[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
TD 745 P76 1992 ACCOMACK - NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISION ACCOMAC, VIRGINIA JEC PROJECTREPORT COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT This 4ocument -was prepared 'under a United States Environmental Protection Agency 2050) Water Ouality Planning Grant for the Virginic State Water Control Board. and was funded, in part. by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant 4NA17020359-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under @the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. U - S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA MAY, 1992 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON . SC 29405-2413 CABE ASSOCIATES, JNC. ENGINEERS 144 & GOVERNORS AVENUE P.O. BOX 877 DOVER DELAWARE 19903-0877 302-674-9280 CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS I. Executive Sum ary I-1 A. Background B. Recommended Disposal Alternatives I-1 C. Economic Feasibility 1-2 D. Socioeconomic Impact 1-3 E. Summary 1-4 II. Introduction A. General B. Coin Operated Laundromats 11-2 C. Relevance to the Eastern Shore 11-2 D. Project Development 11-4 III. Wastewater Characteristics and Existing III-1 Treatment and Disposal A. Wastewater Characteristics III-1 B. Existing Disposal Methods 111-2 C. Existing Treatment Methods 111-2 IV. Alternative Disposal and Treatment IV-1 A. Alternative Disposal Methods IV-1 B. Alternative Treatment Methods IV-7 V. Economic Analysis V-1 A. Cost of Disposal and Treatment Alternatives V-1 B. Laundromat Economic-Profile v-3 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations VI-1 APPENDICES A. Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission Coin Operated Laundromat Wastewater Treatment Project B. Facility Questionnaires C. Reference Documents D. Soil Conservation - Eastern Shore Soils LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit II-1 Location Map, F & G Laundromat, Chincoteague, Virginia 11-2 Location Map, Nelsonia - Messick and Wessells, Nelsonia. Virginia 11-3 Location Map, Onley - Messick and Wessells, Onley, Virginia 11-4 Location Map, Broad Street Laundry, Exmore, Virginia 11-5 Location Map, Eastville Laundromat, Eastville, Virginia 11-6 General Information Summary IV-1 Comparative Matrix Disposal Methods IV-2 Letter to Town of Onancock IV-3 Letter to Town of Cape Charles IV-4 Letter from Town of Onancock IV-5 Letter from Town of Cape Charles IV-6 Comparative Matrix On-Site Disposal IV-7 Comparative Matrix Treatment IV-8 Unit-Process, Recycle/Reuse IV-9 Unit Process, On-Site IV-10 Unit Process, Stream Discharge IV-11 Stream Discharge, Physical - Biological - Physical IV-12 Stream Discharge, Physical - Biological - Physical IV-13 Stream Discharge, Biological - Chemical - Physical IV-14 Stream Discharge, Biological - Physical V-1 Capital Cost Estimate V-2 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate V-3 Annualized Cost Estimate VI-1 Typical Layout - Rapid Infiltration -ii- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Backxround This report reviews alternatives for treatment and disposal of wastewater from five Eastern Shore Virginia coin operated laundromats. This document is primarily the result of the Virginia State Water Control Board's VPDES permit compliance schedules. The schedules require four of the five laundromats to cease stream discharge by August, 1992. Consent orders have also been signed by the owners with a similar requirement. Many alternatives for treatment and disposal have been evaluated. It became apparent, upon initiating this study, that the mode of disposal -rAther than treatment would be paramount and would need to be determined first. Treatment is considered a subset of each disposal option throughout this document. Alternatives considered and f urtheraddressed in this report.are as follows: Stream discharge Spray irrigation Subsurface disposal Rapid infiltration Evaporation Recycle/reuse Direct connection to a POTW Hauling to a POTW B. Recommended Disposal Alternatives Conclusions made in this document suggest, except for the Onley laundromat, rapid infiltration is the most favorable disposal alternative to stream discharge. The one exception, the.Onley facility, should first evaluate the opportunity of connecting directly to the Onancock publicly owned treatment works (POTW).. The collection system is within one half mile of the facility. If this alternative proves to be too costly or lacking in other respects, rapid infiltration is also an alternative for this location. A rapid infiltration system is similar to a subsurface disposal or tile field system. The system would consist of screening, a septic tank, flow equalization, pump station and sand beds where the wastewater is applied and allowed to percolate to the groundwater. - The advantage over conventional tile fields is the ability to provide maintenance to the beds thus reducing the likelihood of failure. The capital cost of a rapid infiltration system will be in the range of $30,000 to $40,000 with operation and maintenance cost ranging as high as $5,000 per year. These costs are based on an average facility size and an assumption that all new system components are required. With most facilities, lower costs should be realized since there are existing pump systems-and septic tanks, etc. Additionally, less expensive building saterials-may be utilized i.e. used underground storage tanks removed from service rather than block rapid infiltration units. Costs could possibly be reduced to between $25,000 to $30,000 as a result of individual facility adaptation. POTW connection for Onley, if collection and treatment capacity are adequate, requires a capital investment of $47,000 with an annual operation and maintenance cost of $4,000. C. Economic Feasibility Although rapid infiltration and POTW direct connection are considered better alternatives than stream discharge, they are not necessarily feasible. Economics must be evaluated on a case by case basis by each laundromat owner., Since capital and, in some instances, annualized costs are more than the owner's gross annual receipts, modification to user's fees will be required. Since this is the case, a major factor in determining financial feasibility will be the laundromat user's ability and/or willingness to pay the additional cost. Given the economy and the area demographics, it is entirely possible that closing may be the 1-2 only viable alternative, if a stream discharge is not permitted by the Board. Based on discussions with the coin operated- laundromat wastewater committee, this latter alternative, terminating service because a discharge is not permitted by the