 4-1 4.1.2 Jordan Lake ...... 4-1 4.1.3 Interconnections...... 4-2 4.1.4 Summary of Water Quality...... 4-2 4.2 Water Treatment Options...... 4-3 4.2.1 Expansion of Existing WTP ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Construction of New WTP on Haw River ...... 4-6 4.2.3 Join the Western Intake Partnership (WIP) Regional WTP ...... 4-7 4.2.4 Purchase Water from Sanford...... 4-8 4.3 Summary of Water Supply and Treatment Options ...... 4-10
i Table of Contents Town of Pittsboro – Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study – Draft Report
Section 5 - Phasing and Alternatives Analysis 5.1 Summary of Alternatives ...... 5-1 5.2 Phasing...... 5-2 5.2.1 Alternative 1A ...... 5-3 5.2.2 Alternative 1B ...... 5-4 5.2.3 Alternative 2A ...... 5-5 5.2.4 Alternative 2B ...... 5-6 5.3 Evaluations of Alternatives...... 5-7 5.3.1 Cost ...... 5-7 5.3.2 Other Factors...... 5-8 5.4 Recommended Alternatives...... 5-10
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations 6.1 Summary...... 6-1 6.2 Recommendations ...... 6-2
Appendices
Appendix A Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Draft Report
ii Table of Contents Town of Pittsboro – Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study – Draft Report
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Pittsboro Water Service Planning Area
Figure 2-1 Projected Population within Pittsboro ETJ Figure 2-2 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Population Growth Trends Figure 2-3 Projected Chatham Park Water Demand Projections Figure 2-4 Projected Pittsboro Bulk Sales Water Demand Figure 2-5 Projected Pittsboro Average and Max Day Water Demands
Figure 3-1 Raw Water Pump Station Interior Figure 3-2 Sedimentation Basins Figure 3-3 0.4 MG Clearwell Figure 3-4 Finished Water Pumps Figure 3-5 WTP Upgrades for Expansion to 4 MGD Figure 3-6 WTP Upgrades for Expansion to 6 MGD Figure 3-7 Raw Water Intake Upgrades for Expansion to 6 MGD
Figure 4-1 Potential Interconnection with Sanford Water System
Figure 5-1 Alternative 1A Water Supply and Cost Figure 5-2 Alternative 1B Water Supply and Cost Figure 5-3 Alternative 2A Water Supply and Cost Figure 5-4 Alternative 2B Water Supply and Cost Figure 5-5 Conceptual Capital Cost of Alternatives Figure 5-6 Conceptual Evaluation of Alternatives
iii Table of Contents Town of Pittsboro – Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study – Draft Report
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Pittsboro Residential Demand Factor Calculations Table 2-2 Pittsboro Commercial and Industrial Demand Factor Calculations Table 2-3 TAZ Population estimates within the Town water service planning area (excluding Chatham Park) Table 2-4 Scenarios 1 -3 Population Projections for Planning Years (Excluding Chatham Park Development) Table 2-5 Chatham Park Average Day Water Demands Table 2-6 Historical Non-Revenue Water Fractions Table 2-7 Water Demand Projections
Table 3-1 Historic Plant Operational Data from Available MORs (since 2015) Table 3-2 Historic Plant Chemical Dosage Data from Available MORs (2015-2019) Table 3-3 Process Additions/ Improvements for Expansions to 4 and 6 MGD Table 3-4 Chemical Storage Needed for 4 MGD and 6 MGD Expansions
Table 4-1 Water Quality of Raw Water Supply Sources Table 4-2 Emerging Contaminants in Water Supply Sources Table 4-3 Conceptual Costs of Expanding Existing WTP to 4 or 6 MGD Table 4-4 Conceptual Costs of a new 6 or 8 MGD WTP Table 4-5 Summary of WIP Regional WTP Table 4-6 Summary of Water Supply and Treatment Options
Table 5-1 Summary of Water Supply Capacity for Alternatives Table 5-2 Conceptual Capital Costs
iv
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Project Purpose and Description The Town of Pittsboro (Town) provides public water services to a population of approximately 4,700 people. The Town has been growing steadily over the past decade but, is expected to experience a significant increase in growth with the construction of the new Chatham Park development on the eastern side of the Town. Consequently, a significant and steady increase in the Town’s water demand is expected to begin in the near-term, and continue for several decades.
The Town selected CDM Smith to perform a Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study to evaluate the options for providing adequate, reliable and safe water supply to meet the future water demands. The primary objectives of the study are: 1) update water demand projections; 2) assess the existing water treatment facilities; 3) evaluate future water supply sources and treatment expansion alternatives; and 4) provide recommendations and implementation plan.
This report summarizes the findings of the Water Supply and Treatment Expansion Study. 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Existing Water System The Town operates a water treatment plant (WTP) located approximately two miles from the Haw River in northern Pittsboro near US Highway 15/501. The WTP treats raw water from the Haw River using a conventional treatment process. The WTP has a permitted capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD). In 2018, the average day demand (ADD) was 0.60 MGD and the maximum day demand (MDD) was 0.99 MGD. Thus, the MDD was 50 percent of the treatment capacity in 2018.
Treated water is supplied to the distribution system which consists of approximately 45 miles of water pipe and 3 elevated water storage tanks. The existing distribution system pipes and treatment plant location are shown on Figure 1-1. Additionally, the Town provides bulk water sales to the Chapel Ridge Subdivision located northwest of the Town in accordance with a contract with Aqua. The Town maintains an emergency water supply connection with Chatham County in the northern part of the system near Bynum.
In 2017 the Town had a total of 1,684 residential water customer accounts and 320 commercial water customer accounts. 1.2.2 Water Service Planning Area The planning area for this study consists of the entire Town of Pittsboro extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), as shown on Figure 1-1. The area for the planned Chatham Park development is also shown on Figure 1-1.
1-1 Chapel Ridge (Bulk Customer)
Chatham County Interconnection
Q3
UT UT
UT
Legend
Water Service Planning Area (Pittsboro ETJ) Pittsboro Town Limits Chatham Park Development Area Q3 Water Treatment Plant UT Water Storage Tank Water Mains
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Figure 1-1 Pittsboro Water Service Planning Area Section 1 • Introduction
1.2.3 Previous Studies This study updates and builds upon the findings of the following previous reports related to the Pittsboro water supply system:
▪ Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan Volume II: Regional Water Supply Alternative Analysis (April 2014). This report was prepared with cooperation from the Jordan Lake Partnership members and Triangle J Council of Governments to develop alternative regional water supply strategies to meet the future water supply needs of the Triangle Region, including the Town of Pittsboro. ▪ Town of Pittsboro Jordan Lake Allocation Request (November 2014). This report provides supporting information for the Town’s request for a water supply allocation of 6 MGD from Jordan Lake, which was subsequently granted. ▪ Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study (October 2014). This report presents alternatives to support a focus group of the Jordan Lake Partners, referred to as the Western Intake Partnership (WIP), in planning for the potential collaborative development of water withdrawal, treatment, and transmission facilities on the western side of B. Everett Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). ▪ Chatham Park Planned Development District Master Plan (August 2015). This report presents plans for the Chatham Park development. Additional information on Chatham Park water demands from the Chatham Park North Village Small Area Plan (March 2017) and Chatham Park Utility Master Plan (in progress) was also incorporated into this study. 1.3 Report Format The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 2 – Water Demand Projections
Section 3 – Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Section 4 – Water Supply and Treatment Options
Section 5 – Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
Section 6 – Summary and Recommendations
1-3
Section 2 Water Demand Projections
The water demand projections for the Town were developed based on various available data sources for different sectors of demand including residential, commercial, specific developments (Chatham Park), bulk sales, and non-revenue water. The following data sources were reviewed to develop the water demand projections:
▪ North Carolina (NC) Department of State Treasurer Financial Information for Pittsboro from 2014-2017; includes water production and water sales volumes broken down by residential and non-residential ▪ Number of customer accounts by category for 2014-2017 provided by Town staff ▪ Average annual and peak daily raw water and finished water flows at the WTP for 2010- 2018 provided by Town staff ▪ Population projections by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2045 Metro Transportation Plan - Triangle Regional Model ▪ Water Model Analysis for Northside Development Report (May 2016); provides information on assumptions for bulk sales at buildout to Chapel Ridge subdivision ▪ Information on Chatham Park water and sewer demands from: Draft Chatham Park South sewage demand projections from the Chatham Park Utility Master Plan (April 2019); Chatham Park North Village Reclaimed Water Service Options Memo (April 2019); North Village Small Area Plan and North Village Fiscal Impact Analysis (March 2017) ▪ Town of Pittsboro Jordan Lake Allocation Request Report (November 2014); includes previous water demand projections for the Town
The water demands presented in this report highlight planning years 2025, 2030, 2045 and 2060. The methodology and resulting demand projections are discussed in the following sections. The demand projections are also compared to those previously developed for the 2014 Town of Pittsboro Jordan Lake Allocation Request (2014 Allocation Request). 2.1 Historical Data and Unit Demand Factors Historical water usage and customer account data was reviewed to determine unit demand factors that describe the Town’s water usage trends in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for both residential and commercial/institutional/industrial water use categories. 2.1.1 Residential Water Use Factor The residential water use factor was calculated for 2014 through 2017 by comparing the number of residential water accounts with the volume of water billed to residential accounts for the year. It was assumed that every residential water account is equivalent to one household and each household has an average of 2.33 people, based on 2010 US Census data for the Town. The
2-1 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections average daily residential water use was divided by the total estimated population of residents served.
As given in Table 2-1, the residential demand factor ranged from 63 to 72 gpcd from 2014 through 2017. For planning purposes, a demand factor greater than the historical average, but less than the absolute maximum is typically recommended. Therefore the 90th percentile residential demand factor of 70 gpcd was used to conservatively estimate future residential demand for this study. This compares well with the assumptions used in the 2014 Allocation Request of 60 gpcd for new homes.
Table 2-1. Residential Demand Factors Residential Residential Water Population3 Residential Unit Year Demand 1 (gpd) Accounts2 (persons) Demand (gpcd) 2014 235,945 1,603 3,735 63 2015 274,795 1,644 3,831 72 2016 242,247 1,663 3,875 63 2017 258,685 1,684 3,924 66 90th percentile 70 Average 66 1) From NC Department of State Treasurer Financial Information for Pittsboro 2) From information provided by Town staff 3) Based on 2.33 persons per household from 2010 US Census data for Pittsboro
2.1.2 Commercial, Industrial & Institutional Water Use Factor Based on discussions with the Town, the relative portion of future demand from commercial/industrial/institutional users versus residential users is expected to remain the same as the Town grows, meaning that the commercial/industrial/institutional growth will increase commensurate with residential growth. Currently, there is no known information for any large industrial or institutional water users that would be located in the Town’s water service planning area. Therefore, a commercial/industrial/institutional demand factor was developed on a per-capita basis to estimate future water demands for these categories.
The water demand factor was determined by subtracting the residential and bulk demands from the volume of billed water for each year, non-residential, and bulk annual water use data from 2014 to 2017. The resulting average commercial/industrial/institutional water use was divided by the total estimated population of residents served (using the same assumptions as the residential factor).
As given in Table 2-2, the commercial/industrial/institutional water demand factor ranged from 32 to 60 gpcd from 2014 through 2017. For planning purposes, a demand factor greater than the historical average, but less than the absolute maximum is typically recommended. Therefore the 90th percentile residential demand factor of 56 gpcd was used to conservatively estimate future commercial/industrial/institutional demand for this study. For comparison, the assumptions used in the 2014 Allocation Request was 46 gpcd for commercial/industrial/institutional demands.
2-2 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
Table 2-2. Commercial and Industrial Demand Factors Total Commercial, Industrial & Residential Commercial, Industrial Institutional Water Water Population3 & Institutional Unit Year Usage1 (gpd) Accounts2 (persons) Demand4 (gpcd) 2014 123,000 1,603 3,735 33 2015 122,288 1,644 3,831 32 2016 186,123 1,663 3,875 48 2017 233,849 1,684 3,924 60 90th percentile 56 Average 43 1) Calculated as total billed water from NC Department of State Treasurer Financial Information for Pittsboro minus residential billed water and bulk water (with bulk demand assumed to be constant at 23 million gallons per year, or 63,000 gpd.). 2) From information provided by Town staff. 3) Based on 2.33 persons per household from 2010 US Census data for Pittsboro. 4) Although the commercial demand factor is higher in 2016 and 2017, preliminary data from 2018 indicates that 2018 commercial demand factor was closer to 2014 and 2015, thus the increasing trend is not sustained for 2018.
2.2 Population Projections (Excluding Chatham Park) Population projections for the Town’s water service planning area are based on TAZ data developed by the CAMPO for the 2045 Metro Transportation Plan - Triangle Regional Model. The TAZ were overlaid with the water service planning area, which includes the entire Pittsboro ETJ. The TAZ that overlap with the proposed Chatham Park development were excluded from this analysis; specific water demand projections for Chatham Park are discussed in Section 2.3.
The base population (2013) and long-term future projected population (2045) from the CAMPO data were summed for each TAZ that falls within the water service planning area and compared with the existing population served by the Pittsboro water system, as summarized in Table 2-3. In instances where only a portion of the TAZ is included in the planning area, the population was scaled based on the percent of TAZ land area within the planning area. Based on this, approximately 62 percent of the base population in the water service planning area is currently provided Town water services. Figure 2-1 shows the TAZ areas with the projected increase in population between the base year to the long-term projections.
Table 2-3. TAZ Population Estimates within the Pittsboro water service planning area (excluding Chatham Park) Approximate Population Description (persons) Base (2013) Population within Entire Water Service Planning Area (Pittsboro ETJ) 6,400 Population Currently Served by Pittsboro Water System1 4,000 Long-Term (2045) Projected Population within Entire Water Service Planning Area2 17,700 1) The difference between the base population and the current population served generally includes those who are outside of the town limits. 2) Includes existing population in all water service planning area TAZs; but no growth in TAZs that include Chatham Park development.
2-3 485
454
217 2,326 127 4,579 2,501 796
2,601 1,307 1,407
766 Legend Water Mains Pittsboro Town Limits Chatham Park Development Area Water Service Planning Area (Pittsboro ETJ) TAZ Boundary TAZ (Excluding Chatham Park) with 2045 Projected Total Population
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Figure 2-1 Miles Projected Population within Pittsboro ETJ (2045 population from TAZ; Excluding Chatham Park) Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
Three scenarios were developed to estimate the population that may be served by the Pittsboro water system in the future based on TAZ future population estimates. The scenarios differ in the assumptions for the percentage of the water service planning area served by the Town and the timing of extensions of water service to currently un-served portions of the planning area. Since the CAMPO TAZ population projections only extend through 2045 but this study extends through a planning year of 2060, the growth between 2045 and 2060 is estimated based on a similar growth rate for the previous years. These scenarios are described in the following sections. 2.2.1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 assumes that the Town provides water service to a similar percentage (approximately 60 percent) of the entire water service planning area population in 2045 as is currently served. This results in an estimated annual growth rate of approximately 3.7percent per year. It is assumed that this rate of growth also continues from 2045 to 2060. The estimated water system populations for planning years 2025, 2030, 2045, and 2060 were estimated to be 5,300, 6,300, 10,900and 18,700, respectively. 2.2.2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2, the most aggressive growth scenario, assumes that the Town serves all existing population within the entire water service planning area and all new population within the entire water service planning area by 2045. This results in an estimated annual growth rate of approximately 5.6 percent per year to the water system through 2045. After 2045, it was assumed that the Town will continue to grow at a rate similar to prior to 2045, except all of the existing population will already be served. Therefore, the rate for new population growth to the water system from 2045 to 2060 is approximately 4.5 percent per year. The populations in 2025, 2030, 2045, and 2060 were estimated to be 6,200, 8,100, 18,400, and 35,000, respectively. 2.2.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 is a modified version of Scenario 1 in which all new growth to the water system is attributed to Chatham Park through 2030. Between 2030 and 2045, the population served by the water system catches up to the estimated population served in scenario 1. Therefore, the growth rate within the water service planning area (excluding Chatham Park) prior to 2030 is assumed to be nearly 0 percent, and the estimated annual growth rate between 2030 and 2045 is approximately 7.1 percent per year and the estimated annual growth rate between 2045 and 2060 is approximately 3.7 percent. The populations in 2025, 2030, 2045, and 2060 were estimated to be 4,000, 4,000, 10,900, and 18,700, respectively. 2.2.4 Summary and Recommended Population Projections Table 2-4 presents a summary of the projected population served by the water system, excluding growth in the Chatham Park development (discussed in Section 2.3), for the various planning years under each of the three scenarios. Figure 2-2 shows the population projections from 2018 through 2060 for each scenario.
2-5 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
Table 2-4. Scenarios 1 through 3 Population Projections for Planning Years (Excluding Chatham Park Development) Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 2025 5,300 6,200 4,000 2030 6,300 8,100 4,000 2045 10,900 18,400 10,900 2060 18,700 35,000 18,700
Scenario 3, which represents more modest growth in the near-term, was selected for determination of the water demand projections from the water service planning area excluding Chatham Park development. Consequently, the population served by the water system within the Town of Pittsboro is estimated to remain stable until 2030 as Chatham Park is assumed to be the major source of new growth during this time. The residential and commercial peaking factors were applied to the projected populations in Scenario 3 to determine the residential and commercial/ industrial/ institutional water demand. Overall water demand projections are presented by category in Section 2.6.
Figure 2-2. Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Population Growth Trends (Excluding Chatham Park Development)
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
(persons) 15,000
10,000
5,000 Project Population Served by Pittsboro 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
2-6 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
2.3 Chatham Park Water Demand The water demands for the Chatham Park development were estimated separately from the remainder of the Town’s water service planning area. The estimates are based on planning information provided by the Chatham Park developers. The latest information is from the draft Chatham Park South Sewage Demand Projections from April of 2019, estimating the Chatham Park build out water demand at 6.54 MGD. The wastewater flow estimates were converted to water demands assuming that 75 percent of the water demand is returned as wastewater flow (consistent with the return percentage assumed in previous Chatham Park planning documents). The latest estimates for potable water demand in Chatham Park were similar to the demands previously given in the Chatham Park Master Plan (2015) and North Village Small Area Plan (2017); therefore, the updated demands numbers were applied to the Chatham Park phasing described in previous reports.
The North Village Small Area Plan detailed the phasing for each year until build out of the wastewater for all of Phase 1 (North Village), beginning in 2018. Based on information from Town staff, the start of construction for North Village is scheduled to begin as early as late 2019. The water demand from Chatham Park was then assumed to start in 2020. Therefore, the phasing for water demand in North Village was pushed out two years, starting in 2020 and ending in 2038 with a build out demand of 1.7 MGD. The final build out for Chatham Park was also pushed out two years to 2062 to account for the late construction start. No phasing of water demands or wastewater flows were given for Phases 2-6 (South Village), but based on the roughly equal residential and commercial compositions planned for these phases as well as the years of construction given in the development schedule of phasing and land use plan, a linear growth pattern was applied for Phases 2-6. Therefore, the remaining 4.86 MGD South Village Chatham Park demand after build out of North Village was spread out linearly from 2038 to 2062. Table 2- 5 and Figure 2-3 shows the estimated Chatham Park water demand to 2060.
Table 2-5. Chatham Park Average Day Water Demands Additional Water Total Water Demand Phase Assumed Year Demand (MGD) (MGD) Phase 1 – North Village 2020 through 2038 1.70 1.70 Phase 2 – South Village 2038 through 2042 0.81 2.51 Phase 3 – South Village 2042 through 2047 1.01 3.52 Phase 4 – South Village 2047 through 2052 1.02 4.54 Phase 5 – South Village 2052 through 2057 1.01 5.55 Phase 6 – South Village 2057 through 2062 1.01 6.56
2-7 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
Figure 2-3. Projected Chatham Park Water Demand
7.00 Phase 6
6.00 Phase 5
5.00 Phase 4
4.00 Phase 3
3.00 Phase 2
2.00 Phase 1
Average Average Water Day Demand (MGD) 1.00
- 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year
2.4 Bulk Sales The Town provides bulk sales of water to one customer via Pittsboro’s contract with Aqua to serve the Chapel Ridge subdivision. The most recent demand information for Chapel Ridge indicated a demand of 23 million gallons for the year of 2013 (0.063 MGD). It is assumed that the demand has remained constant through 2018. From the recent modeling study, the Chapel Ridge water demand at buildout was projected to be 0.4 MGD (Hydrostructures, 2016). For this analysis, based on discussions with the Town on anticipated development rates in the neighborhood, it is assumed that Chapel Ridge buildout will not occur until 2060 and growth will be linear between 2019 and 2060 as shown on Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4. Projected Pittsboro Bulk Sales Water Demand 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 Average Average Water Day Demand (MGD) 0.00 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year
2-8 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
2.5 Non-Revenue Water The historical non-revenue was calculated using the NC Treasury data. To calculate the non- revenue water, the volume of water billed to all customers was subtracted from the total volume of water put into the start of the system. The remaining water was used to determine the fraction of non-revenue water compared to the total volume of water put into the start of the system. Table 2-6 shows the non-revenue water rate varied from 12 to 35 percent from years 2013 through 2018.
The Town’s goal for non-revenue water is 10 percent of total water pumped to the system. In discussions with Town staff, it was noted that recent measures, such as replacement of meters and more detailed tracking of water use are expected to reduce non-revenue water in the future. Therefore, it was determined that an estimate of 15 percent non-revenue water would be applied to determine future non-revenue water demands for the water service planning area. The non- revenue water for Chatham Park, which is to include new piping, was estimated to be 10 percent.
Table 2-6. Historical Non-Revenue Water Volume of Water Put into Start of System Volume of Water Billed to All Fraction Non-Revenue Year (MGD) Customers (MGD) (%) 2013 0.545 0.416 24% 2014 0.518 0.422 19% 2015 0.704 0.460 35% 2016 0.559 0.491 12% 2017 0.693 0.556 20% 2018 0.641 0.488 24% Average 22% 90th percentile 29%
2.6 Total Projected Water Demands The total average day water demands projected for the Pittsboro water service planning area were determined by summing the following sectors of demand, as given in Table 2-7 for planning years 2025, 2030, 2045, and 2060:
▪ Residential demand (excluding Chatham Park) – determined by applying the residential demand factor of 70 gpcd to the residential population projections ▪ Commercial/industrial/institutional demand (excluding Chatham Park) – determined by applying the commercial/industrial/institutional demand factor of 56 gpcd to the residential population projections ▪ Chatham Park development demand ▪ Bulk sales to Chapel Ridge
2-9 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
▪ Non-revenue water – determined by applying the appropriate percentage of non-revenue water to the overall demand projections (10 percent for Chatham Park, 15 percent for all other demands)
Table 2-7. Water Demand Projections Bulk Total Residential Commercial Sales to Non- Average Total Max (Excluding (Excluding Chapel Revenue Day Day Chatham Chatham Park) Chatham Ridge Water Demand Demand1 Year Park) (MGD) (MGD) Park (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) 2025 0.28 0.23 0.75 0.11 0.19 1.56 2.49 2030 0.28 0.23 1.32 0.15 0.26 2.24 3.51 2045 0.76 0.61 3.12 0.28 0.64 5.41 8.49 2060 1.31 1.05 6.16 0.40 1.17 10.09 15.78
1) MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.7 was applied to all future demands except for the Chatham Park development. MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5 was applied to the future Chatham Park development demands.
The maximum day demand (MDD), which is representative of the largest demand to occur during a single day in a given year and dictates the necessary capacity of water treatment facilities, was determined by applying a peaking factor to the average day demands (ADD).
Based on review of recent finished water production data provided by the Town, the peaking factors have ranged from 1.6 to 2.2 between 2010 and 2018; however, in general, the peaking factors have decreased over the past decade. Therefore, an MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.7 was applied to all future demands except for the Chatham Park development. This represents the average peaking factor for the Town’s water system from 2016 through 2018 and is typical of what would be expected in a primarily residential community in this area.
An MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5 was applied to the future Chatham Park development demands. This peaking factor is lower than the rest of the system and reflects the assumption that reclaimed water will be used for a portion of the irrigation demand in Chatham Park. Figure 2-5 shows the final average daily and maximum daily water demands through 2060. These demands form the basis of the future water supply alternatives discussed in Sections 4 and 5.