Board, may be the only financially viable route. Without drastically increasing the prices charged at these facilities (at least 36%) these businesses cannot tolerate the annualized costs associated with the suggested improvements. If owners cannot justify the suggested improvements, then consideration must be given to the impact that closing the facilities will have on the State's residents and visitors. An argument for socioeconomic impact must be evaluated in this instance. D. aocioeconomic ImRact There are a few irrefutable facts about laundering services on the Eastern Shore. First, regardless of whether the five facilities stay in business laundry will be washed. This may mean that instead of having f ive permitted point source discharges, @imany unperraitted discharges will result. These new discharges will be from those individuals who can no longer use the laundromats and must find other means to wash clothes. Some of these discharges will undoubtedly be illegal. Second, the closing of laundromats on the Easter Shore will impact lower income individuals. These individuals are, in=ny if not most instances, at a disadvantage in finding alternative methods for washing their clothes. Finally, the lack of centralized sewer systems exac erbates the potential for entrepreneurs to build laundromats to replace those facilities that are forced to close. Based on the aforementioned facts it is necessary to evaluate the option of no action by the owners. There is a social and economic need to keep the laundromats opened. A hardship will occur to the owners, their 1-3 employees, suppliers and especially the users. No action could be qualified in new permits by including clauses that require each facility to connect to a central sewer system when available. Wastewater Needs Assessment Surveys for 1992 have been submitted to the Board and these will affect some facilities. The no action alternative does not comply with current Board policy regarding the Water Quality Standards and the application of stream models. Some question about the appropriateness of these models must be considered, especially since four of the five facilities discharge to dry ditches. These ditches may not have an eventual sustained flow but may actually infiltrate to the groundwater. Regardless of water quality numeric concerns, if no action is taken, complaints from residents will most likely continue. Primarily Eastville and Exmore have been the center of the complaints filed. Most of the complaints are in the sil er and range f rom odor to stream bed appearance. E . Summary In summary, laundromat owners must decide if a 'capital investment of the magnitude identified by this report is advisable. This decision will be primarily based on economics. If the owners decide that without a discharge their only option is to close, then serious consideration must be given by State and local authorities to the social implications that closing may cause. No action should be considered for the short term. New permits with language requiring POTW connection and possibly operation and maintenance improvements should be considered. This action, while not alleviating area resident complaints, may be the most appropriate solution to a difficult problem. 1-4 INTRODUCMON CHAPTER 11 II. INTRODUCTION A. General This report reviews alternatives for treatment and disposal of wastewater f rom coin operated laundromats. The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC) established a committee made up of A-NPDC staff, Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) staff and owners of coin operated laundromats. The committee was to review available treatment and disposal options for facilities located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. This study was performed under a United States Environmental Protection Agency 205(j) Water Quality Planning Grant for the Virginia State Water Control Board. Funding was, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant -#NA17020359-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. The primary reason for the development of this report is a result of a SWCB Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit compliance schedule. The schedule requires four (4) Eastern Shore laundromat owners who discharge to surface waters to cease discharging by August 10, 1992. A fifth facility's permit does not expire until September 22, 1994. Consent orders have also been signed by five (5) facilities. This requirement impacts a majority of the coin operated establishments (5 of. 8) on the Eastern Shore and thus will significantly impact those residents who depend on these facilities for laundering their clothes. A brief history of this project prior to the receipt of the federal grant has been provided as Appendix A. This summary was drafted by the A-NPDC as part of a successful effort to obtain the aforementioned uant. The@ remaining narrative in this chapter discusses, the project and introduces many important issues that are addressed in greater detail throughout the remainder of the report. II-1 B. Coin Operated Laundromats Coin operated laundromats provide facilities to residents who do not have access to private laundry facilities. There are many reasons these individuals depend on coin operated laundromats. Some examples are as follows: 1. Unable to afford private facilities. 2. Do not have the space or the utilities (water supply and/or wastewater disposal) required to operate private facilities. 3. Vacationing or traveling through the area. 4. In area for short term or seasonal employment. 5. Do not desire to own private facilities. A coin operated laundromat, as the term is used herein, consists of approximately -,equal numbers of washing zachines -and dryers that are similar in sizeand configuration to private in-the-homenachines with the exception that a fee is required to operate the units. The -cost is typically between $1.00 and $1.25 for each wash. A similar fee is charged for use of the dryers. This fee is designed to compensate the facility owner for the cost of operating the facility including purchase of machines, utilities, operation and maintenance, taxes, insurance.and profit. Additionally, this compensation must pay all costs associated with wastewater treatment-and disposal. C. Relevance to the Eastern Shore The Eastern Shore of Virginia is reported to have a total of eight (8) independently owned coin operated laundromats. These facilities are located in or near Cape Charles, Chincoteague, Eastville, Exmore, Lee Mont, Nelsonia, Onancock and Onley. These eight (8) operations are open seven (7) days per week and -operate 12 to 24 hours per day. These facilities provide service to a large cross section of the individuals 11-2 16 identified by the general categories above. Based on data presented in this report for the five (5) facilities, it is estimated that between 175,000 and 275,000 loads of wash are processed annually by these establishments. The number of individuals utilizing these facilities is not available. Based on the five (5) facility's gross receipts and acknowledging the income status of many of the facility users it can be estimated that the population served might be 10,000. All eight (8) laundry facilities are similar in layout and basic operation. There are, of course, minor differences in size, hours of operation, etc. The only major difference is the means by which wastewater generated by each facility is treated and disposed. The Cape Charles and Onancock facilities are served by central sewer systems owned and operated by the Town of Cape Charles and Town of Onancock respectively. These central systems are the only two (2) on the entire Eastern Shore of Virginia. As a result of the availability of service the Cape Charles and Onancock facilities do not face the compliance schedule of those with stream discharges. Therefore these facilities are not further discussed in this report. The Lee Mont facility is reportedly a small facility and is served by an on-site septic tank and tile field. This facility does not have a stream discharge, and therefore is not further considered in this report. The remaining five (5) facilities Eastville, Exmore, Nelsonia, Onley, and Chincoteague treat their wastewater and then stream discharge it. This report is to investigate options available to these operations to meet water quality standards or more likely to derive other means to dispose of treated effluent. Location maps for the five (5) affected facilities are shown on Exhibits II-1 through 11-5. A summary of general information about the five (5) facilities is tabulated on Exhibit 11-6. This sum ary is based on 11-3 questionnaires completed by the facility owners. The questionnaires are included with this report as Appendix B. D. Proiect Development The purpose of this project is to evaluate treatment and disposal options for the five coin operated laundromats. An alternative method for disposal of wastewater must be found and implemented if the facilities are to remain open. The committee met on several occasions to discuss the project and select an engineering firm to conduct the study. CABE Associates, Inc. of Dover, Delaware was selected by the committee to review the history of the problem and determine cost effective solutions. An initialmeeting was held to review the objectives of the project and identify alternatives previously evaluated by the owners. -Each site was visited to determine quantity of wastewater, availability of lands, how -various treatment options may impact the environment 'and to conduct a soil boring. Questionnaires were sent to owners to obtain specific information about each facility. A literature search was conducted to determine the history of treatment and disposal alternatives. A list of the documents reviewed is included as Attachment C. Alternatives were then evaluated for their technical merit, ease of construction and operation, capital cost, operating cost, future use, and environmental impact. An interim report with matrices for disposal methods, on-site disposal and treatment were developed. An interim report was submitted for review by and discussion with the committee. With additional input from the committee the alternatives were further assessed and evaluated. Cost estimates, economic feasibility and impacts were determined. The impact to the environment and future use of an alternative, if a central or regional collection and treatment system become available in the future, were studied. 11-4 %1 '3. I I @ I I. . . 1. i I I I I 'I. I I I I I I i 1. I . I I I I -,MIBITS I - I y V b z. :Z 47 LUO Narrow- &-priad - -7 .-/ is. M S X.; sm j ee -Public Strat Lmnding k1 ..0 Irow Ito BI Ca' Static 4 Ughto 0-J E C T Q_Z A T 1 0 N Bav lull 4k N Ught 0 -Z AS e h i h t eague ,C 7 I:z is am ;./J 0 -IV J% ,Q ci @0 -4r 2103 p N-0 2 . C - / J Ouwn&:. @.- /?@ v 0 Ught ,Shoaling 175 7 -1 Point -7 p *S, -7 v Trailei Park TW 17 C . ..... . . .............. . 10 c oin Ught dfn Trailer Black Park t j Z114 Poi ...... ..... t 3 a4A Ught 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 FFFT LOCATION MAP lam EXHIBIT 100-363 F & G LAUNDROMAT MAY. 1992 CHINCOTEAGUE, VIRGIN1A 10OA073C qr 45 -cim cem -cem Tr er 0 J@- L -C A', 0, T-AQ elsonia Cem ES) -45 13 term, Nitodest Td Is qe 20- 691 .25 1 MILE tooo 0 1000 20ZD022@1 3Wm. 9= 5000 6000 7000 FWr AF mollik LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 100-363 NELSONIA MESSICK AND WESSELLS MAY, 1992 NELSONIA, VlRGINLA 11-2 10OA075C Ra N j1t airg un 9 178 dio @ps -C--ee4. S.bit. JohnSoM w x Field 13 P 650 q 648 N S lo P R 0 J E C L 0 C AT--@ Trader 2ark entowr All' 6w st Pown m A oi 638 t :-vo- bule c A7 L 609 731 789 CL 45 'Y Cern 35 0 MILE 1000 1000 zooo 3000 4000 sm 6= 7000 FEET LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 100-36,3 ONLEY - MESSICK AND WESSELLS MAY. 1992 ONLEY. VIRGINLA 10OA074C Ce' X 4 601 41M 36 % VI ce. -75 sta xt Calvary s. 8598 41 T.:* PROJECT .8x LOCATION mQrel, \V@ 'N" o-A 5@s -, X X Epworth*;h@-f,: Ch Sch X!* Hidlock.., SM37 6w N 613 W I i lis Wharf Ir SON, @-' @BCrossroads /n nd ar 35 0. 1 MILE 17@2 20Z00==' 3000 4000 sm 6m 7000 FEET I% =4 -No =*A a LOCATION MAP EXHIBrT 100-363 BROAD STREET LAUNDRY MAY, 1992 EXMORE. VIRGINIA 11-4 10OA076C t -Union ;Ch 674 fl. x."j c -cm jf Cem-d q%L-- LID 29 x 0.7 es Croisroad-%@- X34 Northampme A V xjs r am 35 'n x,@Jl 4 ..-WT P R O-J -E C -'.':Fast*ille '6. L 0 C A T 10 N SIMI J6 X. -j idinpww@n 36 /77- ............... j I MILE 0 100WO 0 IODO 20M 3000 4000 5= 60 00 70 00 FEET MO =9 LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 100-363 EAST\(lLLE LAUNDROMAT u-5 MAY. 1992 EASTVILLE, MRGINIA 10OA072C 0 0 GENERAL INFORMATION SUMMARY 8. 1 Co..& (-*I LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER PROJECT OWO) ACCOMACK - NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION QUESTIONAIRE INFORMAWN FACILITY LOCATION: CHINCOTEAGUE NELSONIA ONLEY EXMORE EASTVILLE OWNER'B NAME: Floyd 0. Ofaeure Howwd C. Wessells 11 HowaidC.Wasseliall B. Slufgis &M. Freeze Thomas Fox NUMBER OF MACHINES: 23 28 32 38 -18 OPENAT: 7:00 AM 24 HOURS 24 HOURS 7:30 ALI 7'30 AM CLOSED AT: 9:30 PM 24 HOURS 24 HOURS 3:00-7:30 PM 6:00 PM DAYS PER WEEK: 7 1 7 7 7 7 BUSIEST DAY: SUNDAY SATURDAY SATURDAY SATURDAY SATURDAY 0 % BUSINESS ON BUSIEffr DAY 22 30 26 M BUSIEST SEASON: SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER Z AVG GALLONS PER LOAD: 34 34 34 34 34 MAX LOADS PER DAY: 260 100 75 ISO 140 AVG GALLONS PER 0": 3,760 (1) (1) 6,460 3.000 AVG GALLONS PER WEEK: 26,816 (1) (1) 38,000 21,000 Z AVG GALLONS PER MONTH: 116,333 (1) (1) 16-0-10-0-0- 90,000 n DO YOU OWN THE SITE?: YES YES YES YES NO 0 SITE SIZE 0.26 0.70 0.38 0.31 0.01 OWN NEARBY LAND ?: No NO NO NO NO AVAILASLE LAND: I I POSSIBLY NO NO NO POSSIBLY 0 [LAND COST (411AQ: - 1 2000 6000 Z IMAX GPD BASED ON MAX LOA[ 8,600- 3.400 2.660 5,100- 4.760 (A c PERMIT INFORMA110N STREAM: CHINCOTEAGUE CHANNEL MUDDY CREEK ONANCOCK CREEK NASSAWADOX CREEK OLD CASTLE CREEK SECTION: is 2A 2A 2A 2A CLASS:. 