2-10 Section 2 • Water Demand Projections
Figure 2-5. Projected Average and Maximum Day Water Demands
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00 6 MGD 8.00 4 MGD 6.00
Water Demand Water Demand (MGD) 2 MGD 4.00
2.00
- 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year Projected Average Day Demand Projected Maximum Day Demand Historic ADD Historic MDD
2-11
Section 3 Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
3.1 Existing Treatment Process The Pittsboro WTP treats raw water from the Haw River and has a permitted treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD. As of 2018, the average daily finished water flow was 0.6 MGD with a max day of 0.99 MGD. The current water demands are low enough to allow the plant down at night. The WTP uses conventional treatment processes including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and conventional filtration. The plant uses sodium permanganate as a pre-oxidant, ferric sulfate as coagulant, polyaluminum chloride as a flocculant, chlorine gas to meet the disinfection Concentration x Time (CT) requirements, and monochloramines to maintain a distribution system residual. It was noted during the meeting with WTP staff that the filters are to be rebuilt in 2019, switching to granular activated carbon (GAC) from anthracite coal and silica sand that are currently used. The WTP also dose the raw water with powdered activated carbon (PAC) using a carbon slurry for improved removal of contaminants including emerging contaminants. The finished water produced at the WTP meets all current regulations. 3.2 Existing Facilities Condition and Operational Assessment On a visit to the Pittsboro WTP on January 31st, 2019, CDM Smith met with the Pittsboro WTP staff to assess the existing facilities and discuss staff operational concerns. The plant was constructed over 50 years ago and has had multiple design upgrades as well as upgrades by the WTP staff and other minor improvements over the years. Overall, plant staff was pleased with functionality of the current equipment. 3.2.1 Flow Data The WTP has an and average and max raw water flow of 0.7 and 1.5 MGD, respectively. Flow and chemical dosage data from available monthly operating reports (MORs) from July 2015 to July 2018 (no data for January and March 2018) are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Historic Plant Operational Data from Available MORs (since 2015) Raw MGD Pumped Raw MGD Filtered Finished MGD Max. Filter Rate Day From Source Treated MGD Pumped (gpm / ft2)
Max 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 3.8
Average 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 2.7 Min 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9
3.2.2 Chemical Dosage Data Chemical use summarized based on available MORs is presented in Table 3.2. Carbon slurry data is not included in this table. Carbon slurry is a pre-treatment chemical used to remove total organic carbon (TOC); this dosage data was not included in the MORs. Sodium permanganate is
3-1 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment fed at the raw water pump station as a pre-oxidant. Based on the MOR data, these doses can vary widely. The plant feeds caustic for pH adjustment ahead of the coagulant. Ferric sulfate or poly aluminum chloride (PACL) are typical coagulants for the plant. Chlorine gas is the primary disinfectant used for CT credit. The chlorine is fed using gas cylinders (pictured below). Liquid ammonia is fed after CT is achieved to form chloramines.
Table 3-2. Historic Plant Chemical Dosage Data from Available MORs (2015-2019) Dose (mg/L) Chemical1 Min Average Max Sodium Permanganate 1.05 2.96 37.95 Pre pH Adjustment/ Caustic 0.00 14.14 32.24 Ferric Sulfate 92.83 152.77 206.18 PACL 23.38 41.11 56.52 Chlorine Gas (Filters) 0.49 1.53 2.99 Sodium Hydroxide 11.97 23.58 45.03 HydroFluosilicic Acid 0.00 0.39 0.78 Poly Phosphate 0.00 0.85 38.72 Chlorine Gas (Clearwell) 0.07 0.24 1.27 Ammonia 0.00 0.93 1.91 Chlorine Gas 2.57 4.66 8.81
1. Does not include raw water carbon slurry dosages 3.2.3 Raw Water Pump Station The Raw Water Pump Station is located approximately 1.5 miles away from the water treatment plant on the Haw River. The raw water intake is upstream of the dam, but there is an old existing intake below the dam. The plant has large intake screens. Drawings of the existing intake were not available. It is recommended that hydraulic testing of the of the intake be conducted in the future to establish the true capacity of the existing intake capacity. The raw water pump capacity is adequate for the existing 2 mgd facility but would need to be expanded to provide firm capacity for any expansion. Future expansion of the water treatment plant could involve expansion of the raw water intake or an additional intake.
The existing pump station has two raw water pumps (Figure 3-1). Based on nameplate data, one pump has a capacity of 2.3 MGD and 200 horsepower (HP) and the other pump has a capacity of 1.5 MGD Sodium permanganate is fed at the raw water pump station to maximize contact time. A photo of the raw water pump station is show below. The pump station is hydraulically adequate for the 2 MGD capacity. No drawings were available of the raw water wetwell. If expansion beyond 2 MGD is required, a hydraulic study of the raw water pump station is recommended. The wetwell configuration must be able to meet Hydraulic Institute Standards for higher capacity pumps. For example, firm capacity of over 4 MGD pumping would be required for a 4 MGD filtered water capacity at the water treatment plant.
3-2 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Figure 3-1. Raw Water Pump Station Interior
A 12-inch diameter force main conveys water from the pump station to the water treatment plant. Based on maintaining a velocity between 5 and 7 feet per second (fps) in the force main, the capacity of the force main is between 2.8 and 4 MGD. For expansion of the water treatment plant to 4 or 6 MGD, it is recommended that a parallel raw water main be installed to provide raw water to the existing treatment plant. 3.2.4 Conventional Treatment Train The plant, which runs on 480-volt electrical supply, currently has flash mixer that feeds three stage flocculation. Following flocculation, the water is fed to through a channel to five conventional sedimentation basins. The sedimentation basins vary in width from 15 to 21-feet wide. However, they are all 40 feet, 5-inches long (Figure 3-2). The basins all use perforated piping for sludge removal and manual cleaning.
Figure 3-2. Sedimentation Basins
3-3 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Settled water is fed to four conventional filters with surface sweeps. Based on the latest improvements to the filters, the media depth in the filters is approximately 24-inch GAC with 12- inches of gravel. The filters are operated at a loading rate of 3 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sf) for an overall filtration capacity of 2 MGD. The filters were to be rebuilt in early 2019 with GAC to replace the anthracite coal and silica sand. Other updates to the filters by Carolina Silverworks or S4 Water were to include restoring concrete, coating filter walls, and checking porcelain balls in Wheeler Bottoms for wear.
Filtered water is conveyed to a 0.4 MGD clearwell shown in Figure 3-3. After disinfection and CT is achieved, water is pumped into the distribution system at the high service pump station. The high service pump station has three existing pumps (shown in Figure 3-4). Based on our site visit, Pump No. 1 is not working. It is recommended that Pump No. 1 be repaired or replaced to maintain reliability or pumping capacity in the pump station as soon as affordable for reliability. The distribution pumps will need to be replaced or capacity increased to meet the system demands as capacity increases. The 0.4 MG clearwell will need to be increased in capacity to meet disinfection needs for larger flows as capacity increases.
Figure 3-3. 0.4 MG Clearwell
Figure 3-4. Finished Water Pumps
3-4 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
3.3 Treatment Assessment Emerging contaminants including disinfection byproducts (DBPs) and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a pressing concern for the WTP staff. As a separate analysis, an emerging contaminant evaluation was conducted and is attached as Appendix A. This memo presents the various treatment alternatives available to remove and reduce emerging contaminants. It is recommended that the Town conduct pilot testing to determine which advanced treatment or combination thereof would be most cost-effective for addressing the Town’s concerns regarding advanced treatment. If reverse osmosis (RO) piloting is conducted; a preliminary investigation of concentrate disposal options should also be included. Until advanced treatment facilities can be added, high doses of PAC provide some assistance for many of the emerging contaminants, but this should be viewed as a temporary measure due to the large amount of sludge generated and cost of PAC. The WTP staff began feeding PAC from Calgon in 2014 to reduce TOC, DBPs, and other emerging contaminants such as PFAS. The current tank for the PAC carbon slurry (~2,000 gallons) frequently requires refilling; therefore, the Town should consider the addition of new PAC storage and feed facilities such as a carbon silo. 3.4 Recommendations for Expansion The upgrades to the WTP are essentially those required to double and triple the current capacity. The current filter capacity is 2 MGD; therefore, the amount of filters would need to be doubled or tripled for a 4 MGD and 6 MGD expansion, respectively. The sedimentation basin capacity can be doubled or tripled in capacity via addition of settling plates or tubes within the existing basins. The additions to the WTP treatment structures are shown for expansions to 4 MGD and 6 MGD in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6, respectively and summarized in Table 3-3. The Town expressed interest in upgrading the size of some of the structures including the clearwell and gravity thickeners to accommodate an expansion to 6 MGD when expanding to 4 MGD, so that if the Town should expand to 6 MGD, the economies of scale would be realized in these facilities and until expansion to 6 MGD, additional capacity and flexibility would be available in those processes. It should be noted that Table 3-3 and conceptual cost estimate in Section 5 do not reflect the cost of expanding some of the facilities to 6 MGD in a 4 MGD upgrade. Upgrades to the raw water intake only include replacing the existing two raw water intake pumps. It is assumed that the existing raw water pump station can hydraulically handle 4 MGD. Should the WTP be expanded to 6 MGD, however, replacement of the existing pumps plus the addition of a new raw water intake pump would be required. This third pump would also need to be located in a prefabricated building and the raw water intake line to the WTP would need to be paralleled with a 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe. Upgrades to the raw water intake for an expansion to 6 MGD are shown in Figure 3-7.
It is recommended that the town consider dewatering in the future. Cost-effectiveness can be compared to the current approach as part of preliminary design of future facilities. This evaluation of cost-effectiveness should assess the addition of more thickener and clearwell capacity. Additionally, upgrades to the distribution system would be needed should the plant be expanded to 4 or 6 MGD, but distribution system study was beyond the scope of this report.
3-5 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Figure 3-5. WTP Upgrades for Expansion to 4 MGD
Figure 3-6. WTP Upgrades for Expansion to 6 MGD
3-6 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Table 3-3. Process Additions/ Improvements for Expansions to 4 and 6 MGD 4 MGD Expansion 6 MGD Expansion Quantity (if Item Needed? applicable) Needed? Quantity (if applicable) Raw Water Pump Station X Building Raw Water Intake Pumps X 2 X 3 Raw Water Intake Pipeline X 1.5 miles of 12” DI pipe with 200 ft of Improvements directional drilling Rapid Mix X 1 X 2 Flocculation Basin X 2 X 4 Addition of Plate Settlers X X Filters X 4 X 8 Extended Filter Gallery X X Gravity Thickener X 1 X 2 0.4 MG Clearwell X 1 High Service Pumps X 1 X 2 Chemical System Upgrades X X
Figure 3-7. Raw Water Intake Upgrades for Expansion to 6 MGD
3-7 Section 3 • Existing WTP Facilities Assessment
Due to the age and lack of information for the chemical equipment on site, it is recommended new pumping and storage be provided for expansions to 4 MGD and 6 MGD as appropriate and determined through preliminary design. Table 3-4 shows the required storage for each chemical used based on historic dosages used at the WTP. It should be noted that there was no dosage information given for PAC, but increased storage would be needed to hold the PAC slurry as well. Doses and design assumptions shall be verified during preliminary design. As expansions are planned, chemical doses should be re-evaluated for changes in process and chemical usage.
Table 3-4. Chemical Storage Needed for 4 MGD and 6 MGD Expansions 4 MGD Expansion 6 MGD Expansion Average Min Dose, Gallons of Storage for 30 Gallons of Storage for 30 Chemical Dose, mg/L mg/L days (average Dose) days (average Dose) Sodium 2.9 1.0 300 500 Permanganate Caustic (combined) 37.0 12.0 14000 21000 Ferric Sulfate 152.0 96.0 26500 40000 PACL 41.0 23.0 16400 25000 Chlorine Gas 6.4 3.2 6400 10000 (combined) HFS 0.4 0.0 200 300 Polyphosphate 0.9 0.0 200 300 Ammonia 1.0 0.0 1000 1400
3-8
Section 4 Water Supply and Treatment Options
This section presents and discusses the options for Pittsboro to expand water supply and water treatment capacity beyond the current system capacity on the basis of available capacity, cost, redundancy, and autonomy.
The options for water supply are discussed in Section 4.1. The options for treatment of raw water supplies are discussed in Section 4.2. Since none of these options alone are sufficient to meet the full water demands projected for the long-term planning periods, the options (as summarized in Section 4.3) were combined and phased into several water supply/treatment alternatives. These combination alternatives are discussed in Section 5 of this report. 4.1 Water Supply Options Pittsboro’s water supply options evaluated under this study include raw water supply from the Haw River or Jordan Lake, or water purchase via interconnections with neighboring utilities. 4.1.1 Haw River The Town current raw water supply is from the Haw River. The WTP may at this time withdrawal up to its permitted capacity of 2 MGD from the Haw River at the existing intake at Bynum Dam but maintains an available capacity of up to 8 MGD raw water supply from the Haw River. According to an analysis by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), the Haw river is classified as WS IV NSW and has a 20 percent 7Q10 flow of 8.91 MGD. The 7Q10 flow refers to a seven-day, ten-year low flow average. Therefore, up to 8 MGD may be safely withdrawn from the Haw River pending permitting approvals for future expansions. The Haw River is one of many tributaries that discharge into Jordan Lake.
The WTP staff have reported some concerns with the Haw River water quality related to detection of emerging contaminants such as 1,4-Dioxane, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection by-products (DBPs). The Haw River has high levels of bromide, making DBPs such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) frequent contaminants of concern for the Town. Therefore, advanced treatment processes should be considered when evaluating continued or expanded use of the Haw River as a water supply source as discussed further in Appendix A. 4.1.2 Jordan Lake In 2017, the Town’s allocation request for 6 MGD of average daily raw water supply capacity from B. Everett Jordan Lake was approved the NCDEQ Environmental Management Commission. The Town has received a Level 1 Allocation of 2 MGD and a Level 2 Allocation of 6 MGD. According to the NCDEQ, “Level 1 allocations are made based on 20-year water need projections and when withdrawals are planned to begin within five years of receiving the allocation. Level II Allocations are made based on longer term needs of up to 30 years.” The allocations, while given in terms of
4-1 Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options
MGD, actually represent a fraction of the supply pool since the water supply storage has an estimated safe yield of 100 MGD.
Jordan Lake is a man-made reservoir owned and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The lake’s water quality has continually declined since the lake was formed in the 1980s. The lake has several water quality issues, many of which can be attributed to algae within the lake due to the presence of excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Like the Haw River, Jordan Lake is also considered impaired for chlorophyll A, turbidity, and pH. The lake is consistently rated as eutrophic or hypereutrophic, experiencing seasonal variations with algal blooms. The algae can contribute to taste & odor (T&O) issues as well as release algal toxins. Two T&O compounds of concern for Jordan Lake are 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) and geosmin. Algal toxin monitoring is increasing and remains to be seen as far as future regulations. The existing process that can help removal algal toxins include oxidation (permanganate and chlorine) and PAC. While Jordan Lake has relatively high levels of manganese, the concentrations in the Haw River appear to be higher based on available data. 4.1.3 Interconnections The Town has an existing emergency interconnection with Chatham County. However, the capacity through this interconnection is limited by existing small pipelines (8-inch diameter with 3-inch diameter bottleneck). For this study, it is assumed that Chatham County does not have excess water supply capacity to provide a significant amount of water to the Town on a regular basis.
The City of Sanford treats water from the Cape Fear River. The Sanford WTP is located in close proximity to the headwaters of the Cape Fear River; formed from the convergence of the Deep, Haw, and Rocky Rivers. Sanford provides treated water to the City of Sanford, the Town of Broadway, Lee County, and portions of Chatham County. Based on information provided by the Town, Sanford has an excess water supply capacity that could supply up to 6 MGD of treated water to Pittsboro on a consistent basis. Consideration for transmission of water from Sanford to Pittsboro are discussed in Section 4.2.4.
The Cape Fear River is downstream of the Haw River, with a larger drainage basin, and consequently has the same contaminant concerns as all upstream sources. The City of Sanford does not currently have any advanced treatment in place at the City’s WTP. Should an interconnection be used to convey treated water from the Sanford WTP to Pittsboro, the increased detention time would likely also contribute to enhanced DBP production, among other water quality concerns. 4.1.4 Summary of Water Quality While Jordan Lake tends to have potential for organic contamination, especially algae-related issues, the Haw River has more issues relating to emerging contaminants. Specifically, the Haw River near the Pittsboro intake has historically had high levels of bromide, 1,4-Dioxane, and PFAS. The City of Sanford water quality would have similar issues with bromide, 1,4-Dioxane, and PFAS, though concentrations should be a little lower than at Pittsboro and higher than in Jordan Lake.
4-2 Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options
Table 4-1 shows the general water quality parameters of the Haw River raw water, Jordan Lake raw water, and the Cape Fear raw water. Table 4-2 presents data on emerging contaminants in the Haw River raw water, Jordan Lake raw water, and Cape Fear raw water. 4.2 Water Treatment Options Several options were evaluated for providing treated water to meet the Towns projected demands. These include:
▪ Expansion of the existing WTP ▪ Construction of a new WTP with Haw River raw water source ▪ Construction of a new regional WTP with Jordan Lake raw water source in conjunction with the Western Intake Partnership (WIP) ▪ Purchase of water from the City of Sanford, which are described in the following sections
Costs for treatment improvements presented in the following sections are at a conceptual level and were prepared using previous estimates for similar projects, historical data from comparable work, and estimating guides and equipment costs. Costs include a 30 percent construction contingency and 15 percent allowance for engineering, legal, and administrative fees. The costs are presented in 2019 values and reference an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for May 2019.
To provide an equivalent basis for comparison, the cost of treatment includes conventional treatment processes only; advanced treatment is not included in any of the options. However, advanced treatment should be considered to address emerging contaminants like PFAS in the water supply sources. Discussion of emerging contaminants and advanced treatment is included in the Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A. Specific needs and costs for advanced treatment would need to be further evaluated for any of the following options, but it should be noted that any advanced treatment on the Haw River will be more extensive based on the Haw River water quality. 4.2.1 Expansion of Existing WTP Based on evaluation of the existing facilities and site as discussed in Section 3, the Pittsboro WTP can be expanded to 4 or 6 MGD for maximum day treatment capacities. Expansion beyond 6 MGD is not recommended due limited land availability at the existing site and age of existing structures and facilities. Expanding the plant to 4 or 6 MGD would increase the current treated water supply by approximately 2 MGD and 4 MGD, respectively and would be within the 8 MGD available raw water supply from the Haw River. Details of the facilities to be expanded at the WTP are discussed in Section 3.
4-3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table 4-1. Water Quality of Raw Water Supply Sources* TOC Algal Blooms (since Phosphate Turbidity Hardness Manganese Iron Alkalinity (mg/L as Fecal/ E. coli
Water Source (mg/L) 2012) (mg/L) (NTU) Color (uc) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) CaCO3) pH (coliforms/100 ml)
Haw River Raw Water Avg: 5.91 02 Avg: 0.33 Avg: 23.13 Avg: 67.43 Avg: 42.73 Avg: 0.53 Avg: 0.73 Avg: 42.83 Min:6.73 Avg Max: 22203 Max: 10.81 Max: 1.43 Max: 445.03 Max: 289.03 Max: 70.03 Max: 1.83 Max: 5.23 Max: 82.03 Avg:7.63 Max: 9,7003 Max: 9.23
Jordan Lake Raw Avg: 6.54 522 Avg: 0.015 Avg Max: 8.225 Avg: 77.69 5 Avg: 34.85 Avg: 0.145 Avg: 0.215 Avg: 37.95 Min: 6.65 Avg Max: 2,4875 Water Max: 9.34 Max:0.115 Max: 82.55 Max: 245.05 Max: 39.55 Max: 3.165 Max: 1.665 Max: 45.25 Avg :7.25 Max: 24,1965 Max: 9.055
Cape Fear River Raw Avg: 6.86 12 Not Available Not Available Not Not Available Not Available Not Avg: 30.46 Not Not Available Water Max: 9.76 Available Available Max:436 Available
* Much of the data contained within the table is from different sources and time periods and is given as an approximation of the water quality from the water supply sources 1) Pittsboro WTP MOR data from July 2015 to December 2017 and Town of Pittsboro Public Water Supply Section data from January 2018 to June 2019 2) NC DEQ Algae Monitoring data from 2012 to July 2019 3) Pittsboro WTP MOR data from July 2015 – July 2018 (No January or March 2018 data) 4) Cary/ Apex Water Treatment Facility (CAWTF) data from December 2013 to August 2018 5) CAWTF MOR data from August 2017 to September 2018 6) Public Water Supply Section data from August 2017 to June 2019
1-1 Table 4-2. Emerging Contaminants in Water Supply Sources*
Water Source Bromide 1,4-Dioxane
(unless otherwise noted) PFOS (ng/L) PFOA (ng/L) Total PFAS (ng/L) (mg/L) THMs (µg/L) (Finished Water) HAA5 (µg/L) (Finished Water) (µg/L) Haw River Raw Water Avg: 44.11 Avg: 46.31 Avg: 354.81,3 Avg: 0.84a Town of Pittsboro WTP Finished Water: Town of Pittsboro WTP Finished Median: 78 Max: 346.01 Max: 137.01 Max: 1501.81,3 Avg: 0.44b Avg: 306 Water: Max 668 6 (11 tested) Max:0.34c Max: 1006 Avg: 10 6 August 2018: 41.72 August 2018: 73.22 August 2018: 1076.12,3 Avg:0.55 Avg: 357 Max: 30 7 Max: 2.35 Max: 557 Avg: 12 Max: 167
Jordan Lake Raw Water Avg: 139 Avg: 159 Avg: 146 9,10 Avg: 0.09 11 CAWTF Finished Water: CAWTF Finished Water: Avg: 0.2714 Max: 26 9 Max: 249 Max:285 9,10 Max: 0.2211 Avg: 3913 Avg: 1213 Max: 0.38 14 (39 tested) Avg: <0.412 Max: 7713 Max: 3113 Avg: 28 August 2018: 19.42 August 2018: 16.52 August 2018: 148.62,3 Max: <0.412 Avg: 397 Avg: 137 Max:28 Max: 497 Max: 217
Cape Fear River Raw May 2018 Sample: May 2018 Sample: May 2018 Sample: Station ID: B8 City of Sanford WTP Finished Water: Avg: City of Sanford WTP Finished Station ID: 7 Water 18 39 1409 (23 PFAS tested) Mean: 0.44a 51 Avg: 317 CPFBDL1 7 8 Median: <0.44b Max: 70 Max: 387 Median: 1 8 City of Sanford Finished City of Sanford Finished City of Sanford Finished Max: <0.14c Max: 1 Water: Water: Water: Station ID: B8 Avg: BDL15 Avg: BDL15 Avg: BDL15 Median: 38 Max: BDL15 Max: BDL15 Max: 2.915 Max: 158 (6 PFAS tested)
*Much of the data contained within the table is from different sources and time periods and is given as an approximation of the water quality from the water supply sources 1) Six samples from June 2013 through November 2013 provided by Detlef Knappe 2) One PFAS sampling event from August 2018 provided by Detlef Knappe 3) Total includes 11 PFAS 4) NC Division of Water Resources Bromide Monitoring Data from July 2017 to July 2018 5) NC Division of Water Resources Bromide Monitoring Data from June 2018 to October 2018 6) NC Division of Water Resources Bromide Monitoring Data from February to April 2019. This data includes 2 samples for the Haw River Location and 1 sample for the Cape Fear Harnett County Public Utilities Intake. 7) Daily samples at Haw River from June 2013 to December 2013 provided by Detlef Knappe 8) Data provided from the Pittsboro WTP staff 9) Public Water Supply Section Data from April 2014 to April 2019 10) NC Division of Water Resources 1,4-Dioxane Monitoring Data from October 2014 to February 2019. Haw River data includes 28 samples. Jordan Lake data is from CPFO87D “Jordan Lake at mouth of White Oak Creek near Seaforth and includes 4 samples. Cape Fear River data given shows two sampling points- one at CPFBDL “Buckhorn Dam Lake upstream of NC 42” and the other at B8 Cape Fear River at Harnett County Public Utilities intake (further downstream on the Cape Fear near Sanford). Station CPFBDL1 has 1 sample and station B8 has 30 samples. 11) CAWTF data from December 2017 to December 2018 12) Total includes 39 PFAS 13) CAWTF data from January 2014 to February 2019 14) NC Division of Water Resources Bromide Monitoring Data from June 2018 to October 2018. The datum shown for one sample was taken at the CPF087D “Jordan Lake at mouth of White Oak Creek near Seaforth”. 15) CAWTF 2013 to 2018 Data 16) CAWTF data including four samples from August to December 2018 17) UCMR data from June 2013 to March 2014 with 4 samples. Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options
Expanding the existing WTP is the most suitable option to meet the Town’s immediate water demands as this option could be accomplished on a shorter time frame than construction of a new WTP. When deciding whether to expand to 4 or 6 MGD, the Town should consider whether the increase in cost to expand to 6 MGD is worth the assurance of water supply in the near- and mid- term. The total costs for expanding to 4 and 6 MGD are $20 million and $30 million in 2019 dollars, respectively. The conceptual-level estimate for expansion are given in Table 4-3. Costs do not include adding advanced treatment processes or improvements to treated water conveyance/distribution beyond the finished water pumps at the WTP.