11 111 111 111 111 SPECIAL STANDARDS: A NONE NONE NONE NONE FLOW LIMIT L@VQIM!@n NLiNL -INL -INL -INL NUNI. 600 LIMIT mglL(AVGlM@n: -160 30160 30/60 -160 -180 TSS LIMIT mg/LffVQ/MAX): -146 30160 30160 -160 -180 CL2 RESIDUAL mglL(MINIMAX) 1.512.5 - 1.612.6 1.612.6 TEMP LIMIT C(MAX): 32 32 32 32 - O+Q LIMIT ma/L(MAX): - 15 16 16 16 PH LlMtT (MIN/MAX): 8/9 8/9 Big 019 0/0 FECAL LIMIT (MAX): 400 rn CURRENT TREATMENT; SEDIMENT PACKAGE PACKAGE PACKAGE SEDIMENT X T NOTES: (1) NO WATER METER -VALUES PROVIDED WERE ESTIMATED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND EXtSTING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CHAPTER III III. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND EXISTING TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL A. Wastewater Characteristics In 1980 the EPA- published a four (4) part treatability manual for industrial wastewater. Volume II entitled Industrial Descriptions contains a section on "Auto and Other Laundries." Included in this industry group are coin operated laundromats (SIC Code 7215). The Auto and Other Laundries industrial category is further divided into four (4) subgroups. These include water wash (laundrying), dry cleaning, dual phase processing, and carpet upholstery cleaning. The coin operated laundromats on the Eastern Shore apply only the water wash technology in their operations. The EPA description of water washing is as follows: "In this portion of the industry, the primary cleaning is accomplished by water wash. The soiled materials are first sorted according to the -processing required. If necessary, stains that may set,during washing must be removed. This can involve a multiple cold water soak or the use of acids, bleaches and/or multiple organic solvents. Once laundry is loaded into a-machine it undergoes a series of cleaning steps. These steps vary according to the different types and desired product in the range from wetting, sudsing, and rinsing the fabric, to souring (reducing pH to about 5 to remove yellowing, sodium bicarbonate), bluing, bleaching and finishing." Based on a survey group established by EPA for coin operated laundromats, process wastewater discharge rates varied from 240 gallons per day (minimum) to 20,600 gallons per day (maximum). Average flow rate was reported at 3,600 gallons per day. Characterization of raw laundromat wastewater as identified by the EPA report is as follows: PARAMETER NUMBER ANALYZED MAXIMUM MEDIAN MEAN BOD51 Mg/1 31 500 120 140 COD, mg/1 18 930 270 340 TOC, mg/1 1 668 - - TSS, mg/l 28 630 85 140 Total Phosphorus, mg/1 2 18 9.8 9.8 Total Phenols, mg/l 3 .30 <.002 .10 Oil & Grease, mg/l 13 74 23 26 pH, S.U. 29 9.2 8.0 7.9 Influent data has not been collected for the Eastern Shore facilities. Effluent data was provided by the SWCB from discharge monitoring reports (DMR). Due to the relative similarity among laundering facilities it is believed that the data collected by EPA represents the affected operations. Additionally, flow data available for the subject facilities indicate that the size of these facilities are indeed similar to the EPA survey group. B. Existing Disposal Method� Currently, once wastewater is treated at the five (5) facilities it is discharged to local surface waters. Four (4) of the five (5) discharge to "dry ditches" which are identified by name and segment on Exhibit II- 6. The fifth facility, Chincoteague, discharges to the tidal basin, Chincoteague Channel. C. Existing Treatme@t Methods Three (3) of the five (5) facilities utilize a package treatment plant designed by Clow Industries. These systems were placed on line several years ago and have been complemented by the use of chlorine for 111-2 disinfection at various times since their installation. The package plants have not been effective in treating the wastewater effluent from the three (3) operations. Exceedences of permit limits have been common place. Each package plant consists of a wet well with submersible pumps that transfer the water to an aeration basin, clarifier and chlorine contact basin before gravity discharge. The most likely reasons why these systems have been ineffective are as follows: 1. The wastewater substrate from laundromats is nutrient deficient. Biological systems require nitrogen to operate effectively and laundromat wastewater is lacking in this nutrient. 2. The use of various laundry detergents, whiteners, despotters, etc. is not conducive to sustaining a healthy biomass. 3. 'Even if these systems could consistently meet current treatment limits, the point would be moot since much tighter limits must be met to meet water quality standards. The other two (2) facilities that do not have-package treatment plants are Chincoteague and Eastville. At the time of their coming under SWCB scrutiny the other three (3) systems were not providing a quality effluent and therefore were not advocated by the SWCB. Both facilities currently utilize a sedimentation tank before discharge. Eastville also employs a 10,000 gallon septic tank to provide additional treatment. It is reported by the owners that additional treatment has not been installed because no one, including the SWCB, has been able to suggest a plausible treaiment system for these facilities. 111-3 ALTERNATIVEDISPOSAL AND TREATMENT CHAPTER IV IV. ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT A. Alternative Disposal Methods In evaluating treatment and dis@osal methods for a project, the options available for the release or discharge of wastewater are first considered. Once the most appropriate method or methods of disposal are chosen, then the required degree of treatment of the wastewater can be determined. Treatment efficiency is dictated by the media to which the wastewater is released, i.e. stream discharges generally require a higher level of treatment than do subsurface discharges. Exhibit IV-1 is a matrix which compares the various methods considered for disposal of wastewater. This matrix con siders and rates many aspects ranging from owner liability to system cost for each option. In addition to the ranking process, a relative importance factor has been added to each attribute. Those attributes that are most critical to the success of the method have a higher value in the comparison to others of less importance. Although this matrix does not accomplish or reflect economic feasibility it does prioritize those options that can be considered for disposal. Economic feasibility is addressed in detail in Chapter V. The remaining narrative in this section details each disposal alternative. 1. Discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Only two (2) POTW's have been constructed on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. These facilities are located in Cape Charles and Onancock. Disposal of wastewater via a direct connection to a POTW is a very attractive option and is thus ranked first on the disposal matrix. The Coin-Operated Laundromat Association, when asked about disposal options, indicated that the only disposal alternative, other than recycle/reuse, they recommend is a POTW connection. They also indicated that recycle/reuse, which is discussed later in this IV-1 chapter, is only recommended at very large facilities because of economic f easibility. The term large capacity was tenuously defined as an establishment which produces gross receipts several times larger than the subject facilities. Gross receipts are affected by the number of available washing machines, the-fees charged per wash and finally the frequency that the average washing machine is utilized each day. POTW connection is severely limited in application to the five (5) subject facilities. Only the facility in Onley is close to one of the two (2) central systems. This laundromat is less than 3,000 feet from an existing sewage pump station. Therefore, this option should first be considered relative to economic feasibility at this one location. Prior to determining the economic feasibility, treatment capacity must first be evaluated at Onancock to determine if service can be provided. Also, the Industrial Development Authority, which owns the collection system at the potential point of connection,would need to approve the service. All other facilities are at least several miles from POTW service areas. Therefore, this type of discharge is not feasible from an economic viewpoint. 2. Hauling Hauling wastewater to a POTW is a viable solution for disposal. This alternative ranked second among the available alternatives. As is discussed in Item 1 above, treatment capacity must first be available at one of the POTW's before this option can be considered. The economids associated with storing and hauling several thousand gallons of wastewater per day from each facility is definitely the most negative aspect of this alternative. Cost aside, this method is acceptable for all facilities. Hauling also can be a temporary IV-2 method of disposal, if a central system will be available in a short time. Hauling does require a POTW to accept and treat the wastewater. As a resurt, the two (2) POTW's were contacted (see Exhibit IV-2 and IV-3), as part of this project. Cape Charles indicated a tentative willingness to accept the wastewater. Onancock has tentatively rejected the concept. Responses from the Towns are provided as Exhibits IV-4 and IV-5. The decisions are of course tentative in nature since sometimes area social and economic needs outweigh local desires. 3. No Discharge No discharge is another alternative for -disposal of wastewater. No discharge, for this report, is defined as a discharge to groundwater or to the air (evaporation) rather than to a @surface @water. Many alternatives are available for consideration in this category. These include recycle/reuse, evaporation, subsurface disposal, spray irrigation and rapid infiltration. A discussion of each of these disposal methods follows: a. Recycle/Reuse Reuse of laundry wastewater requires vigorous treatment. This alternative has been successfully utilized by many larger coin operated laundromats. The economics of treatment to the level required for reuse only appears to make sense if the water supply .and/or disposal alternatives are either non-existent or are severely limited. Reuse is normally accomplished by a physical chemical process that utilizes dissolved air flotation as the primary treatment IV-3 unit. Only 65 to 75 percent of the wastewater can be processed for reuse. The remaining 25 to 35 percent is in the form of sludge etc. that must then be disposed. If reuse is considered, the most logical means for disposing of the remaining residues is by hauling to a POTW. This combination of reuse and hauling is used in evaluating economic feasibility later in Chapter V. A final consideration about reuse is there may be a problem with public perception in using water that is recycled. This perception problem must be evaluated in conjunction with basic economics. b. Evaporation- Evaporation or vaporization is a concept rarely utilized in wastewater treatment. Natural evaporation is not feasible in this' -area of the Country due to excessive precipitation. Therefore, additional energy must be used. The energy requirements for this alternative are enormous. To evaporate one gallon of water requires approximately one quarter of a gallon of No. 2 fuel oil. This option is feasible, but not practical. C. On-Site On-site alternatives include subsurface disposal, spray irrigation and rapid infiltration. To evaluate these relatively low cost and viable treatment technologies a comparative matrix was developed for the five (5) subject sites and is'included as Exhibit IV-6. This matrix summarizes the quality of soils at each site and area requirements for each disposal technology. IV-4 Soil quality for this report, was based on a preliminary re i view of Soil Conservation Service (SCS) maps and soil descriptions in the area of each site. Finally, a single soil boring constructed at each facility was used to correlate the site to the SCS data. Based on this limited evalia-tion, a soil type was chosen for each site and a conservative perk rate established. This perk rate was then used to approximate areas required for various on-site disposal methods. Finally, based on laundromat size, a determination of the percentage of available area is provided to indicate whether these sites could support the technology without purchasing additional land. The remaining narrative in this section details each option and its potential for use. i. Subsurface Disposal Two (2) types of subsurface disposal are routinely used for wastewater disposal. These are conventional subsurface systems and mound systems. Both systems are essentially the same relative to the required bed area and the di spo s al /treatment