Table 4-3. Conceptual Costs of Expanding Existing WTP to 4 or 6 MGD Conceptual Cost of Expansion to 4 Conceptual Cost of Expansion to 6 MGD MGD Item (in Millions of dollars)1 (in Millions of dollars)1
Raw Water Intake $0.5 $2.1 Improvements2 Rapid Mix2 $0.5 $0.7 Flocculation2 $0.9 $1.3 Sedimentation2 $3.0 $4.4 Filtration2 $6.3 $9.1 Gravity Thickener2 $1.0 $1.5 Chemical Systems $1.4 $1.6 Improvements2 Site Work and Yard Piping2 $2.8 $3.7 Finished Water Storage2 $- $0.7 Finished Water Pumping2 $0.5 $1.0 Subtotal2 $16.9 $26.1 Engineering, Legal, Admin 15%2 $2.5 $3.9 Total3 $20 $30
1) Costs in 2019 dollars 2) Rounded to nearest $100,000 3) Rounded to the nearest $1,000,000
4.2.2 Construction of New WTP on Haw River Construction of a new WTP was considered on the Haw River. It was assumed that should Town use any of the Jordan Lake allocation of 6 MGD, then the Town would join in a Regional WTP with the WIP as this would substantially reduce the cost of a new WTP (discussed below in Section 4.2.3). The Town’s available water supply from the Haw River is assumed to be 8 MGD on an average annual basis. Therefore, it is estimated that capacities of the existing plant expansion and new plant cannot exceed 12 MGD (8 MGD with an MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5). A new 6 or 8 MGD WTP was considered for this evaluation. A 6 MGD and 8 MGD treatment facility would require an estimated 7.5 acres and 10 acres, respectively. A new WTP would likely be located
4-6 Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options near the existing raw water intake or downstream of the existing Haw River intake near Chatham Park, since the majority of the water service planning area growth is in the Chatham Park development.
Building a new WTP on the Haw River is beneficial as it would allow the Town to access a large portion of its total water allocation, the scheduling of which would be subject only to the water demands of Pittsboro. Unfortunately, the Haw River overall water quality would likely require more intensive advanced treatment processes than water from Jordan Lake.
The conceptual-level estimate for costs of a new WTP are given in Table 4-4. Costs do not include improvements to treated water conveyance/distribution beyond the finished water pumps, land acquisition, or advanced treatment processes.
Table 4-4. Conceptual Costs of a new 6 or 8 MGD WTP Conceptual Cost of New 6 MGD Conceptual Cost of New 8 MGD Plant Plant Item (Millions)1 (Millions)1
Construction2,3 $45.5 $59.8 Engineering, Legal, Admin $6.8 $9.0 15%2 Total4 $52 $69
1) Costs in 2019 dollars 2) Rounded to nearest $100,000 3) Includes 30% contingency 4) Rounded to the nearest $1,000,000
4.2.3 Join the Western Intake Partnership (WIP) Regional WTP The 2014 Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) presented a recommended alternative for developing regional water withdrawal, treatment, and transmission facilities on the western side of Jordan Lake. The Town is a member of the WIP, along with the City of Durham, Chatham County, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
The regional WTP is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phases 1 would construct a new 23 MGD regional WTP. Phase 1 would utilize 2 MGD of the 6 MGD Jordan Lake water supply capacity allocated to the Town and provide Pittsboro a treated water supply of up to 3 MGD on a maximum day (assuming the allocation is an annual average day and with an MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5 applied). Phase 2 would expand the regional WTP to 54 MGD and utilize the full 6 MGD allocated supply capacity. Phase 2 would provide Pittsboro a treated water supply of up to 9 MGD on a maximum day (assuming the allocation is an annual average day with an MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5).
The regional WTP would provide the Town with an economic advantage to share the cost of a 54 MGD regional WTP and pump station with four other partners. A summary of Pittsboro’s portion of the WIP Regional WTP capacity, availability, and estimated costs from the Feasibility Study are given in Table 4-5. Costs were escalated to May 2019 dollars using the ENR CCI. Costs for the regional WTP Phase 2 provide a greater treated water capacity return on investment as
4-7 Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options compared with the first phase. The costs in Table 4-5 include cost for the intake, treatment plant, finished water pumping, and finished water piping to convey water to the boundary of the Town’s water service planning area. Additional transmission piping or upgrades to existing piping would likely be required to convey water to distribution system customers, but is not included in the cost for equal comparison among the options.
The Feasibility Study indicated that once the project to design and construct the regional WTP is initiated it will take approximately 3 years for preliminary engineering, field evaluations and permitting, 2 years for property acquisition and facility design, and 3 years for construction – all assuming no major delays. Therefore, this study assumes that water from the regional WTP would be available to the Town in 2035 at the earliest. Therefore, joining the WIP Regional WTP does not afford the Town full autonomy to control its own water supply as the construction date is subject to change and dependent upon coordination with four other partners as well.
Joining the WIP Regional WTP, however, provides the advantage added redundancy for the Town of Pittsboro. Should something happen to the Town’s existing supply from the Haw River, the Jordan Lake intake can serve as an alternate intake and vice versa. Therefore, having two water supplies would provide the Town of Pittsboro with ample security concerning water quality issues.
Table 4-5. Summary of WIP Regional WTP Jordan Lake Regional WTP Parameter Phase 1 Phase 2 Projected Year of Constructed >2035 >2040 % of total WIP Jordan Lake Allocation 9.1% 16.7%
Pittsboro Average Day Capacity (MGD) 2 6 Pittsboro Max Day Capacity (MGD) 3 9 Pittsboro Capital Cost (Millions)1 $34 $24
1) Costs from the 2014 Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study; escalated to 2019 Dollars
4.2.4 Purchase Water from Sanford The City of Sanford has excess water capacity, therefore, an option for the Town is to purchase up to 6 MGD of treated water from Sanford via a future interconnection. Currently, the pipeline to convey this volume of water does not exist. Figure 4-1 shows the existing interconnections for utilities near Pittsboro as well as a potential route for an interconnection to convey 6 MGD between Sanford and Pittsboro (represented by the black and white line). The conceptual interconnection includes a 6 MGD pump station and approximately 15 miles of 24-inch pipeline. However, further evaluation is needed to define pipeline size, routing, and booster pumping (if needed). The conceptual cost for the interconnection is estimated to be $38 million.
4-8 Legend (! Existing Interconnections Water System Waterlines City of Sanford 8-inch or less Potential Interconnection (! (Sanford to Pittsboro) Lee County 10-inch (! )" Water Treatment Plant Town of Pittsboro 12-inch Town of Siler City 16-inch Water Service Planning Area (Pittsboro ETJ) Chatham County 20-inch Chatham Park Development 24-inch Area
(! )" )"
)"
(!
(!
)"
0 1 2 4 6 8 Miles Figure 4-1 Potential Interconnection with Sanford Water System Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options
In addition to the cost of the physical interconnection, the Town would incur volumetric and capacity reserve fees from Sanford. It is unknown at this time what those fees would be, therefore it is recommended that the Town enter into discussions with the City of Sanford to further define the full cost of water purchase should this option be selected for future water supply.
Purchase of water is beneficial in that it would provide redundancy with another water supply sources (Haw River and Jordan Lake). In addition, obtaining water supply from Sanford would help to offset interbasin transfer from the portion of the Town’s wastewater flow that is sent to Sanford for treatment.
However, the construction of 15 miles of pipeline to create the interconnection would be lengthy and not likely to be completed in the time frame to meet near-term growth in demand. This option would not afford the Town autonomy to secure this water demand, and the Town would also be subject to contractual changes in the cost and/or volume of water purchased. Additionally, as described in Section 4, the Sanford raw and finished water have several issues and the long detention time to convey the water from Sanford to Pittsboro would create an enhanced opportunity for DBP formation. Furthermore, the Sanford WTP may or may not incorporate advanced treatment processes into their treatment process in the future. Pittsboro would have little control over the quality of this water and would likely see an increase in cost should Sanford implement advanced technologies. Lastly, the full cost of this water is uncertain as Pittsboro may be charged not only for the volume of water purchased and the pipeline to convey the purchased water but would likely also have to contribute to the Sanford WTP operational costs if using a significant volume of water. 4.3 Summary of Water Supply and Treatment Options Table 4-6 presents a summary of the capacity, cost, and assumed availability of each water supply/treatment option evaluated in this study. Since none of these options alone are sufficient to meet the full water demands projected for the long-term planning periods, the options were combined and phased into several water supply/treatment alternatives. These alternatives are discussed in Section 5 of this report.
4-10 Section 4 • Water Supply and Treatment Options
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Supply and Treatment Options Average Day Max Day Cost1 Assumed Soonest Option Capacity (MGD) Capacity (MGD) (millions) Year Available2
Expand to 4 MGD 2.7 4 $20 2023
Expand to 6 MGD 4 6 $30 2023 Join WIP Regional WTP 2 3 $34 2035 Phase 1
Join WIP Regional WTP 6 9 $24 >2040 Phase 2
Construct New 6 MGD 4 6 $52 >2025 WTP on Haw River
Construct New 8 MGD 5.3 8 $69 >2025 WTP on Haw River Sanford Interconnect 4 6 >$383 >2025
1) Costs do not include advanced treatment or transmission improvements within the distribution system. Costs are given in 2019 dollars. 2) Permitting, especially for a new plant, could potentially take longer than indicated in this table. This table provides an estimate for the earliest the water supply alternatives may be operational. 3) Cost for Sanford Interconnect is the estimated pipeline/pump station capital cost. Does not include costs for water purchase and WTP capacity fees. Therefore, the cost of this option cannot be directly compared with the other options for water supply and treatment.
4-11
Section 5 Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
While there are various ways for Pittsboro to meet its projected future water demand, four phased alternatives were developed for this study based on the water supply/treatment options presented in Section 4. This section describes the alternatives along with cost and non-cost evaluation of each. 5.1 Summary of Alternatives The following alternatives for water supply and treatment were evaluated to meet the Town’s projected future water demands:
▪ Alternative 1A: Expand the existing Pittsboro WTP to 4 MGD, then obtain water supply from the WIP Regional WTP on Jordan Lake ▪ Alternative 1B: Expand the existing Pittsboro WTP to 4 MGD, then construct a new 8 MGD WTP with Haw River water source ▪ Alternative 2A: Expand the existing Pittsboro WTP to 6 MGD, then obtain water supply from the WIP Regional WTP on Jordan Lake ▪ Alternative 2B: Expand the existing Pittsboro WTP to 6 MGD, then construct a new 6 MGD WTP with Haw River water source
All of these alternatives assume that the 6-MGD Jordan Lake allocation is on an annual average day basis with an MDD:ADD peaking factor of 1.5 applied for a max day capacity of 9 MGD; and that the 8-MGD is available from the Haw River with an MDD:AAD peaking factor of 1.5 applied for a max day capacity of 12 MGD.
Considering the water demand projections presented in Section 2 and Table 2-7, the Town will need to expand the water treatment capacity beyond the current capacity of 2.0 MGD by 2023, primarily due to projected growth of the Chatham Park development. It is not feasible to complete any of the water supply/treatment options that involve construction of a new WTP, either with Haw River or Jordan Lake raw water source, in time to provide the additional water supply by the summer of 2023. Additionally, construction of a new large diameter pipeline for water supply from the City of Sanford would not likely be feasible to complete by the summer of 2023 considering all the planning, permitting, negotiating, costs, and contracting involved, and the fact that this option is similarly lacking advanced treatment as is the existing Pittsboro WTP so that should be factored into all options. Therefore, all of the alternatives assume an expansion of the existing Pittsboro WTP as the first step.
Alternatives “A” and “B” differ in the water supply source following the WTP expansion; “A” scenarios assume the Town joins with the WIP to construct a regional WTP on Jordan Lake while the “B” scenarios assume the Town constructs a new WTP on the Haw River. The full cost of purchasing water from Sanford is unknown at this time, therefore, this option was not included in
5-1 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis the water supply/treatment alternatives. Costs just for water transmission are substantial as discussed in this report, and costs for treatment would have to be recovered as well. However, water purchase remains a future option for water supply to the Town if economically feasible and cost-effective in comparison to other options.
It should be noted that none of the alternatives provides enough water treatment to meet the projected 2060 water demands. However, each alternative will meet the Town’s water demand projections through at least 2052. The total projected maximum day demand in 2060 is 15.8 MGD and the combined available water supply from the Haw River and Jordan Lake on a maximum day is equivalent to 21 MGD. Therefore, enough allocated capacity does exist from these two sources to supply 2060 demands. Table 5-1 summarizes the total water supply capacity, year through which the alternative can supply projected water demands, and percent of the allocated raw water supply utilized for each alternative.
Other water supply/treatment facilities will need to be developed beyond those in alternatives 1A through 2B to meet the full water demand through the 2060 planning year. This is something that the Town should evaluate in the future, as development occurs and long-term demand projections can be defined more accurately. When the Town begins to consider other options in the future, these may include whichever water supply/treatment option was not yet used whether that be construction of a new plant on the Haw River, joining the Regional WTP, or purchasing water via an interconnection (assuming these are all still viable options). Costs for these potential other options to meet 2060 demands were not shown so as not to skew the costs due to the uncertainty of demands in the long term.
Table 5-1. Summary of Water Supply Capacity for Alternatives Total Water Supply Additional Water Supply Needed for % of Water Supply Alternative (MGD) 2060 Projected Demands Allocation Used Jordan MGD Year1 MGD Haw River2 Lake3 1A 13.0 2054 2.7 33% 100% 1B 12.0 2052 3.7 100% 0% 2A 15.0 2058 0.7 50% 100% 2B 12.0 2052 3.7 100% 0%
1) Indicates the year through which water supply is sufficient to meet projected water demand. Other water supply sources would need to be developed beyond this year to meet the water demands. 2) Pittsboro’s Haw River available supply is assumed to be an 8 MGD annual average; equivalent to 12 MGD max day treatment capacity with a peaking factor of 1.5. 3) Pittsboro’s Jordan Lake allocation is assumed to be a 6 MGD annual average; equivalent to 9 MGD max day treatment capacity with a peaking factor of 1.5.
5.2 Phasing The phasing of treatment expansion and costs for each alternative is presented in graphical format. For each alternative, the blue line represents the Town’s projected maximum day water demand. The orange line represents the water treatment capacity, and the gray line represents the cost of the phased new water supply/treatment sources. Development of the costs for the individual water supply/treatment projects are discussed in Section 4. For simplicity, the graphs
5-2 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis show the additional water treatment facilities and cost in the year in which they are needed to supply water to the Town’s system. However, the Town will need to complete the phases of planning, preliminary and final design, permitting, bidding and award, and construction in years prior to the facilities coming online. Likewise, portions of the project cost will be incurred in the years leading up to project completion. 5.2.1 Alternative 1A Figure 5-1 shows the projected water demands with the water supply alternatives and associated costs of Alternative 1A. For Alternative 1A, the existing WTP will need to be expanded to 4 MGD by 2024, the first phase of the Regional WTP (3 MGD) will need to be complete by 2035, and the second phase expansion of the Regional WTP (additional 6 MGD) will need to be complete by 2043, for a total treatment capacity of 13 MGD. Beyond 2054, an additional 2.7 MGD of water will need to come for other supply/treatment facilities to meet the 2060 projected demands.
Figure 5-1. Alternative 1A Water Supply and Cost
18 Other 90 +2.7 MGD 16 80
14 Regional WTP Ph 2 70
12 60 +6 MGD 10 50 Regional 8 WTP Ph 1 40
6 Expand to 4 MGD +3 MGD 30 Cost (millions, 2019 $) 2019 (millions, Cost 4 +2 MGD 20 Water Demand and Supply (MGD) Supply and Demand Water 2 10
0 0 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055
Projected Max Day Water Demand (MGD) Total Supply (Max Day) Cost
5-3 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
5.2.2 Alternative 1B Figure 5-2 shows the projected water demands with the water supply alternatives and associated costs of Alternative 1B. For Alternative 1B, the existing WTP will need to be expanded to 4 MGD by 2024 and the new Haw River WTP (8 MGD) will need to be complete by 2035, with the potential to construct the facility in phases to meet demands, for a total treatment capacity of 12 MGD. Beyond 2052, an additional 3.7 MGD of water will need to come for other supply/treatment facilities to meet the 2060 projected demands.
Figure 5-2. Alternative 1B Water Supply and Cost
18 90 Other 16 +3.7 MGD 80
14 70 New 8 MGD Haw WTP
12 60
10 50 +8 MGD 8 40
6 Expand to 4 MGD 30 $) 2019(millions, Cost
Water Demand and Supply (MGD)andDemandSupply Water 4 20 +2 MGD
2 10
0 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Projected Max Day Water Demand (MGD) Total Supply (Max Day) Cost
5-4 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
5.2.3 Alternative 2A Figure 5-3 shows the projected water demands with the water supply alternatives and associated costs of Alternative 2A. For Alternative 2A, the existing WTP will need to be expanded to 6 MGD by 2024, the first phase of the Regional WTP (3 MGD) will need to be complete by 2041, and the second phase expansion of the Regional WTP (additional 6 MGD) will need to be complete by 2047, for a total treatment capacity of 15 MGD. Beyond 2058, an additional 0.7 MGD of water will need to come for other supply/treatment facilities to meet the 2060 projected demands.
Figure 5-3. Alternative 2A Water Supply and Cost
18 90 Regional WTP Ph 2 16 80
14 70 +6 MGD Other 12 Regional +0.7 MGD 60 WTP Ph 1 10 50
8 Expand to 6 MGD +3 MGD 40
6 30 $) 2019(millions, Cost +4 MGD 4 20 Water Demand and Supply (MGD)andDemandSupply Water
2 10
0 0 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 Projected Max Day Water Demand (MGD) Total Supply (Max Day) Cost
5-5 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
5.2.4 Alternative 2B Figure 5-4 shows the projected water demands with the water supply alternatives and associated costs of Alternative 2B. For Alternative 2B, the existing WTP will need to be expanded to 6 MGD by 2024 and the new Haw River WTP (6 MGD) will need to be complete by 2041, with the potential to construct the facility in phases to meet demands, for a total treatment capacity of 12 MGD. Beyond 2052, an additional 3.7 MGD of water will need to come for other supply/treatment facilities to meet the 2060 projected demands.
Figure 5-4. Alternative 2B Water Supply and Cost 18 90
16 80 New 6 MGD Haw WTP 14 70
12 60 Other 10 +6 MGD +3.7 MGD 50 Expand to 6 MGD 8 40
6 30 Cost (millions, 2019 $) 2019(millions, Cost +4 MGD 4 20 Water Demand and Supply (MGD) Supply and Demand Water
2 10
0 0 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 Projected Max Day Water Demand (MGD) Total Supply (Max Day) Cost
5-6 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
5.3 Evaluation of Alternatives 5.3.1 Cost The phasing of conceptual capital costs for each alternative is compared in Figure 5-5. As discussed previously the costs are shown in the year in which they are needed to supply water to the Town’s system for comparison. However, the Town will incur portions of the project costs for planning, design, permitting, and construction in years leading up to completion. To determine the impact of these projects and their phasing to the Town’s customers, it is recommended that a rate study be conducted for the selected alternative. The total cost for each alternative is summarized in Table 5-2.
Although advanced treatment processes will likely be desirable to address emerging contaminants in the water supply sources, the costs presented in Figure 5-5 do not include advanced treatment to provide a like-for-like comparison of all options. Conceptual costs for different advanced treatment options are presented in the Report included in Appendix A and would apply to all options. In addition, the costs do not include improvements to the Town’s water distribution system to transmit the water to customers since a distribution system evaluation was beyond the scope of this study. It is recommended that the Town conduct a study of the distribution system for the selected water supply/treatment alternative.
Figure 5-5. Conceptual Capital Cost of Alternatives $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 Cost (millions, 2019)(millions, Cost $20 $10 $- 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2B - 6MGD Expansion; New 6MGD WTP; 12 MGD Capacity 2A - 6MGD Expansion; Regional WTP; 15 MGD Capacity 1B - 4MGD Expansion; New 8MGD WTP; 12 MGD Capacity 1A - 4MGD Expansion; Regional WTP; 13 MGD Capacity
5-7 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis
Table 5-2. Conceptual Capital Costs Total Cost1 Alternative (in Millions of Dollars) 1A $ 77 1B $ 88 2A $ 88 2B $ 82
1) Costs do not include advanced treatment or transmission improvements within the distribution system. Costs are given in 2019 dollars.
As given in Table 5-2, alternative 1A is the least overall cost, however, all of the alternative costs are within approximately 14 percent of one another. 5.3.2 Other Factors In addition to cost, Figure 5-6 depicts other various factors to consider when deciding upon an alternative in terms of water quantity, water quality, permitting, sustainability for future supply, transmission requirements, operations and staffing, reliability and redundancy, and autonomy. The alternatives were generally ranked for each of the factors from least favorable (dark blue) to most favorable (light blue) as described below.
Figure 5-6. Conceptual Evaluation of Alternatives
Cost Alternative 1A was the most favorable, with least overall cost, followed by Alternative 2B. Alternatives 1B and 2A were the least favorable highest overall cost. However, cost alone is not a significant differentiator among alternatives since all costs are within approximately 14 percent of one another. In terms of cost deferment to later planning years, Alternatives 2A and 2B are the
5-8 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis most favorable since an expansion of the existing WTP to 6 MGD will defer the need for other water treatment facilities for an additional 6 years beyond Alternatives 1A and 1B. Water Quantity Water quantity was rated based on the total water supply provided be each alternative (see Table 5-1), with Alternative 2A as the most favorable, highest quantity of supply and Alternatives 1B and 2B as the least favorable, lowers overall quantity of supply. Water Quality While neither Jordan Lake or the Haw River provides a pristine water supply source, Alternatives 1A and 2A were rated more favorable in terms of water quality since those alternatives employ two different water supply sources (Haw River and Jordan Lake). Alternatives 1B and 2B were rated least favorable since the both rely on one water supply source (Haw River) in which emerging contaminants are a known concern for the Town. Permitting Significant permitting efforts would be required for any of the alternatives since each includes a new water treatment facility. So, permitting requirements are not a significant differentiator among alternatives. Even so, Alternatives 1A and 2A are rated slightly more favorable since the permitting efforts for a new regional WTP would be undertaken jointly by the WIP. Sustainability for Future Supply None of the alternatives will provide a water supply to meet the projected 2060 demands without additional supply/treatment facilities. However, Alternatives 1A and 2A provide more water supply than Alternatives 1B and 2B and also provide two different raw water supply sources (Haw River and Jordan Lake) and therefore were rated slightly more favorably. Transmission Requirements All of the alternatives provide additional treated water supply to the entry point of the Town’s existing distribution system but would likely require additional water distribution/transmission improvements to serve the Town’s water customers. Specific distribution system improvements were not evaluated in this study, but are assumed to generally be similar for all alternatives, so all alternatives were rated the same for this category. Operations & Staffing Alternative 1A only requires Town staff for operation of the existing WTP at 4 MGD and was therefore rated the most favorable in terms of efforts for operations and staffing. Similarly, Alternative 2A only requires Town staff for operation of existing WTP at a slightly larger 6 MGD and was rate more favorable. Alternatives 1B and 2B each would require Town staff for operations of two separate WTPs and were rated least favorable. Autonomy This category represents Pittsboro’s control over the water supply and treatment facilities that provide water for the Town’s customers. Alternatives 1A and 2A, which include participation in the WIP for a regional WTP were rated least favorable since Pittsboro would only have a portion
5-9 Section 5 • Phasing and Alternatives Analysis of the input into the timing, completion, and operation of the regional WTP and the overall project will be dependent on participation by other utilities. Reliability & Redundancy In terms of reliability, redundancy and flexibility, Alternative 2A was rated most favorable since it includes two water treatment plants with two different raw water sources which could be used as back-up in case of issues with one facility or water supply. Additionally, the initial expansion of the existing WTP to 6 MGD provides flexibility if delays occur with the WIP regional WTP project. Alternative 1A was also favorable due to the two plants with different raw water sources. Alternatives 1B and 2B were rated the least favorable due to the single raw water supply source. 5.4 Recommended Alternative Overall, considering cost and the other factors listed in Figure 5-6, Alternatives 1A and 2A are the most favorable. These alternatives both include a near-term expansion of the existing WTP, followed by participation in the WIP regional WTP. The difference between the two is the size of the initial existing WTP expansion (4 MGD vs. 6 MGD). Therefore, it is recommended that the Town proceed with planning for an expansion of the WTP and also maintain participation in the WIP planning process for the new regional WTP.