process. The major difference is in construction cost and configuration. Mound systems are elevated and are constructed when conventional subsurface systems are not possible due to high water table conditions. Both types of subsurface disposal could prove to be viable for disposal of laundry waste. Pretreatment of the water would be required before disposal. The Chincoteague site may not be suited for on-site subsurface disposal. This facility has limited land and purchasing additional land does not appear to be feasible. Additionally, a high water table that appears to fluctuate with the tide, would also, inhibit the performance of an on-site system. IV-5 Nelsonia and Onley could potentially have enough available land for subsurface or mound construction. Exmore and Eastville would most definitely need to purchase additional land for these disposal methods. ii. Irrigation Spray irrigation does not appear to be a viable alternative for the subject sites although the disposal technology is proven and effective. Available land is not nearly sufficient to employ this technology. Including buffers approximately 2.5 to 4 acres would be required to spray irrigate the wastewater generated at one facility. The need for buffers and year round operation severely limits this potential disposal method. iii. Rapid Infiltration Of all on-site systems, rapid infiltration requires the least area. Rapid infiltration systems effectively remove BOD and suspended solids through filtration, absorption and bacterial decomposition. BOD removal of greater than 85% and very low levels of suspended solids are expected. These basins are dosed or flooded, then allowed to drain and dry. These systems have also proved effective in removing metals, pathogens and trace organics. Rapid infiltration requires approximately one third the area of subsurface disposal for the same volume of wastewater. Should a problem develop with a rapid infiltration basin it can be observed and corrected much more effectively than with subsurface disposal. Basins are designed to be open topped. Whereas subsurf ace systems are completely covered with soil. IV-6 4. Stream Discharge A stream or surface water discharge is the existing method used for the disposal of wastewater at all five (5) subject facilities. This alternative may or may not be feasible based on surface water modeling and the SWCBs interpretation of that model. It is reported that results of a model indicate current laundromat VPDES permit limits cause exceedences of Virginia Water Quality Standards. Comments from the SWCB, indicate a level of treatment of less than 10 mg/l BOD and 10 mg/l TSS are required to continue a stream discharge. If this is in fact true for all five (5) facilities, treatment is far too costly as is discussed in more detail in Chapter V. B. Alternative Treatment Methods To utilize any of the aforementioned disposal methods, treatment of the wastewater must also be considered. The level of treatment varies significantly from one disposal option to another. A matrix of treatment methods, Exhibit IV-7, was developed in the early stages of the project. This matrix was initially designed to consider what treatment alternatives could potentially be utilized in meeting anticipated stream discharge limits. Each method was reviewed for its technical merit. If the method was found to be without merit, further evaluation was not performed. If merit did exist, then the matrix rates many factors used in determining effectiveness. A relative importance factor was applied to each attribute to ass-ist in determining feasibility of each system. This matrix has become somewhat obsolete in the context of this document since stream discharge is not considered economically feasible (See Chapter V). Therefore, including this matrix serves more as an IV-7 inf ormational summary to assist the reader in understanding the economic cost associated with meeting the State's Water Quality Standards. The following items discuss each type of disposal option and the anticipated requirements for treatment to use the option. 1. POTW Disposal To utilize either a direct discharge to a POTW or hauling to a POTW a minimal amount of treatment may be required. This treatment may include pH adjustment, oil and grease removal and possibly some initial screening of the waste (delinting). The degree to which pretreatment will be required will depend on the POTW and its pretreatment requirements. Hauling also will require a storage capacity of at least four (4) days of average flow. 2. Recycle/Reuse Treating the wastewater to the degree necessary for recycling and reuse involves an extensive system. Physical -Chemical systems are primarily used by the industry for this purpose. As shown on Exhibit IV-8, wastewater is first screened, the pH adjusted and polymer fed. After coagulation, the flow enters a dissolved air flotation unit and then flows through a sand filter to remove more : uspended solids and insoluble BOD. A carbon f ilter is then ometimes used to reduce the soluble BOD. The f low is then disinfected with chlorine and is ready for reuse. The treatment system requires the use of chemicals and the disposal of sludge produced by the process. Approximately 25 to 35% of the flow will need to be disposed of as a sludge. Carbon filtration is not considered in the cost estimates in Chapter V. This optional unit is only needed if there are major problems with public perception. iv-8 3. Evaporation As stated earlier, evaporation requires tremendous amounts of energy to be successful. A boiler or similar device is used to raise the temperature of the wastewater above the boiling point. Treatment before the boiler would include screening, a sedimentation or septic tank and flow equalization. Flow equalization is incorporated to reduce the size of the unit and allow it to handle the average flow rather than the maximum peak instantaneous demand. An air discharge permit would most likely be required for the boiler. 4. On-Site Disposal Many of the treatment alternatives identified on Exhibit IV-7 can be used for on-site disposal. Because of the large land requirement for spray irrigation, treatment technologies prior to spray irrigation are not addressed in this report. Treatment alternatives using lagoons were also not further considered because of the large land area and construction cost. The majority of on-site disposal systems utilize screening and septic treatment systems before actual disposal. Experience has shown that further treatment is required or the disposal system needs to be extremely oversized. Further treatment following the septic system can include intermittent sand filters with recirculation, slow sand filters, up-flow biofilters, anaerobic contactors with recirculation, pH adjustment and flow equalization. A complete rapid infiltration system would consist of properly sized septic tanks for initial biological treatment and some solids separation. The septic tanks would be preceded by a mechanical screening device to remove a portion of the larger solids prior to disposal. The rapid infiltration bed itself would follow the septic IV-9 tanks and potentially consist of a four (4) cell concrete block structure approximately 30 feet by 30 feet in overall dimension. This structure would contain a sand bed with a depth of not more than 8 to 10 feet. The structure would most likely protrude above the ground surface especially at those facilities with high water tables. A pump system is required to transfer the wastewater from the septic tank to the rapid infiltration units. A rapid infiltration system is similar in function to a septic/tile field disposal system. The advantage that rapid infiltration provides that standard systems do not, is serviceability. In a rapid infiltration system wastewater, after passing through septic tanks (required with both system types), is pumped on top of a sand bed where it percolates to the groundwater table. By utilizing an exposed sand surface, maintenance can be performed routinely on the sand bed. This maintenance will reduce the likelihood of system @failure as a result of the sand bed becoming clog ged with solids. -Tile fields do not provide the operator with this solids removal opportunity. Failure via soil pore clogging, which is of paramount concern with laundry wastewater is.much more likely. As is the case with most technologies that have not been specifically utilized for a certain wastewater type, it is advisable that a pilot plant be constructed first before full size units are designed. If this alternative is selected, data also should be collected todetermine if pH adjustment is necessary. A rapid infiltration system could, in part, be utilized for pretreatment if and when a central sewer system becomes available. The screening, septic tanks and flow equalization basins provide wastewater effluent at or below typical POTW pretreatment ordinance requirements. The rapid infiltration beds themselves would not be utilized and the pump system that distributes wastewater onto IV-10 the rapid infiltration beds may need to be upgraded if a force main to the central collection system is required. The environmental impact of a rapid infiltration system would be quite low. These systems remove a large majority of the pollutants prior to discharge to the groundwater table. Treatment would be very similar to standard septic/tile field systems. 5. Stream Discharge Although the present VPDES permit requires discharge to be eliminated prior to expiration of the permit for four (4) of the facilities, an attempt was made to determine what treatment technology could be utilized to meet the expected permit limits. As stated earlier, the permits would be less than 10 mg/I for BOD 5 and TSS. A physical chemical process would appear to be the most reliable mean of meeting such strict limits. Screening, pH adjustment, chemical feed, coagulation, @sedimentation, filtration, carbon adsorption and disinfection would most likely achieve the desired goals. Chlorine would not be used as a disiniectant for a trea tment alternative discharging to the streams. A UV system would be incorporated for disinfection. Other portions of the unit process would, in all likelihood, have to be sized larger to provide an additional consistent degree of treatment to meet the permit limits. Exhibit IV-10 shows the recommended unit processes that would be used. Exhibits IV-11 through IV-14 show other unit processes that were evaluated and found to be more expensive. IV-11 MMIBITS 0>0 0 0 8. 0 (D N PH ADJUSTMENT FLOW CONTROL NUTRIENT ADDITION CD RAW FACULTATIVE INTERMITTENT Uv FINAL DISCHARGE o WASTE POND SAND FILTER r, 0 DISINFECTION Pal @l I 14 x I :lc, 0 col (v (A 'm to 0 (D COMPARATIVE MATRIX DISPOSAL METHODS LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER PROJECT 0 ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 0 K: 1@ u TECHNICAL POTENTIAL FUTURE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE MERIT OWNER CONSTR OPERAT. LAND ENVIRO USE OPERATION CONSTR. RELATIVE RELATIVE (YESIN01 LIABILITY COST COST REG. IMPACT LIMITATION COMPLEX17Y COMPLEXITY EFFECTIVENESS RANKING RELATIVE IMPORTANCE 20 Is 20 7 5 5 3 1. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORI YES a 6 1 1 1 2 3 201 1 11. HAULING YES 1 2 10 1 2 2. 6 2 280 2 x Ill. NO DISCHARGE A. SUBSURFACE 1. CONVENTIONAL YES 4 3 4 4 6 3 4 330 3 2. ELEVATED MOUND YES 3 5 4 6 4 6 3 4 385 C) B. RAPID INFILTRATION YES 6 a 6 3 6 5 4 a 426 5 ZA C. SPRAY IRRIGATION 1. CROPLAND YES -6 4 5 a a 4 a 4 494 7 2. WOODLAND YES 5 5 6 9 a 4 a 6 637 a 0. EVAPORATION YES a 9 a 3 6 a a a 669 9 E, RECYCLE/ REUSE YES 9 9 7 2 3 5 9 7 572 10 IV. STREAM DISCHARGE --I YEi--l a a 2 a. 6 a 7 582 11 0 a (n NOTES: (1) WHERE P0TWISWrTHlIN RMNABLE DISTANCE ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION P.O. BOX 417 ACCOMAC. VIRGINIA 23301 (804) 787-2936 FAX (804) 787-4221 MEMBERS May 22, 1992 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JULIA E. MAJOR. PAUL F. . AICP CHAIRMAN Robert W. Martin Town Manager THOMAS H. DIXON, III VICE CHAIRMAN Town of Onancock 15 North Street T. STEWART BAKER Onancock, VA 23417 CHARLES S. BELL GREGORY L. DUNCAN LAURA BELLE GORDY P. C. KELLAM. JR, Dear Mr. Martin: PAUL B. MERRITT THOMAS J. MATTHEWS I am writing on behalf of the Accomack-Northhampton Coin SHIRLEY S. SISCO Operated Laundromat Waste Water Treatment Project N. W. TERRY Committee. The Committee is working to identify waste GWENDOLYN. F. TURNER water treatment options for five coin-operated H. C. WESSELLS II laundromats on the Eastern Shore. These laundromats are currently in violation of Virginia Water Control Board regulations and need to develope alternative treatment COUNTIES methods in order to remain in business. ACCOMACK NORTHAMPTON One of the waste water treatment options the Committee is considering is to pump and haul the waste water from the laundromats to a municipal sewage treatment plant. TOWNS The Committee would like to determine if the Town of Onancock would be able to accept this waste water and ACCOMAC treat it at the Onancock Sewage Treatment Plant. The BELLE HAVEN estimated numbre of gallons per day would vary form 3,000 to 20,000 gpd depending upon how many of the laundromats CAPE CHARLES participated. CHERITON Could you please advise the Committee of the availability EASTVILLE of the Onanconck Sewage Treatment Plant for a pump and EXMORE