5-10
Section 6 Summary and Recommendations
This section provides an overview of the main concerns and recommendations for the Town of Pittsboro future water supply and treatment. 6.1 Summary The following is a summary of the key findings and conclusions of this study:
▪ The average day water demand within the Town’s water service planning area is projected to increase from approximately 0.6 MGD in 2018 to approximately 10.1 MGD in 2060. Similarly, the maximum day demand is projected to increase from approximately 1.0 MGD in 2018 to approximately 15.8 MGD in 2060. The largest portion of this growth is attributed to the Chatham Park development, which is anticipated to account for 61 percent of the total average day demand in 2060. ▪ The Town’s maximum day water demand is projected to exceed the current treatment capacity of 2.0 MGD by 2023. ▪ The existing WTP has undergone design upgrades prior to 1990 as well as upgrades by the WTP staff and other minor improvements over the years. Overall, the existing equipment is working for plant staff needs, but the aging structures and facilities may be of concern for reliability. ▪ Based on evaluation of the existing WTP facilities and site as discussed in Section 3, the Pittsboro WTP treatment capacity can be expanded up to 6 MGD at the current site. Expansion beyond 6 MGD is not recommended due to limited land availability, reliability, and water quality issues. ▪ Expanding the existing WTP is the most suitable alternative to meet the Town’s immediate water demands as this option could be accomplished on a shorter time frame than study/design/ permitting/ construction of a new WTP or study/ design/ permitting/ negotiations/ contracting/construction of a new large diameter pipeline for water supply from the City of Sanford. ▪ Participating with the Western Intake Partnership (WIP) in the Jordan Lake Regional WTP is a cost-effective option for the Town and provides the reliability and redundancy of a separate raw water supply source. However, joining the WIP Regional WTP does not afford the Town full autonomy to control its own water supply as the timing, completion, and operation of the regional WTP and the overall project will be dependent on participation by other regional partner utilities.
6-1 Section 6 • Summary and Recommendations
▪ Separate supplies (Haw River and Jordan Lake) offer substantial water quality benefits as well as reliability benefits. The Cary/ Apex Jordan lake data showed significantly lower concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS than the Haw River and having two supplies allows 1 to be temporarily shutdown in the event of a short-term spike in a containment such as from a spill. ▪ Overall, considering cost and the other factors listed in Figure 5-6, Alternatives 1A and 2A are the most favorable. These alternatives both include expansion of the existing WTP, followed by participation in the WIP regional WTP on Jordan Lake. The difference between the two is the size of the initial existing WTP expansion (4 MGD vs. 6 MGD). ▪ When deciding whether to expand to 4 or 6 MGD, the Town should consider whether the increase in cost to expand to 6 MGD is worth the assurance of water supply and flexibility to meet greater demands in the near- and mid-term. ▪ None of the alternatives evaluated in this study provide enough water treatment to meet the projected 2060 water demands. Other water supply/treatment facilities will need to be developed beyond those in Alternatives 1A through 2B to meet the full water demand through the 2060 planning year. The long-term water supply options should be re- evaluated by the Town in the future, as development occurs and long-term demand projections can be defined more accurately. ▪ Considering the impairment of the various source water bodies discussed herein, it is recommended that advanced treatment processes be included in any capacity expansion or new treatment facility project. However, to provide an equivalent basis for comparison, the cost of treatment options presented in this study includes only conventional treatment processes; advanced treatment is not included in any of the costs presented for the options in this report. This additional cost should be taken into account when establishing future budgets for capital improvement projects. ▪ The full cost of purchasing water from the City of Sanford including volumetric and capacity charges is unknown at this time, therefore, this option was not included in the water supply/treatment alternatives. However, water purchase remains a future option for water supply to the Town if economically desirable. At a minimum, the physical interconnection with the City of Sanford would include a 6 MGD pump station and approximately 15 miles of 24-inch pipeline to convey up to 6 MGD of water to Pittsboro. 6.2 Recommendations The following steps are recommended for the Town’s water supply and treatment:
▪ Proceed with planning for an expansion of the existing WTP starting in FY 2020. Based on the projected Chatham Park development, the expanded treatment capacity should be in service by 2023 and the study, permitting, design, and construction of the expansion is projected to be a 3 to 4-year process. The expansion of the existing WTP should be to either 4 or 6 MGD.
6-2 Section 6 • Summary and Recommendations
▪ Perform screening-level pilot testing as the next step to evaluate adding advanced treatment for the existing WTP. A pilot study will allow for treatment performance and lifecycle costs to be evaluated, and a final recommendation on the most cost-effective and best value advanced treatment technology. ▪ Maintain participation in the WIP planning process for the new Jordan Lake regional WTP. ▪ Further investigate interconnection options and costs to purchase water for intermediate or long-term needs. ▪ Perform a rate study to determine the impact of the water treatment projects and their phasing to the Town’s customers. ▪ This study has only looked at water supply and treatment. A subsequent Distribution Master Planning Study is needed for the water distribution system to determine the impacts and capacity improvements required to deliver water to meet the future demands. This study will inform the Town on where the distribution system needs to be expanded to convey the drinking water to customers; and will inform the Town on the timing of when those capital improvements will be needed. ▪ The bulk of the water demand for the Town’s water service planning area is anticipated to come from Chatham Park, particularly in the near-term. The development of Chatham Park has already been delayed and the basis for Chatham Park water demands are based on developer estimates. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town assess the water supply, demand, and trends every five to ten years or more frequently as necessary.
6-3 Appendix A Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Report
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth Goodson, Town Engineer Town of Pittsboro
From: CDM Smith
Date: May 29, 2019
Subject: Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Report
1.0 Project Background 1.1 Existing Water Supply and Treatment The Pittsboro Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is a municipal WTP that distributes water within the municipality and outside of Pittsboro to an estimated population of 3,900 residents. The Town uses the Haw River as the water source for the water treatment plant. Water is pumped approximately 1.5 miles from the raw water intake and pump station through a 12-inch force main to the water treatment plant. Sodium permanganate is fed into the raw water at the raw water pump station for pre-oxidation of organics and other compounds.
Pittsboro presently operates a 2 million gallon per day (MGD) conventional treatment process to produce drinking water for its residential, commercial and wholesale customers. The treatment process includes one rapid mixer, three stage flocculation, conventional sedimentation basins, four filters, two clearwells, and three finished water pumps (one of which is not in use). Pittsboro uses chlorine as the primary disinfectant with monochloramines as the residual disinfectant. Pretreatment chemicals include sodium permanganate fed at the raw water pump station and a low dose of powdered activated carbon (PAC) (delivered as a slurry) fed at the rapid mix for TOC reduction, some removal of synthetic organic chemicals and taste and odor control. The filters contain anthracite and silica sand.
Pittsboro successfully meets all state and federal safe drinking water standards. 1.2 Scope of Work In response to the increased concern over water quality in the Haw River, the Town of Pittsboro contracted CDM Smith to evaluate the contaminants of concern and recommend next steps moving forward to address the treatment or removal of these substances. The following objectives were targeted for the report: Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 2
Objectives . Evaluate data to determine a list of primary target contaminants of concern. . Identify possible treatment technologies . Propose next steps for the Town of Pittsboro. 2.0 Emerging Contaminants at Pittsboro 2.1 Target Contaminants For presentation and evaluation, target contaminants in the existing data sets have been identified and have been separated into primary target contaminants and secondary target contaminants. The focus of this initial memorandum is the removal of the primary target contaminants. Pittsboro historical data is provided for these contaminants in Appendix A.
The primary target contaminants are:
. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) . 1,4-Dioxane . Brominated Compounds
These were determined to be the primary target contaminants because of their occurrence in the Haw River supply, their potential public health impacts, and interest over these contaminants with the regulators, the Town and the public.
It is understood that new contaminants are identified each year, so treatment technologies selected for today’s emerging contaminants should be flexible to the extent cost-effective for addition of future emerging contaminants.
Consequently, secondary target contaminants include the broad category of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Projects (PPCPs), and the general category of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. These secondary groups are general possible future issues, so the data evaluation and treatment technologies discussed herein focus on the primary target contaminants.
A brief description of these contaminants is provided below. 2.1.1 Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PFASs are a group of organic chemical compounds that are used in a wide variety of manufactured products including firefighting foams, coating for food packaging, ScotchGardTM, and TeflonTM, among other products (Fulmer 2016). PFAS are extremely resistant to degradation which helps these products resist stains, grease, and water. This leads to their persistence in the environment and resistance to removal by conventional water treatment processes. As referenced by Dickenson and Higgins (2016), PFAS can be found in source waters outside of industrial releases including street and stormwater runoff and land application of contaminated biosolids. Lists of compounds Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 3
that make up PFASs, molecular weight, and chemical formula can be found in several references (including Dickenson and Higgins 2016; Sun et al. 2016; and Water Research Foundation 2016).
PFAS have been linked to certain health effects such as increase in risk of cancers or hormonal disruptions. 2.1.2 1,4‐Dioxane 1,4-Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical that is a by-product present in many goods including paint strippers, dyes, greases, antifreeze, and in some consumer products including deodorants, shampoos, and cosmetics (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001). Traces of 1,4-dioxane may also be present in food supplements due to food-containing residues from packaging adhesives and or food crops treated with pesticides containing 1,4-dioxane. It is completely miscible in water and is unstable at high temperatures and pressures and may be explosive in nature with long periods of exposure to light or air (EPA 2006). Dr. Detlef Knappe of North Carolina State University began testing for 1,4- dioxane in NC surface water in 2013 and approached drinking water utilities and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in 2014 to present evidence that 1,4- dioxane was present in public drinking water supplies (Clabby 2016). Due to the nature of the 1,4 dioxane, it cannot be treated using typical oxidation processes at a water treatment plant. 1,4- dioxane has been classified as a likely human carcinogen by the EPA. 2.1.3 Brominated Compounds Bromide-based compounds, including bromomethane and bromochloromethane, can occur both naturally in coastal environments and can be man-made as well. These chemicals are disinfection by-products originating from the reaction of natural organic matter with chlorine fed for water disinfection and bromide present in water.
Bromide naturally occurs at trace levels in water, but higher concentrations can be found in waters impacted by wastewater discharges. Although the toxicity of bromide is low, its reactivity with drinking water disinfectants leads to the formation of regulated disinfection by-products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs), haloacetic acids (HAAs), and bromate. Elevated bromide concentrations will most readily create compliance challenges with the THM standard when water is disinfected with chlorine. The Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct (D/DBP) Rule regulates four THMs (chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform) and requires that the sum of their mass concentrations does not exceed 0.08 mg/L (80 μg/L). For the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, compliance is based on locational running annual averages (LRAAs) at each sampling point. Challenges associated with increasing bromide concentrations include (1) THM composition shifts from one dominated by chloroform to one dominated by brominated species, (2) THM formation rate increases, and (3) molar THM yield increases (e.g. Krasner et al 1994). At a given molar THM yield, a shift from a THM composition dominated by chloroform to one dominated by brominated species leads to a higher total THM (TTHM) mass concentration because the molecular weight of brominated THMs is higher than that of chloroform. Furthermore, brominated DBPs are of concern because they are more harmful to human health Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 4
than chlorinated DBPs (Bull et al. 2001). EPA is further considering regulating additional brominated haloacetic acids. Currently, the sum of 5 haloacetic acides has a limit of 0.06 mg/L (60 mg/L)
Bromate, BrO3-, is an ion that is contained in compounds such as sodium-bromate and potassium- bromate. Bromate is formed most commonly during water treatment when ozone is used to treat a water source containing naturally occurring bromide. Bromate formation is dependent on many factors including ozone concentration, bromide ion concentration, water pH, and contact time. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and EPA have set the MCL in public water systems at 10 ppb; bromate is included in the current EPA review of disinfectant by-product regulations so the current MCL level will be reconsidered in the near future. 2.2 Data Overview Perfluorinated compound data has been collected in the Haw River by several sources including Dr. Detlef Knappe and the Haw River Assembly using the NSCU protocol and sampling materials. Supplemental sampling and data collection in the Haw River was not included in CDM Smith’s scope of work; rather, all data was collected as part of previous sampling efforts by others for the Haw River. Composite sampling was conducted in 2013 near the intake to the Pittsboro WTP and the data, shown in Table 1, shows measurable amounts of perfluorinated compounds.
The waters of the Haw river have been tested for several emerging contaminants for several years. In 2015, sampling for 1,4 dioxane was conducted throughout North Carolina and the Haw River basin. In the Pittsboro area, data is available from both 2013 through 2018. Although GenX was tested for in these samples, no GenX was detected.
Table 1 shows the composite sampling conducted in 2013 by Dr. Detlef Knappe.
Table 1. Composite Sampling at the Pittsboro WTP, 2013 Sample Concentration, ug/L PFBA PFPeA PFHxA PFHpA PFOA PFNA PFDA PFBS PFHxS ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L PFOS Max Concentration 99.4 191.0 318.0 324.0 137.0 37.6 34.8 80.2 193.0 346.0 Minimum Concentration <10 13.9 <10 <10 <10 <10 <25 <10 <10 <25 Median Concentration 26.3 43.7 48.1 38.9 33.5 <10 <25 <10 10.3 212.3
From Detlef Knappe, NCSU, Composite Samples, 6/2013-11/2013 Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 5
In 2018, the Haw River Assembly collected data near the Pittsboro WTP; the grab samples were taken near the water treatment plant, but no testing was conducted at the plant. Testing consisted of grab-samples over a one-day period. The results of that sampling are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. August 2018 data from the Haw River Assembly Sample Concentration, ug/L Sample Location PFBA PFPeA PFHxA PFHpA PFOA PFNA PFDA PFBS PFHxS PFOS Haw River at Bynum 86.5 244.4 321.3 253.6 73.2 12.0 18.7 13.5 11.2 41.7 Pittsboro Library 80.7 205.3 220.2 161.9 39.2 Based on daily composited samples collected from the raw water tap at the Pittsboro WTP from March 18, 2015 to May 12, 2015, 1,4-dioxane concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 36 ppb. More recent data collected by DEQ since November 2017 show that 1,4-dioxane concentrations in the raw water ranged from <1 to 66 ppb, with a median concentration of 7 ppb. In September and October of 2018, 1,4-dioxane concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 6.9 ppb, as determined by NCSU. It should be noted that stream flows were substantially higher in 2018 than in prior years. Bromide concentrations in the Pittsboro raw water ranged from 23 to 2400 ppb during the second half of 2013, when Dr. Knappe’s research group at NCSU analyzed 170 daily composited samples. The median concentration during this time period was 250 ppb, which is more than a factor of 10 higher than the statewide median for surface water sources of 18 ppb. More recent DEQ data confirm that bromide levels continue to be elevated in the Pittsboro source water (mean was 800 ppb for July 2017 to June 2018, 400 ppb for June 2018 to October 2018). For 2019, two samples were taken and analyzed (<100 ppb and 300 ppb from February to April). 3.0 Emerging Contaminant Treatment This section provides an overview of potential technologies for treatment of the targeted emerging contaminants. 3.1 GAC 3.1.1 Process Description Granular activated carbon (GAC) has been identified as a potential treatment technique for the removal of PFAS (Dickinson 2016). GAC removal of the target contaminants occurs primarily through adsorption. Granular media is produced from carbonaceous material such as wood, coal, and coconut shells which is activated by heat. GAC is used in water treatment to remove a wide variety of chemicals, taste and odor precursors, color-forming organics, personal care and pharmaceutical compounds and some disinfection by-product precursors. Figure 1 provides a series of magnifications of the GAC particle. A GAC Pressure Contactor is shown in Figure 2. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 6 Figure 1. Magnified GAC Particle Figure 2. Granular Activated Carbon Pressure Contactors (CDM Smith Design, Bladen County, NC) Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 7 Design of the GAC filters and contactors is affected by the following parameters: . Loading rate . Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) – sufficient time is needed for the contaminants to be adsorbed onto the GAC for adequate removal . Media replacement/regeneration frequency It is assumed that GAC contactors would be implemented post-filtration at the Pittsboro WTP. Filtration would continue with the existing filters and target contaminant removal post-filtration will occur through GAC adsorption. A hydraulic analysis has not been conducted for this plant; however, based on field observations an intermediate pump station is likely to be required to feed GAC contactors downstream of the filters. Figure 3 provides a flow schematic indicating how GAC can be incorporated into the existing treatment process. The use of pressure contactors should be more cost-effective than the construction of new concrete gravity filters for the Pittsboro WTP. Hence, the GAC option evaluation focuses on post-filter pressure contactors. Figure 3. Post Filter GAC Process Flow Schematic Each GAC pressure contactor would include a steel tank with elliptical top and bottom heads, supported by four structural steel legs. The GAC pressure contactors would be furnished as a packaged system, with the manufacturer supplying all the controls, piping, valves, and appurtenances to minimize the connection points for the backwash system. Each vessel would include the following connections: . Top head Inlet for filtered water and backwash water discharge and vent Inlet for media loading . Bottom head Backwash inlet Outlet for media unloading Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 8 Manway . Side wall Outlet for media unloading Sample taps at even increments across the GAC bed Manway The water from the existing filters would flow from the inlet header through an inlet valve and piping to the top of the GAC pressure contactors. The filtered water would be treated by flowing through GAC. The filtrate would be collected by an underdrain system located in the bottom of the tank, which also serves as the inlet distributor for the backwash system. The filtrate discharges to the filtrate header. 3.1.2 Application Experience Full-scale testing conducted at two sites as part of the Water Research Foundation project (Dickinson and Higgins 2016) indicate that GAC is effective at removing longer chain PFAAs and PFSAs over PFCAs; however, GAC was less effective for the removal of shorter chain PFAS. It is recommended prior to full-scale installation, that pilot testing be conducted to compare performance between different types of carbon media and empty bed contact times for removal efficiency and breakthrough performance of target contaminants. GAC alone is not effective for the removal of all target contaminants. For example, GAC does not remove 1,4-dioxane so Ultraviolet-Advanced Oxidation Processes (UV/AOP) is required in addition to GAC. Also, GAC effectiveness can vary depending on the type of PFAS compounds present. However, post-filter GAC in combination with other treatment alternatives, such as ultraviolet radiation and advanced oxidation, has merit in achieving 90-percent removal of most of the target contaminants. 3.1.3 Summary Advantages and disadvantages associated with GAC treatment are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of GAC Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Effective for strongly adsorbing Less effective (shorter life) for short-chain PFAS compounds (above compounds - Many non-detect within a month) in the NC House Bill-56 funded study, SOCs/PPCPs/EDC such as using 10 min Empty Bed Contact Times (EBCT). Less effective for pesticides, PFOA, PFOS PFMOAA and PFO2HxA than for GenX. EPA termed Best Available Not effective for 1,4 dioxane and some other compounds. Technology (BAT) for many Synthetic Consequently, UV-AOP or Ozone -AOP are required in addition to Organic Contaminants (SOCs) GAC to achieve primary target contaminant removal. Some bio-removal continues long Amount of contaminant removed decreases with time as adsorptive Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 9 after adsorptive sites are filled sites are filled. PFAS are not biodegradable. Proven Process on Cape Fear River Following a sudden large drop in concentration of a PFAS compound source water in the influent, the GAC releases some of the compound as it seeks the new equilibrium. Disinfection Byproduct Control (D/DBPR Spent GAC requires disposal and/or reactivation. Future regulation - Stages 1 and 2 and future 3) regarding disposal of PFAS containing GAC is unknown 3.2 Ion Exchange 3.2.1 Process Descriptions Ion exchange (IX) has been identified as a promising treatment technique for the removal of perfluorinated compounds (Dickinson and Higgins 2016). In the ion exchange process, chemicals are removed through a substitution reaction using a resin. The resins are composed of bead-shaped particles similar to those shown on Figure 4. The beads are typically 20 by 30 mesh (approximately inch by 0.01 inch) which is similar in size to a grain of sand. Resin beds contain these beads in columns that are typically 4 to 5 feet deep. The resin is either negatively (anionic) or positively (cationic) charged, depending on what contaminant is being targeted. . Anionic Exchange for negative ions Typically charged with hydroxide (OH-) or chloride (Cl-) ions . Cationic Exchange for positive ions Typically charged with hydrogen (H+) or sodium (Na+) ions The removal of the target contaminants requires an anionic exchange resin (AER). Figure 4. Ion Exchange Resin Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 10 Two options have been considered for implementing anionic ion exchange (IX) in the existing treatment process: . Post-filter . Post-filter in addition to GAC Ion exchange has not been shown to effectively remove 1,4 dioxane, therefore each of these options would be followed by UV/AOP. Figure 5 provides a flow schematic indicating how IX can be incorporated into the existing treatment process at the Pittsboro WTP. The post-filter application in addition to GAC is intended to combine the benefits of both GAC and IX since IX is significantly better than GAC at removing many per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances and GAC offers much better removal of other secondary contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) as well as providing the option of bio-removal for some organic compounds to reduce changeout frequency and associated costs. Figure 5. Post Filter Ion Exchange Process Flow Schematic Figure 6 provides a photograph of a typical ion exchange vessel. The ion exchange system is available as a package system manufactured by companies such as Evoqua, AdEdge Water Technologies LLC, Tonka Equipment Company, or the Purolite Company. For the purpose of this preliminary study, the system is assumed to be rated for up to 1.0 mgd per vessel with 4 vessels to provide 3 minutes empty bed contact time at 2 mgd (1.5-minute vessel followed by a second 1.5-minute vessel). In the option of combining ion exchange with GAC, there would be 10 minutes of GAC followed by 1.5 minutes of anion exchange. The package system will include the following components: . Ion exchange vessels with anion exchange resin Figure 6. Ion Exchange Pressure Vessel Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 11 . Piping including face piping and common headers for influent, effluent, backwash, rinse, regenerant feed . Process control valves, flow meters, flow control valves, and isolation valves . Instruments to measure flow, pressure, and perform water sampling . Master control panel and electrical components The system will be supplied with a hydraulic panel to monitor the system inlet and outlet for pressures and water sampling. Each vessel will be provided with a grid consisting of a pipe header and laterals with orifices for proper flow distribution. The grid will be of a proven design, and properly supported and reinforced, located at the top of the resin bed. Cleaning provisions will also be provided, consisting of a separate feed/distribution system, properly sized and supported as required. 3.2.2 Application Experience IX has been used in North Carolina as an effective water treatment technology; however, the applications have not involved the target contaminants of this project. IX is being used for removing natural organic matter to help lower concentrations of disinfection by-products in Dare County (Skyco plant), Currituck County, and the Castle Bay water system near Wilmington; the three systems use fixed bed IX for treatment of groundwater. Johnston County uses Magnetic Ion Exchange Resin (MIEX) for a surface water which is another example of IX resin applicability for removing natural organic matter. Full-scale testing conducted at two sites as part of the Water Research Foundation project (Dickinson and Higgins 2016) indicate that IX is effective at removing longer chain PFAAs and PFSAs over PFCAs; IX was less effective for the removal of shorter chain PFAS. Dickinson and Higgins (2016) indicated that the two sites did not specifically target these contaminants; they recommended that full-scale testing be conducted to specifically target PFSAs where frequent resin changes would be required. 3.2.3 Summary Major advantages and disadvantages of IX treatment are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Major Advantages and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Excellent Removal of many PFAS Not Effective for PPCPs, hence GAC joint use with IX is needed if PPCP removal is desired Extra Barrier for Anions – PFAS, organics, Spent IX resin requires disposal. Regeneration is difficult for bromide, etc. PFAS Disinfection Byproduct Control (D/DBPR - Stages Not effective for 1,4 Dioxane hence UV/AOP is required 1 and 2 and future 3) along with the IX Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 12 3.3 Ultraviolet Advanced Oxidation Process (UV/AOP) 3.3.1 Process Description Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) is used in conjunction with Ultraviolet (UV) light to remove compounds that are not fully removed by granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), or reverse osmosis (RO). Accordingly, UV/AOP is particularly useful for compounds such as 1,4 dioxane. Hence, the implementation of UV/AOP downstream of GAC and IX treatment is being considered at the Pittsboro WTP. UV/AOP is not being considered downstream of RO because RO is expected to provide about 75 to 95-percent removal of 1,4-dioxane. This assumption will be checked against future pilot data when it is available. The potential process flow schematic for the addition of UV/AOP at the Pittsboro WTP is shown on Figure 7. Figure 7. Post‐Filter UV/AOP Process Flow Schematic AOP AOP relies on the formation of hydroxyl radicals or chlorine radicals to degrade chemical contaminants, usually through the addition of peroxide or chlorine chemicals in drinking water treatment with high intensity UV. At low pH, chlorine reacts with UV to create hydroxyl and chlorine radicals. The chlorine-AOP reaction is highly pH dependent. For this application, the estimated dosage requirement is 10 mg/L for peroxide and 5 mg/L for chlorine. If this technology is selected then a more detailed analysis of which oxidation chemical and UV dosing will be needed to optimize the treatment. Ultraviolet Disinfection Two types of UV reactors are commercially available for municipal drinking water treatment applications: low pressure high output (LPHO) and medium pressure (MP) reactors. There are significant differences in capital and operating costs for these systems, with LPH O systems typically having higher capital costs and lower O&M costs than MP systems. In addition, the electrical requirements can be 2 to 3 times higher for MP systems than LPHO systems, due to differences in the germicidal efficiency of the UV lamps used. Consequently, these systems are typically pre- selected by the owner based on an evaluated bid and life-cycle cost approach so that the UV system Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 14 can be efficiently designed around the selected vendor and UV equipment system during final design. UV transmittance (UVT) is the most critical water quality parameter for sizing UV reactors. Other design parameters that affect sizing and configuration of the UV system include the combined lamp aging and fouling (CAF) factor and maximum head loss across the UV reactor. Pre-treatment has a significant effect on the design of the UV/AOP system. For example, GAC treatment ahead of UV/AOP can produce a high-quality discharge that reduces the power demand of a UV reactor. Commercially available UV reactors for drinking water applications are closed-vessel designs installed in pressurized pipelines. The primary components of a closed-vessel UV reactor include: . UV reactor vessel . UV lamps . Quartz sleeves (enclosing the lamps) . Lamp ballasts . UV intensity sensors . Flow and UVT sensors . Temperature-flow sensors . Lamp cleaning system The four major UV equipment suppliers for municipal UV drinking water applications in the United States are Calgon, ITT-WEDECO (Xylem), Trojan Technologies, and Ozonia. Table 5 presents a comparison of the types of UV systems (MP vs. LPHO) and design features for large UV reactors offered by these companies. An example of a UV reactor configuration is shown on Figure 8. Each UV treatment train consists of the following components: . UV piping system to receive water . Flow meter . UV (MP or LPHO) reactor . Outlet control valve for automatic start-up and shutdown of the UV trains and for flow modulation, as necessary, to maintain flows below validated setpoint limits. . Weir chambers to receive UV-treated flows from each UV train. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 15 Table 5. Major UV System Suppliers and UV Reactor Design Features Description Calgon Sentinel/ Chevron WEDECO K143 Trojan Torrent Ozonia Aquaray Type of Reactor MP LPHO LPHO MP Lamps per Bank 1 to 3 12 8 8, 10, 12 Banks per Reactor 1 to 3 2 to 12 2 to 6 1 Validated Flow Range 1-50 mgd 2-40 mgd 5-52 mgd 5.3 – 55.4 mgd Lamp Type MP LPHO Amalgam LPHO Amalgam MP Lamp Life 5,000 hr 12,000 hr 12,000 hr 10,000 hr Cleaning System Mechanical Wiper Off-line Acid Physchem Wiper Mechanical Wiper Sleeve Life 10 yrs 20 yrs 10 yrs 10 yrs Lamps per Ballast 1 2 2 1 Ballast Life 15 yrs 5 yrs 10 yrs 10 yrs UV sensors 1 / lamp 1 / bank 1 / bank 1 / lamp UV sensor life 10 yrs 10 yrs 2 yrs 2 yrs Power Supply 480 V, 60 Hz, 3 Ph 480 V, 60 Hz, 3 Ph 480 V, 60 Hz, 3 Ph 480 V, 60 Hz, 3 Ph Photo Credit: Xylem (http://www.weat.org/Presentations/2016_A-14%20ROBISON_Texas%20Reuse_07-15-16.pdf) Figure 8. Example of UV AOP Reactor 3.3.2 Application Experience UV/AOP has not been widely implemented in drinking water treatment for the target contaminants. However, the technology has been widely applied to potable water reuse, particularly in the State of California. California regulations for indirect potable water reuse (groundwater replenishment, subsurface application) requires implementation of Reverse Osmosis (RO) and UV/AOP for Full Advanced Treatment (FAT).11 1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/RWregulations_20140618.pdf (Last accessed February 27, 2018) Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 16 The first UV/AOP hypochlorite system was added to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant and Advanced Water Purification Facility in San Pedro, California.2 The AOP specifications included 6-log virus credit, 0.5 log 1,4-dioxane removal, and less than 10 ppt NDMA in effluent with a UV dose of 920 mJ/cm2 and free chlorine dose of 2 to 4 mg/L.3 UV/AOP has also been added downstream of the RO process at the Leo J. Vander Lands Advanced Water Treatment Facility in Long Beach, California. AOP has been incorporated through the addition of up to 3.5 mg/L of peroxide. The UV/AOP system is designed to achieve a net log removal of NDMA between 1.62 to 2.03 and a 0.5 log reduction of 1,4 dioxane.4 Bench scale testing of UV/AOP should be conducted at the Pittsboro WTP to meet the following objectives: . Evaluate whether UV/AOP using chlorine can be used to remove 1,4-dioxane and/or PPCPs . Evaluate temporal variability of treatment using UV/AOP with chlorine over three-time points, collected monthly UV/AOP alone is not anticipated to remove all of the primary target contaminants. However, UV/AOP in combination with other treatment technologies, such as GAC and GAC/IX, may have merit in removing the contaminants of interest. 3.3.3 Summary Major advantages and disadvantages of UV/AOP treatment are listed in Table 6. Table 6. Major Advantages and Disadvantages of UV/AOP Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Oxidant Barrier – mainly for 1,4 Dioxane and NDMA Power Requirement / O&M Cost Removals of limited number of SOC/PPCPs UV/AOP does not remove PFAS Additional Disinfection/Pathogen Inactivation In some cases, oxidizes Cr to Cr(VI) Treatment for water taste, odor, and color issues Disinfection Byproduct Control (D/DBPR) 3.4 Reverse Osmosis 3.4.1 Process Description In reverse osmosis (RO), water molecules pass through a semi-permeable membrane by applying a hydrostatic pressure greater than the osmotic pressure. The rate water molecules diffuse through the membrane is higher than the rate salts, metals, and contaminants diffuse through the membranes, so the result is permeate with a lower concentration of dissolved constituents. RO can be implemented after the granular media filters at the Pittsboro WTP to reduce dissolved target contaminants as shown in Figure 9. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 17 Figure 9. RO Process Schematic Figure 10 provides an example of a treatment process schematic for a two-stage RO system treating feedwater with minimal suspended solids. Similar RO systems are used extensively throughout the United States to remove total dissolved solids, hardness, metals, color, organics and radionuclides. Hundreds of RO facilities have been constructed to treat brackish or hard water to augment scarce water supplies. RO treatment plants range in capacity from a few hundred gallons per minute (gpm) to 100 mgd. RO systems use a semi-permeable membrane that rejects dissolved ions, organics, and metals using a combination of ionic charge and molecular size. The RO membranes being proposed for this project and to be tested in a future pilot study are standard commercially available brackish water RO membranes rated for 99.3 percent rejection of a standard 2000 mg/L sodium chloride salt solution; this is considered a high rejection, broad spectrum RO membrane. Computer models provided by each membrane manufacturer are used to estimate treated water quality for major ions and pressures, but the rejection characteristics of trace contaminants is determined from pilot tests and full-scale operational data. For Pittsboro, it is recommended that all possible options for disposal of the concentrate be evaluated. Concentrate disposal options vary between water treatment plants and geographic locations. Figure 11 below shows the typical options for concentrate disposal. Options include discharge to a surface water body, disposal to the sewer, subsurface discharge or aquifer injection, evaporation ponds and land disposal. Another option to be considered is the potential for an industrial use (reuse) of the concentrate water. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 18 Figure 10. Typical Two Stage Process Schematic Figure 11. Typical Concentrate Disposal Methods, Courtesy Wetterau and Mickley, 2018 ACE Proceedings Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 19 As seen from the figure, most membrane treatment plants dispose of concentrate to a nearby surface water. This method typically requires an NPDES permit, or modification an existing NPDES permit. The disposal to sewer method is an option if the existing sewer has capacity. Subsurface injection, land application and evaporation ponds are the less often used options. Figure 12 below shows the breakdown of concentrate disposal methods by plant flowrates. Figure 12. Concentrate Disposal Methods by Plant Flowrate, Courtesy Wetterau and Mickley, 2018 ACE Proceedings For plants of a similar size to the Pittsboro WTP, with a flowrate between 3 and 6 MGD, the most common disposal methods are surface water, sewer and deep well injection. However, deep well injection is not permitted by NCDEQ. 4.1 Conclusions Multiple advanced treatment technologies are capable of removing the primary target contaminants of PFAS, 1,4 Dioxane and brominated compounds. However, except for RO, two or more treatment technologies will need to be combined to create an advanced treatment approach which is capable of removing each of the contaminants to target levels. Table 7 below shows a comparison of the potential options for post-filtration advanced treatment. The first option combines GAC with UV/AOP. The second option combines IX, GAC, and UV/AOP. The third option combines IX and UV/AOP. And finally, the fourth option is RO. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 20 Table 7. Post Filtration Technologies Comparison Post Filtration Advance 1,4 Bromide/Brominated PCCPs/Endocrine Treatment PFAS Dioxane DBPs Disruptors GAC + UV/AOP Good1 Excellent Fair2 Excellent IX+GAC+UV/AOP Excellent3 Excellent Excellent Excellent 4 IX+UV/AOP Excellent3 Excellent Excellent Poor RO5 Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 1 GAC performance for PFAS removal depends on molecular weight of PFAS compounds and media bed life 2 Fair because GAC will remove TOC but doesn’t appreciably remove Bromide 3 Requires frequent media replacement for low molecular weight PFAS compounds 4 IX is poor for this category. UV/AOP is better but may leave oxidation by-products of concern. 5 Requires concentrate disposal and additional process water consumption 4.1.1 Screening Level Pilot Study It is recommended that Pittsboro complete a screening level pilot study to determine the actual performance of each technology on treating these contaminants in the Haw River. A site-specific pilot study is important because water quality and chemistry can vary significantly between water sources, having an impact on the performance of the treatment technology. The performance data will also be used to determine the operational costs for each option. After a preferred option is identified, more detailed pilot testing of the selected technology may be required as part of preliminary design. The proposed pilot configuration would allow for simultaneous operation of three ion exchange columns, two GAC columns, and one UV AOP system. RO piloting will be mounted on a separate skid. Table 8a presents a summary of the pilot column conditions. Proposed operating conditions for each treatment technology are as follows: . IX Column 1 will contain Evoqua’s Dowex resin. This ion exchange resin is effective at PFAS removal and performed well in a previous pilot study. GAC will precede the IX column to evaluate combined performance. . IX Column 2 will contain Calgon’s 2304 resin. This ion exchange resin is a newer and expectedly better performing resin than Calgon 2301. . IX Column 3 will contain Purolite’s PFA694E resin. This resin is effective for PFAS removal and performed well in a previous pilot study. . GAC Column 1 will contain Calgon’s Filtrasorb 400. This is a bituminous GAC is useful for PFAS removal. Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 21 . GAC Column 2 will contain Cabot’s lignite HydroDarco 4000 GAC. This GAC is useful for PFAS removal because it has a high mesopore volume. Mesopores are too small to contain larger organic molecules but effectively adsorb PFAS. . UV AOP is expected to oxidize 1,4-Dioxane. . RO is expected to remove PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane. Table 8a. Summary of Pilot Study Column Conditions Description IX 1 IX 2 IX 3 GAC 1 GAC 2 Media Brand/ Model Evoqua Dowex Calgon Purolite Calgon Cabot following Calgon 2304 PFA694 F400 HydroDarco4000 F400 E Resin Media Depth 36” 36” 36” 36” 36” Sand/ Gravel Base Sand Sand Sand Gravel gravel Base Media Depth 4” 4” 4” 4” 4” Column Diameter 2” 2” 2” 4” 4” Expected Run Time (months) 4 4 4 4 4 Flow (gpm) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 EBCT for media (min) 2 2 2 10 10 Tables 8b and 8c provide additional recommendations for piloting conditions of UV/AOP and RO treatment technologies. Table 8b. Summary of UV AOP Conditions Description UV AOP System Supplier Calgon UV Type of Reactor Medium Pressure Port Size 2” Lamps per Bank 1 Banks per Reactor 1 Validated Flow Range 1-200 gpm Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 22 Table 8c. Summary of RO Conditions Description RO System Membranes Elements per Pressure Vessel 4 Total Pilot Membrane Element Units 8 Membrane Element Type Cross Linked Fully Aromatic Polyamide Composite Membrane Area (ft2) per Unit 87 Total Pilot Membrane Area (ft2) 696 Membrane Unit Recover Rate (%) 15 Membrane Salt Rejection (%) 99.7 Pilot System Recovery Rate (%) 50 Pilot System Feed Flow (gpm) 15 Pilot System Concentrate Flow (gpm) 7.5 Pilot System Permeate Flow (gpm) 7.5 Pilot Feed Water Pressure (psi) TBD (projected 150) Concentrate Pressure (psi) TBD (projected 55) Permeate Pressure (psi) TBD (projected 15) 4.1.2 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Planning-level capital budget costs for the advanced treatment technologies are presented in Table 9, including IX, GAC, UV/AOP and RO for full-scale conditions of 2-, 4- and 6-MGD. All costs in this section are presented in millions of dollars (2019 U.S. dollars) and are for capital construction costs of new facilities at the Pittsboro WTP. Cost estimates for implementation have not been included, such as engineering, surveying, land/easements, or related professional services. When applying these budget estimates to future capital project plans it is recommended to account for the costs of implementation, as well as inflation and other market and currency factors that impact project costs over time. Table 10 reflects the opinion of probable costs for the combinations of treatment technologies (options) shown in Table 7, for full-scale conditions of 2-, 4- and 6-MGD. Lastly, Table 11 reflects the capital cost for advanced treatment in terms of dollars per gallon (USD$/gallon). Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 23 Table 9. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Full‐Scale Advanced Treatment ($ Millions) Treatment Process Ultraviolet Granular Granular Radiation with Advanced Activated Activated Ion Ion Low Pressure Carbon Carbon Exchange Exchange Reverse Oxidation (GAC) (10 (GAC) (20 (IX) (2 min (IX) (4 min Osmosis Process Description min EBCT) min EBCT) EBCT) EBCT) (LPRO)1 (UV/AOP) 2 MGD $5 $8 $3 $4 $12-$13 $2 4 MGD $8 $13 $6 $7 $18-$20 $3 6 MGD $11 $18 $8 $10 $24-$27 $4 1 Range for RO reflects allowance for treating concentrate to remove 1,4 dioxane and possibly PFAS Estimates are Concept Study Level as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE International). Cost allow for a building around all facilities. Outdoor GAC or IX vessels or putting the UV AOP in the existing building are options to save cost. The RO costs assume concentrate can be discharged to either the Haw River or to the sewer. Table 10. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Post Filtration Advanced Treatment Combinations ($ Millions) Post Filtration Advanced Treatment 2 MGD Capital Cost 4 MGD Capital Cost 6 MGD Capital Cost GAC + UV/AOP $9 $15 $21 IX+GAC+UV/AOP $8 $15 $21 IX+UV/AOP $5 $9 $13 LPRO1 $12-13 $18-20 $24-27 1 Range for RO reflects allowance for treating concentrate to remove 1,4 dioxane and possibly PFAS Table 11. Advanced Treatment Processes Budget Capital Costs in $/gallon per day of Treatment Capacity Post Filtration Advanced 2 MGD Capital Cost 4 MGD Capital Cost 6 MGD Capital Cost Treatment GAC + UV/AOP $4.5 $3.8 $3.5 IX+GAC+UV/AOP $4.0 $3.8 $3.5 IX+UV/AOP $2.5 $2.25 $2.2 LPRO1 $6.0-6.5 $4.5-5.0 $4.0-4.5 Pittsboro Emerging Contaminants Memo May 29, 2019 Page 24 References Bull, R.J.; Krasner, S.W.; Daniel, P.A.; and Bull, R.D. 2001. Health Effects and Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products, American Water Works Association Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, Denver, CO. Krasner, S.W.; Sclimenti, M.J.; and Means, E.G. 1994. “Quality Degradation: Implications for DBP Formation.” Journal AWWA, 86(6), 34-47. Wetter, G; Mickeley, M. “Overview of Inland Desalination,” AWWA Manual of Practice M69, ACE Proceedings 2018. Photo courtesy: flickr.com/Donald Lee Pardue Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix L- Team 1 PFAS Water Testing Reports by Site https://ncpfastnetwork.com/data-and-tools/ 16-Oct-20 19 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix M- Pro/Cons of Potential Water Supply Sources 16-Oct-20 20 Brief list of Pro/Cons of Water Supply Sources Pros from Haw: • Can withdraw up to 8.0 MGD • Low drought risk because of upstream WWTP discharge • Completely under Pittsboro’s control • Quickest option for upsizing water capacity • No changes to distribution system required Cons from Haw: • Contaminants will require expensive filter & expensive maintenance costs • Run of river intake – no storage • Pittsboro does not own the dam that keeps the intake flooded, it is old and has not been maintained ( but upcoming plant expansion may require intake expansion/ or possible relocation of the raw water intake) • Future land use changes upstream and climate change will make the Haw rise and fall more quickly and may impact operations • Difficult for Pittsboro to finance both a major expansion of its Haw River intake & treatment plant in addition to the proposed Western Jordan Lake intake & treatment plant Pros for Jordan Lake: • Second water supply • Source water is close to service area • Cost sharing with other partners for regional, advanced water treatment plant Cons for Jordan Lake: • Construction is dependent on 4 partners (unlikely that Pittsboro can finance alone) • Timeline recommended by Raftelis was to begin design & construction in 2025 so that WTP is in service by 2031. (page 26) • Growth is critical for this option to be a good investment. Low-growth could impact rates significantly. ‘Jordan Lake Western Intake Partners Economic Feasibility Study’ by Raftelis in February 2018 (page 27) • In light of current and potential water quality conditions at Jordan Lake, it is recommended that future drinking water treatment facilities using water from Jordan Lake include advanced treatment processes to address taste & odor challenges, disinfection by-product formation, algal toxins and other issues. ‘Jordan Lake Partnership Western Intake Feasibility Study’ by Hazen & Sawyer in December 2014 (page ES-8) • Difficult for Pittsboro to finance both a major expansion of its Haw River intake & treatment works, and the proposed Western Jordan Lake intake & treatment works • Jordan Lake is eutrophic and in an urbanizing watershed Pros for Sanford: • Pumping drinking water from Sanford and sending back wastewater negates IBT limit of 2.0 MGD (BUT, this is only true if Sanford force main project is also approved. IF the Force main project is not approved, then only 2.0 MGD can be obtained from Sanford.) • Second water supply • Could possibly partner with Chatham County for some cost sharing Cons for Sanford: • Cape Fear River has emerging contaminants as does the Haw River • Pittsboro will have no control over water quality regarding emerging contaminants • Long distance will create TTHM problems • Operating costs will be significant for pumping & for flushing long transmission lines • No control over rates • More expensive than Pittsboro’s share of the Western Intake • Sanford does not own the Buckhorn dam either, built 1908 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix N- Town of Pittsboro and/or PWTF recommending Reverse Osmosis (RO) systems to residents by Chris Atack 16-Oct-20 21 TO: Members of the Pittsboro Water Task Force From: Chris Atack Date: 5/16/20 RE: Idea of Town of Pittsboro and/or the Water Task Force recommending certain Reverse Osmosis (RO) systems to residents Background With the concern over contaminants in the raw and treated Town of Pittsboro municipal water supply, the Pittsboro Water Task Force was formed to study the issue and recommend solutions. This memo is one offshoot of the Taskforce’s charge. The question addressed here is whether or not the Town of Pittsboro should recommend certain reverse osmosis systems to water consumers. RO Water Filter Systems “The under-sink reverse osmosis filter is the most efficient system for removing both the PFAS contaminants prevalent in central N.C. and the PFEAs, including GenX, found in Wilmington,” – Professor Detlef Knappe, NCSU (see link #1 below) There are several types of consumer-level water filtration devices and systems but scientific study has determined that the under-sink RO system is the most efficient when removing contaminants found in the Pittsboro water supply. Most filters types have some utility in removing contaminants but performance of the RO under-sink systems was the most effective and consistent. See link #1 below for more details of the filter study. One point from the study is that whole-house RO systems were not recommended. This is why counter top or under-sink RO systems, and only these RO systems, will be addressed in this memo. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Water Filter Ratings The NSF is the body which establishes objective standards for rating water filters. There are 13 different NSF standards dealing with water filter efficacy listed on the NSF website. Each ratings means that a filter was tested at a known pre-filter level of the rated contaminant and the filter removed enough (depending on the established required removal level for each contaminant) to earn the extant NSF rating. The following is taken directly from the NSF site (link #2 below): NSF/ANSI 42 Filters are certified to reduce aesthetic impurities such as chlorine and taste/odor. These can be point-of-use (under the sink, water pitcher, etc.) or point-of-entry (whole house) treatment systems. NSF/ANSI 53 Filters are certified to reduce a contaminant with a health effect. Health effects are set in this standard as regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada. Both standards 42 and 53 cover adsorption/filtration which is a process that occurs when liquid, gas or dissolved/suspended matter adheres to the surface of, or in the pores of, an adsorbent media. Carbon filters are an example of this type of product. NSF/ANSI 44 Water softeners use a cation exchange resin that is regenerated with sodium or potassium chloride. The softener reduces hardness caused by calcium and magnesium ions and replaces them with sodium or potassium ions. NSF/ANSI 55 Ultraviolet treatment systems use ultraviolet light to inactivate or kill bacteria, viruses and cysts in contaminated water (Class A systems) or to reduce the amount of non-disease causing bacteria in disinfected drinking water (Class B). NSF/ANSI 58 Reverse osmosis systems incorporate a process that uses reverse pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane. Most reverse osmosis systems incorporate one or more additional filters on either side of the membrane. These systems reduce contaminants that are regulated by Health Canada and EPA. NSF/ANSI 62 Distillation systems heat water to the boiling point, and then collect the water vapor as it condenses, leaving behind contaminants such as heavy metals. Some contaminants that convert readily into gases, such as volatile organic chemicals, can carry over with the water vapor. NSF/ANSI 177 Shower filters attach directly to the pipe just in front of the homeowner’s showerhead and are certified to only reduce free available chlorine. NSF/ANSI 244 The filters covered by this standard are intended for use only on public water supplies that have been treated or that are determined to be microbiologically safe. These filters are only intended for protection against intermittent microbiological contamination of otherwise safe drinking water. For example, prior to the issuance of a boil water advisory, you can be assured that your filtration system is protecting you from intermittent microbiological contamination. The standard also includes material safety and structural integrity, similar to other NSF/ANSI drinking water treatment unit standards. Manufacturers can claim bacteria, viruses and cysts reduction for their filtration system. NSF/ANSI 401 Treatment systems for emerging contaminants include both point-of-use and point-of-entry systems that have been verified to reduce one or more of 15 emerging contaminants from drinking water. These emerging contaminants can be pharmaceuticals or chemicals not yet regulated by the EPA or Health Canada. NSF P477 These point-of-use filters reduce microcystin (toxins produced by blue-green algae) below the health advisory set by the EPA. NSF P473 PFOA/PFOS water filters or systems are evaluated on their ability to reduce PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and to meet strict material safety and structural requirements as defined in NSF/ANSI 53. NSF P231 Microbiological water purifiers are certified for health and sanitation based on the recommendations of the EPA’s Task Force Report, Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers (1987) (Annex B). NSF/JWPA P72 Iodine radioisotope point-of-use treatment options are evaluated for reduction of all forms of iodine in drinking water. This protocol was developed in conjunction with the Japan Water Purifier Association (JWPA). Limitation of NSF ratings for Pittsboro-specific contaminants There are four main water contaminant concerns for the Pittsboro water supply – PFOS, PFAS, 1,4 Dioxane and Bromides. There are other contaminants present but these four are the main focus of the Taskforce’s charge. There are no known 1,4 Dioxane NSF rated filters and NSF Standard 58 appears to remove trihalomethanes (THMs) that I believe encompass the known Pittsboro water contaminant called Bromides. NSF Standard P473 appears to address the PFOS and potentially the PFAS in Pittsboro water. While RO systems consistently pull more contaminants out of water than other types of systems, it cannot be definitely stated that the 1,4 Dioxane would be pulled from the water in any consistent way. An additional concern is the variance in levels of contaminants in Pittsboro raw and treated water. While NSF ratings convey a certain assurance of filter performance, the tests for these filters involve a known contaminant level concentration that is introduced to the filter system. The post-filter water is then tested to calculate level of contamination reduction. It can be assumed that the filters will reduce contaminants at all levels, levels both higher and lower than the known levels used in the NSF rating protocol, from pre-filter to post-filter, but it is cannot be definitively stated that this is the case. In addition, there is a danger that high contaminant levels can overwhelm filters resulting in reduction in filter efficacy. System maintenance, i.e. the replacing and/or cleaning of filters, also plays a part in the long- term efficacy of filter systems. Poor system maintenance can result in a false sense of security as the filter system is present and has the proper NSF rating for the contaminant but is not working properly due to clogged, contaminated, or worn out filter components. There are NSF standards to address both general RO systems (NSF Standard 58) and PFOA/PFOS removal in general (NSF Standard P473). NSF Standard 58 allows systems with the rating to claim reduction in the following (link #3): CLAIMS AVAILABLE UNDER • Arsenic reduction NSF/ANSI 58 • Nitrate/nitrite reduction Standard NSF/ANSI 58 includes test procedures to verify various claims that • Cadmium reduction can be made for your • Lead reduction RO system, including: • Barium reduction > Required • Turbidity reduction • TDS (total dissolved solids) reduction • Fluoride reduction > Optional • Copper reduction • Cyst reduction • VOC reduction • Hexavalent and trivalent chromium • Asbestos reduction reduction • Perchlorate reduction • Selenium reduction • Radium 226/228 reduction • Pentavalent arsenic reduction NSF Standard P473 allows the following claims (link #4): NSF P473 is a test protocol for point-of-use treatment devices that claim to reduce PFOA and PFOS. NSF P473 tests the reduction of PFAs using an influent challenge water of 1.0 ug/L (1,000 parts per trillion or ppt) of PFOS and 0.5 ug/L (500 ppt) as PFOA. Products are tested to 200 percent of the manufacturer’s stated capacity for units without a performance indicating device, or 120 percent with a performance indicating device. Effluent levels must be 0.07 ug/L (70 ppt) or less to pass the test (95.3 percent reduction). Concerns and Recommendations Two concerns arise when considering the idea of the Town recommending specific RO systems for household use. The first involves the lack of specific NSF ratings that address all of the contaminants present in the Pittsboro water. In addition, contaminant level fluctuations in Pittsboro water create uncertainty as to filter efficacy. The science points towards RO systems doing the best job of removing the most contaminants. The second concern is liability for the Town should it recommend a system and the user suffers harm, injury, etc. A legal opinion would be needed on this second concern and all steps should be taken to reduce legal exposure for the Town and its citizens. To avoid these pitfalls, it is recommended that the Town avoid recommending specific RO systems and, instead, recommend an RO system that is rated to NSF Standard 58 and NSF Standard P473 at a minimum. It appears that a system with these two ratings will provide the best scientific basis for determining filter efficacy given the most prevalent Pittsboro water supply contaminants. The consumer marketplace provides numerous options for RO systems with these, and more, NSF ratings. Generally the more NSF ratings a system carries, the more it pulls from water. There are under-sink RO systems on the market currently that go for $200 and carry 5 NSF ratings – 42, 53, 58, 401, and P473. Maintenance (filter replacement) costs would add to this cost. This memo does not address the issue of cost and affordability for Town of Pittsboro water customers. In addition, it is recommended that the Town recommend that RO system purchasers follow all manufacturer schedules for system filter replacement and maintenance. Links Link #1: https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/not-all-home-drinking-water-filters-completely-remove- toxic-pfas Link #2: https://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/water-quality/water-filters-testing- treatment/standards-water-treatment-systems Link #3: https://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/water_58_insert.pdf Link #4: https://www.nsf.org/newsroom/frequently-asked-questions-about-nsf-p473-and- perfluorochemicals Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix O- NHCS Installs Reverse Osmosis Water Coolers https://www.nhcs.net/about-us/news/post/~board/district- news/post/nhcs-installs-reverse-osmosis-water-coolers 16-Oct-20 22 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix P- Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class 16-Oct-20 23 This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes. pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class Carol F. Kwiatkowski,* David Q. Andrews, Linda S. Birnbaum, Thomas A. Bruton, Jamie C. DeWitt, Detlef R. U. Knappe, Maricel V. Maffini, Mark F. Miller, Katherine E. Pelch, Anna Reade, Anna Soehl, Xenia Trier, Marta Venier, Charlotte C. Wagner, Zhanyun Wang, and Arlene Blum Cite This: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Read Online ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations ABSTRACT: This commentary presents a scientific basis for managing as one chemical class the thousands of chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The classincludesperfluoroalkyl acids, perfluoroalkylether acids, and their precursors; fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers; and other PFAS. The basis for the class approach is presented in relation to their physicochemical, environmental, and toxicological properties. Specifically, the high persistence, accumulation potential, and/or hazards (known and potential) of PFAS studied to date warrant treating all PFAS as a single class. Examples are provided of how some PFAS are being regulated and how some businesses are avoiding all PFAS in their products and purchasing decisions. We conclude with options for how governments and industry can apply the class-based approach, emphasizing the importance of eliminating non-essential uses of PFAS, and further developing safer alternatives and methods to remove existing PFAS from the environment. ■ INTRODUCTION biota and are thus regarded as precursors to PFAA. Examples fl fl When chemicals have similar molecular structures, environ- are PFAS derived from uorotelomers and per uoroalkane- sulfonyl fluorides, including so-called side-chain-fluorinated mental properties, and/or biological hazards, managing them fl as a class can be an effective means of reducing adverse effects polymers (i.e., polymers with non uorinated backbones and − fl fl on human and ecological health.1 4 While a class-based uorinated side chains). Fluoropolymers and per uoropo- lyethers include polymers with backbones being per- or approach to chemical management can pose challenges to the fl traditional paradigm of individual chemical risk assessment, the poly uorinated. Other PFAS in the class include primarily nonpolymeric PFAS with limited chemical reactivity, such as Downloaded via 76.182.4.206 on July 22, 2020 at 22:22:02 (UTC). extreme persistence and potential for harm from thousands of fl fl fl 5,6 linear and cyclic per uoroalkanes, per uoroalkylethers, and PFAS (per- and poly uoroalkyl substances) demand a more fl efficient and effective approach. Examples of cases in which per uoroalkyl amines. PFAS function in many capacities, including as surfactants, substances with common chemical characteristics are currently friction reducers, and repellents of water, dirt, and oil. As such, managed as a class include organophosphate pesticides, See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles. they are used in a wide variety of consumer products to confer organochlorine pesticides, and organohalogen flame retard- 1,7 nonstick (waterproof, greaseproof, and stainproof) and low- ants. Thus, a class-based approach not only is feasible but friction properties. Examples of products that contain or are also has already been implemented by regulatory agencies coated with PFAS include carpets, glass, paper, clothing and globally. other textiles, plastic articles, cookware, food packaging, Here we provide scientific justification for why a class-based electronics, and personal care products. PFAS are also used approach is appropriate and necessary for all PFAS, defined as directly or as technical aids (dispersants and emulsifiers) in chemicals with at least one aliphatic perfluorocarbon moiety 5,6 many industrial applications, such as in metal coatings, (e.g., -C F -). We discuss the following major subclasses of n 2n lubricants for machinery, membranes, and firefighting foams. PFAS in detail: perfluoroalkyl acids and perfluoroalkylether PFAS are used in the synthesis of or as adjuvants in pesticides, acids (together termed PFAA) and their precursors, fluoropol- ymers and perfluoropolyethers, and other (primarily less reactive) PFAS (see Figure 1 for examples). PFAA are Received: March 30, 2020 nonpolymer PFAS with at least one perfluorocarbon moiety Revised: May 28, 2020 Accepted: June 12, 2020 (e.g., -CF2-, >CF-) directly linked to an acid functional group. The most well-known are perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Many other PFAS may transform and yield PFAA in the environment and © XXXX American Chemical Society https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 A Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective Figure 1. Examples of PFAS chemistries. *These PFAS have been less discussed in the public domain, but they meet the definition of PFAS as recommended in refs 58 and 5. They are primarily PFAS with limited chemical reactivity. in medical procedures and products, and in many other including 6 million with a combined PFOS and PFOA applications.8 concentration over the US EPA’s lifetime health advisory of 70 The most consistent feature within the class of PFAS is that ng/L.11 More recent testing of 25 public water systems in the their perfluorocarbon moieties do not break down, or do so US identified PFAS in every one, with an average of nearly 10 very slowly under natural conditions, which is why PFAS are different PFAS at a combined concentration near 20 ng/L.18 “ ” 9 often termed forever chemicals . Because PFAS are Such testing is lacking in many other parts of the world, persistent, they accumulate or concentrate in the environment, 10 including many European countries. PFAS are also found in a including water, air, sediment, soil, and plants. Elevated levels variety of foods.19,20 The highest levels are found in fish and of PFAS and their widespread presence in environmental shellfish, but meat, eggs, and milk may also contain PFAS if media and drinking water stem from industrial sites that animals have consumed contaminated feed or water. Fruits and produce or use PFAS (or have done so in the past), airports, fi fi vegetables have been shown to contain PFAS taken up from military bases ( re-training and response areas), land lls, the soil and water used to grow them.21 Food contact materials wastewater treatment plants, and the spreading of PFAS- 22,23 11−13 are another source of exposure, as are consumer products contaminated biosolids. Some PFAS are highly mobile in − and house dust.24 28 either air or water, allowing them to travel long distances from Exposure to PFAS occurs in complex mixtures of multiple their source. Environmental and human exposure to PFAS can occur PFAS, yet at present, fewer than 50 individual PFAS (often fewer than 10) are commonly measured in environmental throughout the life cycles of these chemicals and products 29,30 containing them, including during chemical production, media. New analytical methods allow for more compre- fl product manufacturing, distribution, use, disposal, and hensive screening such as measuring total uorine or fl recycling. Many PFAS, particularly PFAA, have been detected extractable/adsorbable organo uorine in the environ- 31−33 22,23,34,35 27 36 37 globally and are in the bodies of nearly all people living in the ment, products, dust, biota, and humans. United States (US), Europe, and other countries world- These methods reveal evidence that humans and wildlife are wide.14,15 Major sources of human exposure to PFAS are from exposed to more PFAS than previously estimated. For example, contaminated food, water, air, and other media such as in one study of tap water in five US cities, less than half the consumer products and house dust.16,17 Limited testing of total organic fluorine measured in treated drinking water was primarily large public water sources in the US found PFAS in accounted for by the sum of individually identified PFAS, the water supplies serving an estimated 16.5 million people, indicating far more PFAS and other organofluorine com- B https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective pounds were present in the water than were identified with areas. Ultimately, this will reduce and prevent further targeted analysis.38 accumulation of these hazardous chemicals in people and the The most well-studied of these substances, PFOA and environment and avoid replacing them with other related and PFOS, have been linked to a variety of health problems. They harmful substances. are termed “long-chain” PFAS, a designation that includes perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids (PFCA) with seven or more ■ HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS fl fl uorinated carbons, per uoroalkanesulfonic acids (PFSA) with With regard to biological activity and the potential for human fl six or more uorinated carbons, and their precursors. When health impacts, PFAA, particularly PFOA and PFOS, are the some major manufacturers phased out the production of long- most well studied PFAS. Data from toxicokinetic studies of chain PFAS, most industries turned to structurally similar PFAA indicate that they are generally well-absorbed after fl 66 replacements, including homologues with fewer uorinated ingestion. After absorption, they distribute from blood to carbons (short-chain PFAS) or other less well known PFAS organs and tissues that receive high blood flow, such as the fl 39,40 (e.g., per- and poly uoroalkylether-based substances). liver, kidney, lung, heart, skin, testis, brain, bone, and − These replacement PFAS were marketed by producers as spleen.46,66 70 Because PFAA can occupy sites on multiple safer alternatives because of their presumed lower toxicity and receptors, proteins, and cell interfaces in the body, they can 41 lower level of bioaccumulation in human blood. However, produce physiological effects across a range of tissues.66 several lines of evidence suggest that short-chain PFAS are not Toxicological (in vitro and in vivo) and epidemiological (in safer alternatives. Research has demonstrated that short-chain occupational, highly exposed, and general populations) studies PFAS can be equally environmentally persistent and are even have identified a broad range of adverse health outcomes more mobile in the environment and more difficult to remove associated with exposure to PFAA in people and animals. In 33,42,43 from drinking water than long-chain PFAS. Bioaccumu- studies of exposed humans, elevated blood levels of PFAA have lation of some short-chain PFAS occurs in humans and been associated with kidney and testicular cancer, elevated 44−46 animals, and research in fish suggests they can do so in cholesterol, liver disease, decreased fertility, thyroid problems, 47,48 excess of the long-chain compounds they aimed to replace. changes in hormone functioning, changes in the immune Short-chain PFAS also can be more effectively taken up by system, and adverse developmental effects.54,71,72 Studies of 49−51 plants. Because short-chain PFAS have, to a large extent, experimental animals provide biological support for associa- replaced the long-chain PFAS in commerce, the levels of short- tions seen in human epidemiological studies, and mechanistic chain PFAS, such as perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), studies increase confidence in a causal relationship between perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), and perfluorohexanoic PFAA and health effects in humans.72,73 To understand the acid (PFHxA), have increased in environmental potential of every PFAS to adversely affect health would 37,43,52,53 media. To date, relatively little is known about require testing across the entire range of different biological possible health effects of long-term exposure to short-chain end points. PFAS. However, a growing body of evidence suggests they are Effects on the immune system are some of the most well associated with similar adverse toxicological effects as long- studied health effects of PFAA. Multiple lines of evidence 54−57 chain PFAS. The ongoing accumulation of persistent support PFAA as immunotoxicants and, more specifically, chemicals that are known or potentially hazardous increases immunosuppressants at small administered doses in rodents, risks to human and environmental health over an indefinite and measured serum concentrations in humans. Findings of period of time. suppressed vaccine response in humans and T cell-dependent Fluoropolymers consist of molecular segments (monomers) antibody response in experimental animals led the US National that are linked together, with up to hundreds of thousands of Toxicology Program (NTP) to classify PFOA and PFOS as linked monomers in high-molecular weight polymers. While presumed immune hazards to humans.72 In a recent draft they are commonly regarded as PFAS,58 fluorochemical toxicological profile, the US Agency for Toxic Substances and producers now argue that fluoropolymers should be separated Disease Registry (ATSDR) extended this finding to PFHxS from other PFAS for hazard assessment or regulatory and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA), identifying all four purposes.59 However, the production of fluoropolymers and compounds as suppressants of antibody response in humans.54 perfluoropolyethers is responsible for extensive environmental These reviews provide strong evidence for immunotoxicity, PFAS contamination, including releases of both intentionally especially when seen across multiple compounds, species, and added PFAA processing aids and unintentional PFAS by- − studies. Notably, suppressed vaccine response in children products.13,43,60 65 It is estimated that the vast majority indicates the period of early life as an exposure window of (∼80%) of PFCA in the environment is from fluoropolymer specific concern.74,75 As such, developmental toxicity has been manufacture and use.60 Below, we discuss reasons why used as the basis for managing PFAS in drinking water and − fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers should be included food contact materials.76 80 Although the immune system, in the class approach to managing PFAS. particularly during development, appears to be sensitive to To date, managing the risk of PFAS has focused primarily on these chemicals, few PFAS have been studied for such effects. one chemical at a time, or a small group of PFAS. This To date, a majority of human epidemiological studies have approach has not been effective at controlling widespread focused on long-chain PFAA. In experimental animal models, exposure to this large group of chemicals with known and however, short-chain PFAA have shown effects similar to those potential hazards. Below, we present scientific justification for of long-chain PFAA. For example, exposure to GenX has been managing PFAS as a single chemical class, and we suggest ways associated with hepatic and renal effects81,82 and suppressed in which government and industry can reduce PFAS-related immune function in mice.83 A study of PFBA in rats indicated risks. For example, a class-based approach can be implemented changes to liver weight, serum cholesterol, and thyroid to more effectively eliminate non-essential uses of PFAS, hormones,84 and a two-generation study of PFBS in rats develop safer alternatives, and clean up highly contaminated demonstrated increased liver weight and pathological changes C https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective in kidneys.85 Recent reports by NTP found that both PFBS In sum, scientific evidence supports the possibility that and PFHxA had numerous adverse effects, including decreased adverse effects of PFAS can occur in several bodily systems, thyroid hormones in male and female rats.55,56 Effects on with the developing immune system being particularly kidneys86 and on reproduction and development87 also have sensitive. Health effects have been demonstrated for several been reported for PFHxA. Notably, effects observed with other PFAS, including long- and short-chain PFAA, and chemicals PFAA may occur at larger administered doses compared to the associated with polymers. However, <1% of all PFAS have long-chain PFAA. However, humans are exposed to multiple been tested for their hazardous effects. Proceeding with the PFAS at once, and there is little research to date on the effects approach of testing one chemical at a time will cause of combined exposures. To account for such effects, an substantial delays in the effort to protect health and the additive model for PFAS toxicity is used by the US EPA for environment from this large class of potentially hazardous two PFAS and in several US states for five to six PFAS. In chemicals. Europe, an additive model is used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for four PFAS,88 by the EU drinking ■ ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE: PERSISTENCE, water directive listing 20 PFAS, and by individual European ACCUMULATION, AND MOBILITY countries, including Sweden and Denmark. fl An overarching property of all PFAS is that they have highly Some manufacturers have proposed that uoropolymers fl should not be grouped with other PFAS for regulatory stable per uorocarbon moieties in their molecular structure. purposes, arguing that they are biologically inert because of Thus, all PFAS either are extremely persistent in the 59 environment and biota or partially transform into extremely their high molecular weight. However, these chemicals can 114−117 release low-molecular weight PFAS and other hazardous persistent PFAS. Studies have estimated that PFAS such as perfluoroalkanes have lifetimes in the thousands of substances to the environment throughout their life cycle. 113,118 Thus, we argue for the inclusion of fluoropolymers and years. Thus, PFAS will be present in the environment perfluoropolyethers in the overall class approach for PFAS, for centuries or longer, even if environmental releases cease specifically for the following reasons. immediately. (1) During production of fluoropolymers and perfluoropo- The high persistence of PFAS results in long-term lyethers, low-molecular weight PFAS used as raw materials, accumulation in the environment and living organisms, processing agents, or additives, or generated as intermediates, which increases the risk of harm. A key concern in recent years is that some replacement PFAS, such as PFBA, PFBS, can be released into different waste streams (air and water) and GenX, have been widely detected in surface water and and current emission filters do not completely capture them, groundwater.43,65,119 PFAS can concentrate in plants, including nor is there an effective means of disposing of captured 13,89−91 food crops, when grown in contaminated soil or irrigated with PFAS. For example, it was the production of − contaminated water.20,120 122 Bioaccumulation occurs through fluoropolymers and the associated use and release of PFOA the food chain, with top predators (e.g., whales, bald eagles, that led to the widespread contamination of the US mid-Ohio − and humans) having the highest levels.123 127 Most concerning river valley and its residents.92 In addition, potent greenhouse is that when PFAS accumulate, they can reach concentrations gases such as HFC-23 [trifluoromethane (CHF )] can be 3 where hazardous effects are observed in humans and formed during fluoropolymer production, and emissions to the ecosystems, particularly when the effects of combined exposure atmosphere have been reported.93,94 to multiple PFAS are considered.128,129 (2) During use, low-molecular weight PFAS may be The high mobility of many PFAS further exacerbates the released, for example, PFCA in personal care products that concern.130 Many PFAS can travel long distances from their contain PTFE.95 sources. PFAA, particularly short-chain types, are very water- (3) During disposal, PFAA and other hazardous byproducts soluble, being distributed readily in groundwater, surface may be generated and released, such as when they are 53,131,132 waters, and the oceans. They can be difficult, costly, incinerated at an insufficiently high temperature for insufficient − and sometimes even impossible to remove from water with time.96 100 For example, when PTFE is heated above 350−400 conventional and even advanced treatment pro- °C, it decomposes and releases various gases that cause the so- 13,43,133,134 cesses. Many other PFAS may be highly mobile in called “Teflon fever” in workers.101 air, including the volatile perfluoroalkanes, fluorotelomer Other important considerations are that (1) some fl 102 alcohols (FTOH), and many other (semi)volatile PFAA per uoropolyethers (e.g., Krytox 157FS ) are mixtures of precursors.116 PFAA with molecular weights of only several thousand grams The extreme persistence of the fluorocarbon chain, per mole and thus potentially biologically active; (2) in the EU combined with the propensity for accumulation and mobility and many other countries, substances registered as polymers of many PFAS, has resulted in PFAS being ubiquitous globally, can consist of fewer than 10 monomers, which are likely to be 36,53,135,136 103 fl even in remote regions like the Arctic. The small and bioavailable molecules; (3) uorine is 19 times continued use of PFAS will result in increasing concentrations heavier than hydrogen, and therefore high-molecular weight of PFAS, increasing numbers of exposed organisms,137 and PFAS can be relatively small molecules, compared to increasing probabilities of harm. Once adverse effects are hydrocarbon molecules of the same weight; and (4) identified, it will take decades, centuries, or even longer to fluoropolymer microplastics contribute to global plastic and 104,105 reverse contamination and reduce the harm to our health and microplastics debris, thus adding to ongoing environ- the environment. mental plastic and PFAS pollution. Similar to fluoropolymers, other PFAS such as perfluor- oalkanes and perfluoroalkylamines are generally inert,106 but ■ MANAGING RISK they can be very potent greenhouse gases, up to 3 orders of Risk management consists of various actions to minimize the 107−113 magnitude more potent than CO2. chance of harm. Chemical risk management can be carried out D https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective by governments and businesses and includes the cessation or chain, and for authorities monitoring the extent of PFAS restriction of production and use of the chemicals, and efforts contamination of humans, products, food, water, and the to clean up contamination. environment. Simpler, cheaper, class-based methods also Regulatory Approaches. Many different regulatory typically result in more frequent testing, which improves frameworks are used for managing the risk of exposure to compliance and detection of emerging risks. Methods to screen hazardous chemicals. While traditionally PFAS have been for fluorine already exist, for example, extractable organic regulated one chemical at a time, subgroups of PFAS have also fluorine methods coupled to combustion ion chromatography been regulated, with a focus on PFAA and their precur- (EOF-CIC) and particle-induced γ-ray emission − sors.79,138 142 An advantage of targeting chemical subgroups is (PIGE).23,155,156 Hence, focusing on risk management tools that the toxicological end points are often assumed to be that address PFAS as a class has the potential not only to similar, which allows for extrapolation from well-studied prevent pollution by known PFAS but also to prevent chemicals to those less studied. However, assessing only regrettable substitution, to improve the efficiency and small subgroups systematically ignores the majority of PFAS effectiveness of chemical management, and to encourage the and underestimates the overall risk, particularly when many of selection of treatment approaches that effectively reduce total the chemicals are unknown. For example, the EU drinking PFAS exposure when remediating PFAS-contaminated sites. water directive, which addresses a relatively large subgroup, Marketplace Approaches. Compared to governments, covers only 20 PFAS.143 retailers and manufacturers can make more rapid changes to Governments are increasingly using broader management reduce their use of chemical classes of concern. For instance, approaches to control PFAS exposure, such as targeting all home retailer IKEA committed to a complete phase-out of all PFAS within certain use categories. For example, the US states PFAS in its textile products and reported achieving this goal as of Maine and Washington banned all PFAS in food contact of 2016.157 Recently, H&M, Danish COOP, and ChemSec’s materials144,145 and Denmark banned PFAS from paper and corporate initiative called to end the use of PFAS in products paperboard food packaging.146,147 South Australia and and the supply chain.158 Numerous factors are encouraging Washington state (and other US states) enacted bans on companies to stop using the entire class of PFAS. Increasing PFAS in firefighting foam.148,149 California has proposed to demand for products containing fewer harmful chemicals is regulate any PFAS used in carpets and rugs.150 In the case of one driver. For example, demand from retailers for food drinking water, a “PFAS - Total” limit was recently adopted by contact materials, from textile brands for sportswear, or from the European Commission.143 Regulatory agencies in Europe large purchasers and green builders for carpets has resulted in and the US are working to advance, validate, and standardize safer PFAS-free products on the market. Pressure from currently available methods to measure total PFAS in certain environmental groups is another driver. One prominent media. campaign contributed to the decision of many apparel 159 A more comprehensive risk management approach that has companies to eliminate PFAS in their textile treatments. been gaining traction is to limit the uses of hazardous Companies’ values can also play a role, such as when member- chemicals to only those considered “essential”, while fostering owned retailer COOP Denmark announced a phase-out of all development of safer alternatives. In 1987, the Montreal PFAS-containing cosmetics “on the basis of a precautionary 160 Protocol defined essentiality (in the case of ozone-depleting principle”. Similarly, Kaiser Permanente, Levi Strauss & Co., chlorofluorocarbons) as being necessary for health or safety, or and Crate and Barrel are phasing out all PFAS based on the 3 critical for the functioning of society, and without technically companies’ environmental and health values. and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are New international, national, state, and local regulations acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health.151 focusing on PFAS in certain products are additional 150 161 In the 2015 “Madrid Statement”, more than 200 scientists influences, as are threats of future litigation and liability. advocated using a similar approach for PFAS, i.e., limiting the While some companies may find it challenging to eliminate all production and use of the entire class of PFAS, including PFAS from their products, others view it as important for polymers, to essential uses.152 A more recent publication mitigating business risks, or as a business opportunity. For applied the essentiality concept to specific PFAS use categories example, treating PFAS as a class can help companies avoid and described examples of current PFAS-free alternatives, as multiple cycles of reformulations due to regrettable sub- well as uses where alternatives still need to be developed.153 In stitutions. Regulatory action addressing the class of PFAS will 2019, several European countries committed to phasing out all encourage further preventive actions from companies and help non-essential uses of PFAS by 2030.154 Limiting PFAS to “level the playing field” by reducing the financial disadvantage essential uses would incentivize further development of of industry front-runners developing safer alternatives while alternatives that do not require fluorinated chemicals. Focusing incentivizing even further innovation toward safer alternatives. on pollution prevention is critical because remediation of PFAS-impacted media, such as polluted groundwater aquifers, ■ OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD is costly, is energy-intensive, and cannot fully reverse the Thousands of PFAS have already been documented across damage. multiple industries and business sectors, and the list is Managing PFAS as a class has additional benefits. It reduces growing.5,6 Managing PFAS one by one is neither feasible the likelihood of replacing well-studied hazardous chemicals nor cost-efficient. More comprehensive solutions are needed, with poorly studied but structurally similar PFAS that have the given that traditional approaches have failed to control potential to be similarly hazardous (i.e., “regrettable sub- widespread exposures to PFAS and resulted in inadequate stitution”). It can be simpler and less expensive to implement: public health protection. For Europe alone, the annual health for example, for premarket regulation of uses for the entire costs linked to exposure to just a few PFAS are estimated at class, for setting procurement standards, for testing for 52−84 billion Euros, and environmental remediation costs at compliance and communicating test results through the supply roughly 17 billion Euros.162 Here we suggest class-based E https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective ffi options to more comprehensively and e ciently reduce PFAS Box Key Messages exposure. Government policy makers have already begun limiting 1. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) make up a PFAS through bans in certain product categories. However, to ff class of extremely persistent chemicals, numbering in more e ectively manage PFAS, governments can apply the the thousands, that accumulate in the environment and essential uses framework. Examples of essential and non- 153 living organisms and can be highly mobile, leading to essential uses of PFAS have already begun to be described. global contamination. To make the criteria fully operational for inclusion in 2. The use of PFAS in numerous consumer and industrial legislation, a more precise set of decision criteria is needed applications has led to widespread human and environ- to guide the categorization. Such decisions involve both fi mental exposure from, for example, drinking water, scienti c and ethical considerations and thus require input food, and consumer products. from a broad set of scientists, civil society, industry, and 3. Toxicological and epidemiological studies have identi- policymakers. fi fl ed a broad range of adverse health outcomes Limiting the entire class of PFAS, including uorinated associated with exposure to PFAS in people and polymers, to essential uses is critical, given that currently, animals. remediating PFAS, once released to the environment, is at best 114,163 4. We suggest a class-based approach to managing the extremely costly and, in some cases, impossible. human and environmental risks associated with all Governments can take a class-based approach to cleanup PFAS, including polymers. ff e orts, for example, by prioritizing research and development 5. We provide options for how governments and industry funding for treatment and disposal/destruction methods that can apply the class-based approach, emphasizing the ff are e ective for the entire class of PFAS. Such an approach importance of eliminating non-essential uses of PFAS, would ensure that treatment strategies remove all PFAS from and further developing safer alternatives and methods all impacted environmental media (water, air, and soil) and to remove all existing PFAS from the environment. that treatment residuals (for example, spent activated carbon and reverse osmosis concentrate) are managed such that the fluorinated alternatives for PFAS with current essential uses. entire PFAS class is destroyed and its degradation products (or fl They can also work with product manufacturers and businesses minerals) captured, so that unknown uorinated reaction to rapidly replace all PFAS uses that have technically and intermediates and harmful levels of organofluorines and fl economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the hydrogen uoride are not reintroduced into the environment. standpoint of environment and health. Chemical and product A class approach can also be used in developing cleanup manufacturers can be transparent about the use of any PFAS standards, so that responsible industries are held accountable chemistries in the supply chain and monitor and strictly for remediation of all PFAS, not just a few. Additionally, control releases of all PFAS into the environment until their governments can hold responsible parties accountable for use can be phased out. In addition, PFAS manufacturers can exposure and health monitoring in heavily exposed popula- ff assist in developing better methods to detect, remove, and tions, in order to promote e ective and lasting solutions. destroy PFAS, although regulatory incentives or pressures may Regulatory agencies can also adopt class-based strategies to be needed. reduce exposure and minimize health risk. For example, they The more we study PFAS, the more we learn about the harm may extrapolate risk from well-understood PFAS when limiting they can do to our health and the environment. However, it is uses of PFAS in commerce or setting protective cleanup levels. not possible to thoroughly assess every individual PFAS, or They can also assess combined exposures to PFAS (e.g., in combination of PFAS, for their full range of effects in a drinking water, food, air, consumer products, and waste) as a reasonable time frame. Without effective risk management basis to set regulatory limits and treatment standards. action around the entire class of PFAS, these chemicals will Establishing limits to the class rather than doing so on a continue to accumulate and cause harm to human health and chemical-by-chemical basis would result in lower exposure ecosystems for generations to come. As demonstrated above, values that better protect vulnerable populations such as managing PFAS as a class is scientifically sound, will provide pregnant women, children, and workers. In addition, systems business innovation opportunities, and will help protect our that can track historic, current, and future uses of all PFAS, and health and environment now and in the future. releases to the environment, could help to guide and prioritize monitoring, for instance, for emerging risk detection and ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION compliance/enforcement testing. The further development, Corresponding Author use, and interlaboratory standardization of analytical methods $ − ff Carol F. Kwiatkowski Department of Biological Sciences, to measure total PFAS would complement this e ort, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina improving the accuracy, speed, and cost of screening for 27695, United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-1218; PFAS in the environment, consumer products, and people. Email: [email protected] Collaboration within and across national and international policy and regulatory bodies to foster class-based strategies Authors would be beneficial. Such concerted efforts could help prevent David Q. Andrews − Environmental Working Group, shifting burdens from one geographical location to another and Washington, D.C. 20009, United States may evolve into “de facto” industry standards as international &Linda S. Birnbaum − National Institute of Environmental actors attempt to minimize costs of complying with multiple Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina different regulations. 27709, United States Solutions are also available in the marketplace. Chemical Thomas A. Bruton − Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, manufacturers can move quickly to develop safer non- California 94709, United States F https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective Jamie C. DeWitt − Department of Pharmacology and Holly Davies in reviewing the manuscript prior to submission, Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, and Chris Ribbens who contributed administrative support. Greenville, North Carolina 27834, United States Detlef R. U. Knappe − Department of Civil, Construction, and ■ REFERENCES Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, (1) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United States; orcid.org/ Class Approach to Hazard Assessment of Organohalogen Flame 0000-0003-1315-1791 Retardants; National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2019. +Maricel V. Maffini − Private Residence, Frederick, Maryland (2) U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Minutes of − 21701, United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-9461 commission meeting. Decisional Matter: Petition HP 15 1 Request Mark F. Miller − National Institute of Environmental Health Rulemaking on Certain Products Containing Organohalgen Flame Sciences and U.S. Public Health Service, Research Triangle Park, Retardants. Bethesda, MD, 2017. (3) Blum, A. Tackling toxics. Science 2016, 351 (6278), 1117. North Carolina 27709, United States − (4) Cordner, A.; Richter, L.; Brown, P. Can Chemical Class Katherine E. Pelch School of Public Health, University of Approaches Replace Chemical-by-Chemical Strategies? Lessons from North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas 76126, Recent U.S. FDA Regulatory Action on Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl United States Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (23), 12584−12591. Anna Reade − Natural Resources Defense Council, San (5) Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Francisco, California 94104, United States Towardanewcomprehensiveglobaldatabaseofper-and Anna Soehl − Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs): summary report on updating fl 94709, United States the OECD 2007 list of per- and poly uoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Xenia Trier − European Environment Agency, DK-1050 Environment Directorate Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee Copenhagen, Denmark and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides, and Biotechnology Series on Risk Management, 39th Paris, 2018. Marta Venier − O’Neill School of Public and Environmental ff (6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS Master List of A airs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47401, PFAS Substances. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_ United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-2089-8992 lists/pfasmaster (accessed 2020-04-26). Charlotte C. Wagner − Harvard John A. Paulson School of (7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cumulative Assessment Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard University, of Risk from Pesticides. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and- Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, United States assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides (ac- Zhanyun Wang − Chair of Ecological Systems Design, Institute cessed 2019-08-14). of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zurich, (8) Kissa, E. Fluorinated surfactants and repellents, 2nd ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 2001. Switzerland Arlene Blum − Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, (9) Allen, J. G. These toxic chemicals are everywhere even in your body. And they won’t ever go away. The Washington Post, 2018. California 94709, United States; Department of Chemistry, (10) Ghisi, R.; Vamerali, T.; Manzetti, S. Accumulation of University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: A States review. Environ. Res. 2019, 169, 326−341. Complete contact information is available at: (11) Hu, X. C.; Andrews, D. Q.; Lindstrom, A. B.; Bruton, T. A.; https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Schaider, L. A.; Grandjean, P.; Lohmann, R.; Carignan, C. C.; Blum, A.; Balan, S. A.; Higgins, C. P.; Sunderland, E. M. Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Funding Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Funding was supplied by charitable contributions to The Wastewater Treatment Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3 Endocrine Disruption Exchange (C.F.K. and K.E.P.), the (10), 344−350. Green Science Policy Institute (T.A.B., A.S., and A.B.), and the (12) Lindstrom, A. B.; Strynar, M. J.; Delinsky, A. D.; Nakayama, S. Natural Resources Defense Council (A.R.). C.W. was F.; McMillan, L.; Libelo, E. L.; Neill, M.; Thomas, L. Application of supported by the National Institute for Environmental Health WWTP biosolids and resulting perfluorinated compound contami- nation of surface and well water in Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environ. Sciences Superfund Research Program (P42ES027706). Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (19), 8015−21. D.R.U.K. and J.C.D. were supported by the National Institute (13) Hopkins, Z. R.; Sun, M.; DeWitt, J. C.; Knappe, D. R. U. for Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Recently Detected Drinking Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Program (1 P42 ES031009-01). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids. J. - Am. Water Works Assoc. − Notes 2018, 110 (7), 13 28. (14) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Updated Tables, March 2018. Vol. 1. European Environment Agency. (15) Bjerregaard-Olesen, C.; Bossi, R.; Liew, Z.; Long, M.; Bech, B. Theauthorsdeclarethefollowingcompetingfinancial H.; Olsen, J.; Henriksen, T. B.; Berg, V.; Nost, T. H.; Zhang, J. J.; interest(s): It may be relevant that J.C.D. currently is engaged Odland, J. O.; Bonefeld-Jorgensen, E. C. Maternal serum concen- as a plaintiffs expert witness in several cases involving PFAS. trations of perfluoroalkyl acids in five international birth cohorts. Int. $ J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2017, 220,86−93. Adjunct faculty. (16) Sunderland, E. M.; Hu, X. C.; Dassuncao, C.; Tokranov, A. K.; &Retired. + Wagner, C. C.; Allen, J. G. A review of the pathways of human Independent consultant. exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. ■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2019, 29 (2), 131−147. (17) Land, M.; de Wit, C. A.; Bignert, A.; Cousins, I. T.; Herzke, D.; The authors are grateful for the help of Gina Solomon in early Johansson, J. H.; Martin, J. W. What is the effect of phasing out long- discussions of the manuscript topic, Elsie Sunderland and chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on the concentrations of G https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective perfluoroalkyl acids and their precursors in the environment? A Balance on Fluorine on Papers and Textiles. Environ. Sci. Technol. systematic review. Environmental Evidence 2018, 7 (1), n/a. 2017, 51 (16), 9022−9032. (18) Boone, J. S.; Vigo, C.; Boone, T.; Byrne, C.; Ferrario, J.; (35) Schultes, L.; Vestergren, R.; Volkova, K.; Westberg, E.; Benson, R.; Donohue, J.; Simmons, J. E.; Kolpin, D. W.; Furlong, E. Jacobson, T.; Benskin, J. P. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and T.; Glassmeyer, S. T. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in source fluorine mass balance in cosmetic products from the Swedish market: and treated drinking waters of the United States. Sci. Total Environ. implications for environmental emissions and human exposure. 2019, 653, 359−369. Environmental science. Processes & impacts 2018, 20 (12), 1680−1690. (19) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Per and Polyfluoroalkyl (36) De Silva, A. O.; Spencer, C.; Ho, K. C.; Al Tarhuni, M.; Go, C.; Substances (PFAS). https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals/and- Houde, M.; de Solla, S. R.; Lavoie, R. A.; King, L. E.; Muir, D. C.; polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas (accessed 2019-08-01). Fair, P. A.; Wells, R. S.; Bossart, G. D. Perfluoroalkylphosphinic Acids (20) Universiteit Van Amsterdam. PERFOOD Report Summary; in Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Double-Crested Cormorants European Union: Amsterdam, 2013. (Phalacrocorax auritus), and Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops trunca- (21) European Food Safety Authority. Risk to human health related tus) in Relation to Other Perfluoroalkyl Acids. Environ. Sci. Technol. to the presence of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic 2016, 50 (20), 10903−10913. acid in food. In EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (37) Yeung, L. W. Y.; Mabury, S. A. Are humans exposed to (CONTAM); Knutsen, H. K., Alexander, J., Barregård, L., Bignami, increasing amounts of unidentified organofluorine? Environ. Chem. M., Brüschweiler, B., Ceccatelli, S., Cottrill, B., Dinovi, M., Edler, L., 2016, 13 (1), 102−110. Grasl-Kraupp, B., Hogstrand, C., Hoogenboom, L., Stefano, C., (38) Hu, X. C.; Tokranov, A. K.; Liddie, J.; Zhang, X.; Grandjean, P.; Isabelle, N., Oswald, P., Petersen, A., Rose, M., Roudot, A.-C., Hart, J. E.; Laden, F.; Sun, Q.; Yeung, L. W. Y.; Sunderland, E. M. Tap Vleminckx, C., Vollmer, G., Wallace, H., Bodin, L., Cravedi, J.-P., Water Contributions to Plasma Concentrations of Poly- and Halldorsson, T. I., Haug, L. S., Johansson, N., van Loveren, H., Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in a Nationwide Prospective Gergelova, P., Mackay, P., Levorato, S., van Manen, M., Schwerdtle, Cohort of U.S. Women. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127 (6), T., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons Ltd., on behalf of European Food 067006. Safety Authority, 2018. (39) Brendel, S.; Fetter, E.; Staude, C.; Vierke, L.; Biegel-Engler, A. (22) Trier, X.; Taxvig, C.; Rosenmai, A. K.; Pedersen, G. A. PFAS in Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids: environmental concerns and a paper and board for food contact: Options for risk management of poly- regulatory strategy under REACH. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30 (1), 9. and perfluorinated substances; Nordisk Ministerråd: Copenhagen, (40) European Chemicals Agency. Annex XV Report: Proposal for 2017. Identification of a Substance of Very High Concern on the Basis of (23) Schaider, L. A.; Balan, S. A.; Blum, A.; Andrews, D. Q.; Strynar, the Criteria Set Out In REACH Article 57. In Identification of HFPO- M. J.; Dickinson, M. E.; Lunderberg, D. M.; Lang, J. R.; Peaslee, G. F. DA And Its Salts/Acyl Halides as SVHC; 2019. Fluorinated Compounds in U.S. Fast Food Packaging. Environ. Sci. (41) Wang, Z.; Cousins, I. T.; Scheringer, M.; Hungerbuhler, K. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4 (3), 105−111. Fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (24) Liu, W.; Chen, S.; Harada, K. H.; Koizumi, A. Analysis of (PFCAs), perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs) and their potential perfluoroalkyl carboxylates in vacuum cleaner dust samples in Japan. precursors. Environ. Int. 2013, 60, 242−8. Chemosphere 2011, 85 (11), 1734−41. (42) Cousins, I. T.; Vestergren, R.; Wang, Z.; Scheringer, M.; (25) Karaskova, P.; Venier, M.; Melymuk, L.; Becanova, J.; Vojta, S.; McLachlan, M. S. The precautionary principle and chemicals Prokes,R.;Diamond,M.L.;Klanova,J.Perfluorinatedalkyl management: The example of perfluoroalkyl acids in groundwater. substances (PFASs) in household dust in Central Europe and Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 331−340. North America. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 315−324. (43) Sun, M.; Arevalo, E.; Strynar, M.; Lindstrom, A.; Richardson, (26) Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI). Occurrence and use of M.; Kearns, B.; Pickett, A.; Smith, C.; Knappe, D. R. U. Legacy and highly fluorinated substances and alternatives: Report from a Emerging Perfluoroalkyl Substances Are Important Drinking Water government assignment. Stockholm, 2005. Contaminants in the Cape Fear River Watershed of North Carolina. (27) Norsk Institutt for Luftforskning. PFASs in house dust. Kjeller, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3 (12), 415−419. Norway, 2015. (44) Russell, M. H.; Nilsson, H.; Buck, R. C. Elimination kinetics of (28) Mitro, S. D.; Dodson, R. E.; Singla, V.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Elmi, perfluorohexanoic acid in humans and comparison with mouse, rat A. F.; Tilly, M. K.; Zota, A. R. Consumer Product Chemicals in and monkey. Chemosphere 2013, 93 (10), 2419−25. Indoor Dust: A Quantitative Meta-analysis of U.S. Studies. Environ. (45) Kabadi, S. V.; Fisher, J.; Aungst, J.; Rice, P. Internal exposure- Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (19), 10661−10672. based pharmacokinetic evaluation of potential for biopersistence of (29) Wang, Z.; DeWitt, J. C.; Higgins, C. P.; Cousins, I. T. A Never- 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH) and its metabolites. Food Chem. Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Toxicol. 2018, 112, 375−382. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (5), 2508−2518. (46) Perez, F.; Nadal, M.; Navarro-Ortega, A.; Fabrega, F.; (30) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS methods and Domingo, J. L.; Barcelo, D.; Farre, M. Accumulation of perfluoroalkyl guidance for sampling and analyzing water and other environmental substances in human tissues. Environ. Int. 2013, 59, 354−62. media (Technical Brief). https://www.epa.gov/water-research/pfas- (47) Pan, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cui, Q.; Sheng, N.; Yeung, L. W. Y.; Guo, methods-and-guidance-sampling-and-analyzing-water-and-other- Y.;Sun,Y.;Dai,J.FirstReportontheOccurrenceand environmental-media (accessed 2019-08-14). Bioaccumulation of Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Trimer Acid: An (31) Houtz, E. F.; Sedlak, D. L. Oxidative Conversion as a Means of Emerging Concern. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (17), 9553−9560. Detecting Precursors to Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Urban Runoff. (48) Shi, Y.; Vestergren, R.; Zhou, Z.; Song, X.; Xu, L.; Liang, Y.; Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (17), 9342−9349. Cai, Y. Tissue Distribution and Whole Body Burden of the (32) Koch, A.; Aro, R.; Wang, T.; Yeung, L. W. Y. Towards a Chlorinated Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Sulfonic Acid F-53B in Crucian comprehensive analytical workflow for the chemical characterisation Carp (Carassius carassius): Evidence for a Highly Bioaccumulative of organofluorine in consumer products and environmental samples. Contaminant of Emerging Concern. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2020, 123, 115423. (24), 14156−65. (33) Zhang, C. H.; Hopkins, Z. R.; McCord, J.; Strynar, M. J.; (49) Lasee, S.; Subbiah, S.; Thompson, W. A.; Karnjanapiboonwong, Knappe, D. R. U. Fate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids in the A.; Jordan, J.; Payton, P.; Anderson, T. A. Plant Uptake of Per- and Total Oxidizable Precursor Assay and Implications for the Analysis of Polyfluoroalkyl Acids under a Maximum Bioavailability Scenario. Impacted Water. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6 (11), 662−668. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2019, 38 (11), 2497−2502. (34) Robel, A. E.; Marshall, K.; Dickinson, M.; Lunderberg, D.; Butt, (50) Blaine, A. C.; Rich, C. D.; Sedlacko, E. M.; Hyland, K. C.; C.; Peaslee, G.; Stapleton, H. M.; Field, J. A. Closing the Mass Stushnoff, C.; Dickenson, E. R.; Higgins, C. P. Perfluoroalkyl acid H https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective uptake in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) River and Drinking Water near a Fluorochemical Production Plant in irrigated with reclaimed water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (24), the Netherlands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (19), 11057−11065. 14361−8. (66) Kudo, N. Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. In Toxicological (51) Blaine, A. C.; Rich, C. D.; Sedlacko, E. M.; Hundal, L. S.; Effects of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; DeWitt, J. C., Kumar, K.; Lau, C.; Mills, M. A.; Harris, K. M.; Higgins, C. P. Ed.; Humana Press: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp 151−175. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Distribution in Various Plant Compartments of (67) Greaves, A. K.; Letcher, R. J.; Sonne, C.; Dietz, R. Brain region Edible Crops Grown in Biosolids-Amended soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. distribution and patterns of bioaccumulative perfluoroalkyl carbox- 2014, 48 (14), 7858−7865. ylates and sulfonates in east greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus). (52) Houtz, E. F.; Sutton, R.; Park, J. S.; Sedlak, M. Poly- and Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32 (3), 713−22. perfluoroalkyl substances in wastewater: Significance of unknown (68) Verreault, J.; Houde, M.; Gabrielsen, G. W.; Berger, U.; precursors, manufacturing shifts, and likely AFFF impacts. Water Res. Haukas, M.; Letcher, R. J.; Muir, D. C. Perfluorinated alkyl substances 2016, 95, 142−9. in plasma, liver, brain, and eggs of glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) (53) Gomis, M. I.; Wang, Z.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I. T. A from the Norwegian arctic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (19), modeling assessment of the physicochemical properties and environ- 7439−45. mental fate of emerging and novel per- and polyfluoroalkyl (69) Van de Vijver, K. I.; Holsbeek, L.; Das, K.; Blust, R.; Joiris, C.; substances. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 981−91. De Coen, W. Occurrence of perfluorooctane sulfonate and other (54) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxico- perfluorinated alkylated substances in harbor porpoises from the Black logical Profile for Perfluoroalkyls (Draft for Public Comment). 2018. Sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (1), 315−20. (55) U.S. National Toxicology Program. Toxicity Report 96: NTP (70) Shi, Y.; Wang, J.; Pan, Y.; Cai, Y. Tissue distribution of Technical Report on The Toxicity Studies of Perfluoroalkyl perfluorinated compounds in farmed freshwater fish and human Sulfonates (Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid, Perfluorohexane Sulfonate exposure by consumption. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31 (4), 717− Potassium Salt, and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid) Administered by 23. Gavage to Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rats. Research (71) C8 Science Panel. Probable Link Reports. http://www. Triangle Park, NC, 2019. c8sciencepanel.org/prob_link.html (accessed 2019-06-28). (56) U.S. National Toxicology Program. Toxiciy Report 97: NTP (72) U.S. National Toxicology Program Office of Health Assessment Technical Report on The Toxicity Studies of Perfluoroalkyl and Translation. Monograph on Immunotoxicity Associated with Carboxylates (Perfluorohexanoic Acid, Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Perfluorononanoic Acid, and Perfluorodecanoic Acid) Administered Sulfonate (PFOS); Research Triangle Park, NC, 2016. by Gavage to Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rat. (73) Birnbaum, L. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Research Triangle Park, NC, 2019. Environment and Public Works Hearing on “Examining the Federal (57) U.S. Environmnetal Protection Agency. GenX and PFBS Draft response to the risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl Toxicity Assessments. https://www.epa.gov/pfas/genx-and-pfbs- substances (PFAS)”. 2019. draft-toxicity-assessments (accessed 2018-11-19). (74) Grandjean, P.; Andersen, E. W.; Budtz-Jorgensen, E.; Nielsen, (58) Buck, R. C.; Franklin, J.; Berger, U.; Conder, J. M.; Cousins, I. F.; Molbak, K.; Weihe, P.; Heilmann, C. Serum vaccine antibody T.; de Voogt, P.; Jensen, A. A.; Kannan, K.; Mabury, S. A.; van concentrations in children exposed to perfluorinated compounds. Leeuwen, S. P. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012, 307 (4), 391−7. environment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integr. Environ. (75) Grandjean, P.; Heilmann, C.; Weihe, P.; Nielsen, F.; Mogensen, Assess. Manage. 2011, 7 (4), 513−41. U. B.; Timmermann, A.; Budtz-Jorgensen, E. Estimated exposures to (59) Henry, B. J.; Carlin, J. P.; Hammerschmidt, J. A.; Buck, R. C.; perfluorinated compounds in infancy predict attenuated vaccine Buxton, L. W.; Fiedler, H.; Seed, J.; Hernandez, O. A critical review of antibody concentrations at age 5-years. J. Immunotoxicol. 2017, 14 the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to (1), 188−195. fluoropolymers. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2018, 14 (3), 316− (76) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 334. DrinkingWaterHealthAdvisoryforperfluorooctanoic acid (60) Prevedouros, K.; Cousins, I. T.; Buck, R. C.; Korzeniowski, S. (PFOA). Washington, DC, 2016. H. Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environ. Sci. (77) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Technol. 2006, 40 (1), 32−44. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (61) Hoffman, K.; Webster, T. F.; Bartell, S. M.; Weisskopf, M. G.; (PFOS). Washington, DC, 2016. Fletcher, T.; Vieira, V. M. Private drinking water wells as a source of (78) New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. exposure to perfluorooctanoicacid(PFOA)incommunities Technical Background Report for the June 2019 Proposed Maximum surrounding a fluoropolymer production facility. Environ. Health Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Ambient Groundwater Quality Perspect. 2011, 119 (1), 92−7. Standards (AGQSs) for Perfluorooctane sulfonic Acid (PFOS), (62) Strynar, M.; Dagnino, S.; McMahen, R.; Liang, S.; Lindstrom, Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA), A.; Andersen, E.; McMillan, L.; Thurman, M.; Ferrer, I.; Ball, C. and Perfluorohexane sulfonic Acid (PFHxS) And Letter from Dr. Identification of Novel Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids Stephen M. Roberts, Ph.D. dated 6/25/2019. Findings of Peer Review (PFECAs) and Sulfonic Acids (PFESAs) in Natural Waters Using Conducted on Technical Background Report. Concord, NH, 2019. Accurate Mass Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (TOFMS). (79) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Indirect Food Additives: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (19), 11622−30. Paper and Paperboard Components. Federal Register 2016, 81 (1), 5. (63) McCord, J.; Strynar, M. Identification of Per- and (80) Michigan Science Advisory Workgroup. Health-based drinking Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Cape Fear River by High Resolution water value recommendations for PFAS in Michigan. 2019. Mass Spectrometry and Nontargeted Screening. Environ. Sci. Technol. (81) Caverly Rae, J. M.; Craig, L.; Slone, T. W.; Frame, S. R.; 2019, 53 (9), 4717−4727. Buxton, L. W.; Kennedy, G. L. Evaluation of chronic toxicity and (64) Newton, S.; McMahen, R.; Stoeckel, J. A.; Chislock, M.; carcinogenicity of ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropro- Lindstrom, A.; Strynar, M. Novel Polyfluorinated Compounds poxy)-propanoate in Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol Rep 2015, 2, 939− Identified Using High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Downstream 949. of Manufacturing Facilities near Decatur, Alabama. Environ. Sci. (82) Conley, J. M.; Lambright, C. S.; Evans, N.; Strynar, M. J.; Technol. 2017, 51 (3), 1544−1552. McCord, J.; McIntyre, B. S.; Travlos, G. S.; Cardon, M. C.; Medlock- (65) Gebbink, W. A.; van Asseldonk, L.; van Leeuwen, S. P. J. Kakaley, E.; Hartig, P. C.; Wilson, V. S.; Gray, L. E., Jr. Adverse Presence of Emerging Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Maternal, Fetal, and Postnatal Effects of Hexafluoropropylene Oxide I https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective Dimer Acid (GenX) from Oral Gestational Exposure in Sprague- (100) Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Belysning af Dawley Rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127 (3), 037008. destruktion af visse POP-stoffer på konventionelle affaldsforbræn- (83) Rushing, B. R.; Hu, Q.; Franklin, J. N.; McMahen, R.; Dagnino, dingsanlæg til forbrænding af hovedsageligt ikkefarligt og forbræn- S.; Higgins, C. P.; Strynar, M. J.; DeWitt, J. C. Evaluation of the dingsegnet affald. In Lighting of destruction of certain POP drugs on immunomodulatory effects of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropro- conventional waste incinerator for incineration of mainly non-hazardous poxy)-propanoate in C57BL/6 mice. Toxicol. Sci. 2017, kfw251. and incinerable waste; Danish Environmental Protection Agency, (84) Butenhoff, J. L.; Bjork, J. A.; Chang, S. C.; Ehresman, D. J.; 2019; Environmental Project 2085. Parker, G. A.; Das, K.; Lau, C.; Lieder, P. H.; van Otterdijk, F. M.; (101) Shusterman, D. J. Polymer fume fever and other fluorocarbon Wallace, K. B. Toxicological evaluation of ammonium perfluorobu- pyrolysis-related syndromes. Occup. Med. 1993, 8 (3), 519−31. tyrate in rats: twenty-eight-day and ninety-day oral gavage studies. (102) Dupont, DuPont Krytox® 157 FS Fluorinated Oil. 2012. Reprod. Toxicol. 2012, 33 (4), 513−530. https://samaro.fr/pdf/FT/KRYTOX_FT_157-FS-series___EN_.pdf (85) Lieder, P. H.; York, R. G.; Hakes, D. C.; Chang, S. C.; (accessed 2019-08-13). Butenhoff, J. L. A two-generation oral gavage reproduction study with (103) European Chemicals Agency. Guidance for monomers and potassium perfluorobutanesulfonate (K+PFBS) in Sprague Dawley polymers. Report ECHA-12-G-02-EN; Helsinki, 2012; Vol. 2.0. rats. Toxicology 2009, 259 (1−2), 33−45. (104) Zhao, S. Y.; Danley, M.; Ward, J. E.; Li, D. J.; Mincer, T. J. An (86) Klaunig, J. E.; Shinohara, M.; Iwai, H.; Chengelis, C. P.; approach for extraction, characterization and quantitation of micro- Kirkpatrick, J. B.; Wang, Z.; Bruner, R. H. Evaluation of the chronic plastic in natural marine snow using Raman microscopy. Anal. − toxicity and carcinogenicity of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) in Methods 2017, 9 (9), 1470 1478. Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol. Pathol. 2015, 43 (2), 209−20. (105) National Toxics Network. Contaminants in marine plastic ‘ ’ (87) Loveless, S. E.; Slezak, B.; Serex, T.; Lewis, J.; Mukerji, P.; pollution: the new toxic time-bomb . 2016. https://ntn.org.au/wp- O’Connor, J. C.; Donner, E. M.; Frame, S. R.; Korzeniowski, S. H.; content/uploads/2016/05/NTN-Contaminants-in-Marine-Plastics- Buck, R. C. Toxicological evaluation of sodium perfluorohexanoate. Report-April-2016-1-1.pdf (accessed 2019-10-04). − − (106) Kitazume, T. Green chemistry development in fluorine Toxicology 2009, 264 (1 2), 32 44. − (88) EFSA. PFAS public consultation: draft opinion explained. science. J. Fluorine Chem. 2000, 105 (2), 265 278. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pfas-public-consultation-draft- (107) Hong, A. C.; Young, C. J.; Hurley, M. D.; Wallington, T. J.; Mabury, S. A. Perfluorotributylamine: A novel long-lived greenhouse opinion-explained (accessed 2020-04-26). − (89) Davis, K. L.; Aucoin, M. D.; Larsen, B. S.; Kaiser, M. A.; gas. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2013, 40 (22), 6010 6015. Hartten, A. S. Transport of ammonium perfluorooctanoate in (108) Bernard, F.; Papanastasiou, D. K.; Papadimitriou, V. C.; Burkholder, J. B. Infrared absorption spectra of N(CxF2x+1)(3)(,) x environmental media near a fluoropolymer manufacturing facility. − − =2 5 perfluoroamines. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 2018, Chemosphere 2007, 67 (10), 2011 9. − (90) Neltner, T. Paper mills as a significant source of PFAS 211, 166 171. (109) Bera, P. P.; Francisco, J. S.; Lee, T. J. Identifying the molecular contamination, but who’s watching? Environmental Defense Fund, origin of global warming. J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113 (45), 12694−9. 2018; http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/05/21/pfas-paper-mills/ (ac- (110) Bravo, I.; Aranda, A.; Hurley, M. D.; Marston, G.; Nutt, D. R.; cessed 2020-02-20). Shine, K. P.; Smith, K.; Wallington, T. J. Infrared absorption spectra, (91) Young, C. J.; Hurley, M. D.; Wallington, T. J.; Mabury, S. A. radiative efficiencies, and global warming potentials of perfluor- Atmospheric lifetime and global warming potential of a perfluor- ocarbons: Comparison between experiment and theory. J. Geophys. opolyether. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (7), 2242−6. Res. 2010, 115.n/a (92) Steenland, K.; Jin, C.; MacNeil, J.; Lally, C.; Ducatman, A.; (111) Kokkila, S. I.; Bera, P. P.; Francisco, J. S.; Lee, T. J. A group Vieira, V.; Fletcher, T. Predictors of PFOA levels in a community increment scheme for infrared absorption intensities of greenhouse surrounding a chemical plant. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117 (7), − − gases. J. Mol. Struct. 2012, 1009,89 95. 1083 8. (112) Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Global Warming Potential Values. (93) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global- Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Cambridge University Press: Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf Cambridge, UK, and New York, 2013. (accessed 2019-08-13). (94) Rand, S.; Yamabe, M.; Campbell, N.; Hu, J.; Lapin, P.; (113) Ivy, D. J.; Rigby, M.; Baasandorj, M.; Burkholder, J. B.; Prinn, McCulloch, A.; Merchant, A.; Mizuno, K.; Owens, J.; Rollet, P. Non- R. G. Global emission estimates and radiative impact of C4F10, medical aerosols, solvents, and HFC 23. In IPCC/TEAP Special C5F12, C6F14, C7F16 and C8F18. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12 Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System; (16), 7635−7645. Fujimoto, Y., Pons, J., Eds.; Cambridge, U.K., 2005. (114) Ross, I.; McDonough, J.; Miles, J.; Storch, P.; Thelakkat (95) Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark. Risk assessment Kochunarayanan, P.; Kalve, E.; Hurst, J.; S. Dasgupta, S.; Burdick, J. A fl of uorinated substances in cosmetic products; The Danish Environ- review of emerging technologies for remediation of PFASs. mental Protection Agency, 2018. Remediation 2018, 28 (2), 101−126. (96) Ellis, D. A.; Mabury, S. A.; Martin, J. W.; Muir, D. C. G. (115) U.S. National Toxicology Program. Perfluoroalkyl and Thermolysis of fluoropolymers as a potential source of halogenated Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ organic acids in the environment. Nature 2001, 412 (6844), 321−324. health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm (accessed 2019-01-06). (97) Ellis, D. A.; Martin, J. W.; Muir, D. C.; Mabury, S. A. The use of (116) Young, C. J.; Mabury, S. A. Atmospheric perfluorinated acid 19F NMR and mass spectrometry for the elucidation of novel precursors: chemistry, occurrence, and impacts. In Reviews of fluorinated acids and atmospheric fluoroacid precursors evolved in the Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Springer: New York, thermolysis of fluoropolymers. Analyst 2003, 128 (6), 756−64. 2010; Vol. 208. (98) Feng, M.; Qu, R.; Wei, Z.; Wang, L.; Sun, P.; Wang, Z. (117) Dreyer, A.; Matthias, V.; Weinberg, I.; Ebinghaus, R. Wet Characterization of the thermolysis products of Nafion membrane: A deposition of poly- and perfluorinated compounds in Northern potential source of perfluorinated compounds in the environment. Sci. Germany. Environ. Pollut. (Oxford, U. K.) 2010, 158 (5), 1221−7. Rep. 2015, 5, 9859. (118) Velders, G. J. M.; Madronich, S.; Clerbaux, C.; Derwent, R.; (99) Schlummer, M.; Solch, C.; Meisel, T.; Still, M.; Gruber, L.; Grutter, M.; Hauglustaine, D.; Incecik, S.; Ko, M.; Libre, J.-M.; Wolz, G. Emission of perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCA) from Nielsen, O. J.; Stordal, F.; Zhu, T.; Blake, D.; Cunnold, D.; Daniel, J.; heated surfaces made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) applied in Forster, P.; Fraser, P.; Krummel, P.; Manning, A.; Montzka, S.; food contact materials and consumer products. Chemosphere 2015, Myhre, G.; O’Doherty, S.; Oram, D.; Prather, M.; Prinn, R.; Reimann, 129,46−53. S.; Simmonds, P.; Wallington, T.; Weiss, R. Chemical and Radiative J https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective Effects of Halocarbons and Their Replacement Compounds. In (138) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perfluoroalkyl IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Sulfonates; Significant New Use Rule. In 40 CFR 721 ed., 2002; Global Climate System; Saksen, I. S. A., Jallow, B. P., Eds.; Cambridge, Vol. 67 FR 72854, pp 72854−72867. U.K., 2005; p 48. (139) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perfluoroalkyl (119) Pan, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cui, Q.; Sheng, N.; Yeung, L. W. Y.; Sun, Sulfonates; Significant New Use Rule. In 40 CFR 721 ed., 2007; Y.; Guo, Y.; Dai, J. Worldwide Distribution of Novel Perfluoroether Vol. 72 FR 57222, pp 57222−57235. Carboxylic and Sulfonic Acids in Surface Water. Environ. Sci. Technol. (140) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Long-Chain Per- 2018, 52 (14), 7621−7629. fluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical (120) Felizeter, S.; McLachlan, M. S.; de Voogt, P. Uptake of Substances; Significant New Use Rule. In 40 CFR 721 ed., 2015; Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids by Hydroponically Grown Lettuce Vol. 80 FR 2885, pp 2885−2898. (Lactuca sativa). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (21), 11735−11743. (141) United Nations. Report of the Conference of the Parties to the (121) Lan, Z.; Zhou, M.; Yao, Y.; Sun, H. Plant uptake and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on the work of its translocation of perfluoroalkyl acids in a wheat-soil system. Environ. ninth meeting; Geneva, 2019. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25 (31), 30907−30916. (142) Eurpoean Chemicals Agency. Annex XVII TO REACH: (122) Universiteit Van Amsterdam. https://ibed.fnwi.uva.nl/ Conditions of restriction; Council of the European Union: Helsinki. perfood/publications.html (accessed 2019-08-28). (143) Council of the European Union. Proposal for a Directive of the (123) Kelly, B. C.; Ikonomou, M. G.; Blair, J. D.; Surridge, B.; European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended Hoover, D.; Grace, R.; Gobas, F. A. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in an for human consumption (recast); General Secretariat of the Council of Arctic marine food web: trophic magnification and wildlife exposure. the European Union, 2020; Vol. 2017/0332(COD). − Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (11), 4037 43. (144) Department of Ecology, Hazardous Waste and Toxics (124) Tomy, G. T.; Budakowski, W.; Halldorson, T.; Helm, P. A.; Reduction Program, Washington State. Focus on: Alternatives to Stern, G. A.; Friesen, K.; Pepper, K.; Tittlemier, S. A.; Fisk, A. T. PFAS in Food Packaging; Olympia, WA, 2018. Fluorinated organic compounds in an eastern Arctic marine food web. (145) State of Maine Legislature. An Act To Protect the − Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (24), 6475 81. Environment and Public Health by Further Reducing Toxic (125) Haukas, M.; Berger, U.; Hop, H.; Gulliksen, B.; Gabrielsen, G. Chemicals in Packaging. 2019; Vol. LD, p 1433. W. Bioaccumulation of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (146) Hunt, K. Denmark just became the first country to ban PFAS (PFAS) in selected species from the Barents Sea food web. Environ. ‘ ’ − forever chemicals from food packaging. CNN, September 4, 2019. Pollut. (Oxford, U. K.) 2007, 148 (1), 360 71. (147) Ministry of the Environment and Food. Minister will ban the (126) Wu, Y.; Simon, K. L.; Best, D. A.; Bowerman, W.; Venier, M. use of organic fluorinated substances in cardboard and paper for food. Novel and legacy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in bald eagle Copenhagen, 2019. eggs from the Great Lakes region. Environ. Pollut. (Oxford, U. K.) (148) South Australia Environmental Protection Agency. Transition- 2020, 260, 113811. ing to fluorine-free firefighting foam. https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/ (127) Dassuncao, C.; Hu, X. C.; Nielsen, F.; Weihe, P.; Grandjean, environmental_info/perfluorinated-compounds (accessed 2019-11- P.; Sunderland, E. M. Shifting Global Exposures to Poly- and 06). Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Evident in Longitudinal Birth (149) Washington State Legislature. Firefighting agents and Cohorts from a Seafood-Consuming Population. Environ. Sci. Technol. equipment - toxic chemical use. 2018; Vol. 70.75A. 2018, 52 (6), 3738−3747. (150) Department of Toxic Substances Control. Proposed: Carpets (128) MacLeod, M.; Breitholtz, M.; Cousins, I. T.; de Wit, C. A.; and Rugs with Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Persson, L. M.; Ruden, C.; McLachlan, M. S. Identifying chemicals (PFASs). https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/carpets-and-rugs-with- that are planetary boundary threats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 perfluoroalkyl-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfass/ (accessed 2019- (19), 11057−63. 08-13). (129) Cousins, I. T.; Ng, C. A.; Wang, Z.; Scheringer, M. Why is (151) United Nations. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on high persistence alone a major cause of concern? Environmental science. Processes & impacts 2019, 21 (5), 781−792. Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 13th ed.; Ozone Secretariat: (130) Diamond, M. L.; de Wit, C. A.; Molander, S.; Scheringer, M.; Nairobi, Kenya, 2019; p 942. Backhaus, T.; Lohmann, R.; Arvidsson, R.; Bergman, A.; Hauschild, (152) Blum, A.; Balan, S. A.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Goldenman, M.; Holoubek, I.; Persson, L.; Suzuki, N.; Vighi, M.; Zetzsch, C. G.; Cousins, I. T.; Diamond, M.; Fletcher, T.; Higgins, C.; Lindeman, Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environ. Int. A. E.; Peaslee, G.; de Voogt, P.; Wang, Z.; Weber, R. The Madrid − Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environ. 2015, 78,8 15. − (131) Ahrens, L. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic Health Perspect. 2015, 123 (5), A107 11. environment: a review of their occurrence and fate. J. Environ. (153) Cousins, I. T.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Monit. 2011, 13 (1), 20−31. Miller, M.; Ng, C. A.; Patton, S.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Vierke, L.; (132) Yamashita, N.; Kannan, K.; Taniyasu, S.; Horii, Y.; Petrick, G.; Wang, Z.; DeWitt, J. C. The concept of essential use for determining Gamo, T. A global survey of perfluorinated acids in oceans. Mar. when uses of PFASs can be phased out. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts Pollut. Bull. 2005, 51 (8−12), 658−68. 2019, 21, 1803. ffi (133) Darlington, R.; Barth, E.; McKernan, J. The Challenges of (154) Environmental O cials from Sweden, the Netherlands, PFAS Remediation. The Military Engineer 2018, 110 (712), 58−60. Germany, and Denmark. Elements for an EU-strategy for PFAS. (134) Rahman, M. F.; Peldszus, S.; Anderson, W. B. Behaviour and 2019. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6586418-EU- fate of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in Strategy-for-PFASs-FINAL-VERSION-December-19.html (accessed drinking water treatment: a review. Water Res. 2014, 50, 318−40. 2019-04-26). (135) Giesy, J. P.; Kannan, K. Global distribution of perfluorooctane (155) McDonough, C. A.; Guelfo, J. L.; Higgins, C. P. Measuring sulfonate in wildlife. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (7), 1339−42. total PFASs in water: The tradeoff between selectivity and inclusivity. (136) Yeung, L. W. Y.; Dassuncao, C.; Mabury, S.; Sunderland, E. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2019, 7,13−18. M.; Zhang, X.; Lohmann, R. Vertical Profiles, Sources, and Transport (156) Karrman,̈ A.; Wang, T.; Roland, K.; Langseter, A. M.; of PFASs in the Arctic Ocean. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), Grønhovd, S. M.; Ræder, E. M.; Lyche, J. L.; Yeung, L.; Chen, F.; 6735−6744. Eriksson, U.; Aro, R.; Fredriksson, F. PFASs in the Nordic Environment, (137) Cousins, I. T.; Ng, C. A.; Wang, Z.; Scheringer, M. Why is Screening of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and extractable high persistence alone a major cause of concern? Environ. Sci.: organic fluorine (EOF) in the Nordic Environment; edited by the Nordic Processes Impacts 2019, 21, 781. Council of Ministers; TemaNord, 2019. K https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Environmental Science & Technology Letters pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu Global Perspective (157) Ikea. IKEA FAQ: Highly fluorinated chemicals. https://www. ikea.com/ms/en_US/pdf/reports-downloads/product_safety/IKEA_ FAQ_highly_fluorinated_chemicals.pdf (accessed 2019-08-13). (158) ChemSec H&M, Coop. Coop Denmark join NGO ChemSec in call to end the use of PFAS chemicals. https://chemsec.org/hm- coop-denmark-join-ngo-chemsec-in-call-to-end-the-use-of-pfas- chemicals/ (accessed 2020-03-13). (159) Cousins, E. M.; Richter, L.; Cordner, A.; Brown, P.; Diallo, S. Risky Business? Manufacturer and Retailer Action to Remove Per- and Polyfluorinated Chemicals From Consumer Products. New solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health policy: NS 2019, 29 (2), 242−265. (160) Blume, M. T. The Danish Coop Bans Fluorinated Compounds in All Cosmetics. Business Wire, March 9, 2019. (161) Dintzer, J.; Johnson, N. The New Reality of PFAS Liability in California; Law.com The Recorder, November 20, 2018. (162) Goldenman, G.; Fernandes, M.; Holland, M.; Tugran, T.; Nordin, A.; Schoumacher, C.; McNeill, A. The cost of inaction: A socioeconomic analysis of environmental and health impacts linked to exposure to PFAS. Copenhagen, 2019. (163) Interstate Techology & Regulatory Council. Remediation Technologies and Methods for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Washington DC, 2018. L https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255 Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix Q- Chatham County Health Alliance Contact Julie Wilkerson MPH Coordinator Chatham Health Alliance Chatham County Public Health Department [email protected] 919-545-8443 16-Oct-20 24 Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force Report -Appendix R- Educational resources regarding Emerging Contaminants 16-Oct-20 25 Educational resources regarding Emerging Contaminants PWQTF Draft Website (https://mdwillia.wixsite.com/pwtf) The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/pdf/ehp0109-000871.pdf NCPFASNETWORK: https://ncpfastnetwork.com Data and Tools https://ncpfastnetwork.com/data-and-tools/ EPA Websites: EPA PFAS Action Plan https://www.epa.gov/pfas Basic Information on PFAS https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas EPA Announces Proposed Decision to Regulate PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-proposed-decision-regulate-pfoa-and-pfos- drinking-water Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa- and-pfos EPA 1,4 dioxane fact sheet https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14- dioxane_january2014_final.pdf North Carolina EPA sampling data: 1,4 dioxane https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/a3ae94c8971b4c0bb8d18a24a9b 8cc32 Water Filtration ratings https://www.nsf.org/testing/water pg. 1 NIH websites: Immunotoxicity Associated with Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pfoa_pfos/pfoa_pfosmonograph_508.pdf CDC websites: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/index.html Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) Factsheet https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html A Guide to Drinking Water Treatment Technologies for Household Use https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/home-water- treatment/household_water_treatment.html FDA websites: FDA Announces Voluntary Agreement with Manufacturers to Phase Out Certain Short- Chain PFAS Used in Food Packaging https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-voluntary-agreement- manufacturers-phase-out-certain-short-chain-pfas-used-food Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Questions and Answers on Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Food https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals/questions-and-answers-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances- pfas-food pg. 2 DEQ websites DEQ issues violation notices to Greensboro and Reidsville for 1,4 dioxane discharges https://deq.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2019/11/15/deq-issues-violation-notices-greensboro-and- reidsville-14-dioxane New DEQ data show ‘staggering’ levels of PFAS in Cape Fear River basin https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2020/02/03/new-deq-data-show-high-levels-of-pfas-in- cape-fear-river-basin/ EWG websites Main site https://www.ewg.org PFAS Contamination of Drinking Water Far More Prevalent Than Previously Reported https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/ Research Articles and websites Assessing the Effectiveness of Point-of-Use Residential Drinking Water Filters for Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004 Dr. Heather Stapleton’s lab website https://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/stapletonlab/?_ga=2.226728413.1931347328.1603110127- 1311962020.1603110127 Dr. Detlef Knappe https://knappelab.wordpress.ncsu.edu News Articles A Hidden Hazard in Our Drinking Water https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/articles/a-hidden-hazard-in-our-drinking- water-332251 New DEQ data show ‘staggering’ levels of PFAS in Cape Fear River basin pg. 3 https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2020/02/03/new-deq-data-show-high-levels-of-pfas-in- cape-fear-river- basin/#:~:text=The%20highest%20level%20of%20total,parts%20per%20trillion%20in%20Augu st. New DEQ data show ‘staggering’ levels of PFAS in Cape Fear River basin https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2020/02/03/new-deq-data-show-high-levels-of-pfas-in- cape-fear-river-basin/ 'Forever chemicals' in Greensboro's water are taking forever to be regulated https://www.greensboro.com/news/local_news/forever-chemicals-in-greensboros-water-are- taking-forever-to-be-regulated/article_026c5e02-f2c5-5637-a7c9-5022d35cd91e.html Harmful PFAS Only Come from Old Food Packaging, Right? Wrong! https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/articles/harmful-pfas-only-come-from- old-food-packaging-right-wrong-333426 PFAS Highest in Cape Fear’s Raw Water: Study https://www.coastalreview.org/2020/08/pfas-highest-in-cape-fears-raw-water-supply/ Group offers free under-the-sink filters for low-income New Hanover residents [Free] https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2020/07/12/group-offers-free-under-the-sink-ro-filters-for- low-income-new-hanover-residents-free/ Naming names, finally: Shamrock Environmental source of 1,4-Dioxane spike in Pittsboro drinking water http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/10/15/naming-names-finally-shamrock-environmental- source-of-14-dioxane-spike-in-pittsboro-drinking-water/ Facts aren’t lining up in 1,4-Dioxane discharge by City of Greensboro, Shamrock Environmental http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/10/17/facts-arent-lining-up-in-14-dioxane-discharge-by- city-of-greensboro-shamrock-environmental/ pg. 4