haul program? HALLWOOD KELLER Thank you for considering this request. If you have any MELFA questions, please call me. ONANCOCK Sincerely yours, ONLEY PAINTER PARKSLEY James M. McGowan TANGIER Director of Planning WACHAPREAGUE cc: Bob Kerr, P.E. Cabe Associates Paul F. Berge, AICP Executive Director EXHIBIT IV-2 RECYCLED PAPER ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION P.O. BOX 417 ACCOMAC. VIRGINIA 23301 (804) 787-2936 FAX (804) 7137-4221 MEMBERS May 22, 1992 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JULIA E.MAJOR. PAUL F. Stoat. AICP CHAIRMAN Dick Barton THOMAS H. DIX0N III Town Manager VICE CHAIRMAN Town of Cape Charles Box 391 T. STEWART BAKER Cape Charles, VA 23310 CARLES S. BELL GREGORY L. DUNCAN LAURA BELLE GORDY P. C. KELLAN . JR. Dear Mr. Barton: PAUL S. MERRITT THOMAS J. MATTHEWS I am writing on behalf of the Accomack-Northampton Coin SHIRLEY S. SISCO Operated Laundromat Waste Water Treatment Project N. W. TERRY Committee. The Committee is working to identify waste GWENDOLYN F. TURNER water treatment options for five coin-operated H. C. WESSELLS II laundromats on the Eastern Shore. These laundromats are COUNTIES currently in violation of Virginia Water Control Board ACCOMACK regulations and need to develop alternative treatment NORTHAMPTON methods in order to remain in business. TOWNS One of the waste water treatment options the Committee ACCOMAC is considering is to pump and haul the waste water from BELLE HAVEN the laundromats to a municipal sewage treatment plant. The Committee would like to determine if the Town of Cape CAPE CHARLES Charles would be able to accept this waste water and CHERITON treat it at the Cape Charles Sewage Treatment Plant. The CHINCOTEAGUE estimated number of gallons per day would vary from 3,000 EASTVILLE to 20,000 gpd depending upon how many of the laundromats EXMORE participated. HALLWOOD KELLER Could you please advise the Committee of the availability MELFA of the Cape Charles Sewage Treatment Plant for a pump and NASSAWADOX haul program? ONANCOCK ONLEY PARKSLEY Thank you for considering this request. If you have any SAXIS questions, please call me. TANGIER WACHAPREAGUE Sincerely yours, James M. McGowan Director of Planning cc: Bob Kerr, P.E. Cabe Associates Paul F. Berge, AICP Executive Director EXHIBIT IV-3 RECEIVED STARR S. MASON, Mayor JUN 01 1992 TOWN OF ONANCOCK Municipal Building PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 15 North St. Council Onancock, Virginia 23417 Council Ben F. Askew (804) 787-3363 Reed Ennis Ben Byrd Ivan W. Gibb E. Dean Edwards May 29, 1992 Joan Recor Mr. James M. McGowan Director of Planning Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission Post Office Box 417 Accomac, Virginia 23301 RE: Accomac-Northampton Laundromat Wastewater Treatment Project Dear Jim: In response to your May 22, 1992 letter, we wish to advise that the Onancock Wastewater Plant Is being overloaded due to the strength of Influent entering the plant ie, (B.O.D. & Phosphate). Therefore at this time, we will be unable to accept the wastewater from the coin-operator laundromats outside the corporate limits of Onancock. We would strongly suggest that the referenced issue be addressed in the upcoming Central Accomack Sewage Study. If you have any further suguestions, please feel free to call Steve Thomas or me. Very truly yours, Robert Wm. Martin Town Manager RWM/sd cc: S. Thomas DOC5\L592-29 EXHIBIT IV-4 1991 V.M.L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AWARD RECIPIENT Municipal Corp. of Cape Charles Office of the Town Manager June 3, 1992 Mr. James M. McGowan Director of Planning Accomack-Northampton PDC P.O. Box 417 ACCOMAC, VIRGINIA 23301 Dear Jim: Sorry for the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1992. I have discussed the matter of waste disposal for the five coin operated laundromats on the Shore with Roy Furches, Director of Utilities, and we are agreeable to accepting it an a pump and haul basis. Establishing an equitable rate creates a minor problem in that the Town should amend the sewer ordinance to establish a unifom class for this type service, but for the sake of discussion, please consider the following. Your estimate is a range from 3,000 to 20,000 gpd depending on the participation. Our existing sewer rate is based on the water consumed and is as follows: 0 to 2,000 gallons ............................. $8.00 minimum 2,000 to 10,000 gallons ............................. $3.42 per 1,000 over 10,000 gallons ................................. $2.53 per 1,000 However, your proposal would require special handling and again that depends on volume and frequency of delivery. If that information was available possibly an annual rate with quarterly billing could be estab- lished. Although a grant is involved, I assume that the individuals laundromats will be responsible for the bill. All of this is negotiable. rate: Again for the sake of discussion consider the following laundromat 0 to 2,000 gallons ............................. $12.00 minimum 2,000 to 10,000 gallons ............................. $5.25 per 1,000 over 10,000 gallons ................................. $3.76 per 1,000 Therefore, based on your low estimate of 3,000 gpd, a bill would be $17.25 and your high estimate of 20,000 gpd a bill would be $91.50. EXHIBIT IV-5 Municipal Building * P.O. Box 391 * Cape Charles, Virginia 23310 '(804) 331-3259 - 2 I hope this will be helpful in your deliberations. Sincerely, Richard Barton Town Manager RB/bs cc: Mayor & Council Town Attorney Director of Utilities COMPARATIVE MATRIX ON-SITE DISPOSAL LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER PROJECT' ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION FACILITY LOCATION: CHINCOTEAGUE NELSONIA ONLEY EXMORE EASTVILLE SUITABILITY DATA MOST LIKELY SOIL TYPE: ASSATEAGUE DRAGSTON DRAGSTON NIMMO BOJAC OTHER LIKEY SOIL TYPES: UDORTHENTS NIMMO MUNDEN DRAGSTON FISHERMAN BOJAC NIMMO MUNDEN TYPICAL PERC. RATE (MIN/IN): 3 20 20 65 20 DEPTH TO WATER TABLE (IN)*: 32 84 42 38 48 SCS SEPTIC SYSTEM LIMITATION: SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE MODERATE APPROX. AVAILABLE SITE AREA (9F)**: 3,400 9,900 4,700 4,000 200 SIZING BASED ON METERED FLOW DATE MAXIMUM FLOW BASED ON LOADS PER DAY (GPD) 8,500 3,400 2,550 5,100 4,700 EST. SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY (GAL): 13,900 6,200 5,000 8,800 8,300 EST. DISPOSAL AREA SUBSURFACE (SF): 9,000 4,900 3,700 16,900 6,900 EST. DISPOSAL AREA MOUNDS (SF): 13,200 8,100 6,500 22,500 10,600 EST. DISPOSAL AREA SPRAY IRRIGATION (SF): 47,700 19,100 14,300 28,600 26,700 EST. DISPOSAL AREA RAPID INFILTRATION (SF): 3,200 1,300 900 6,200 1,800 CONCLUSION *** SUBSURFACE % OF AVAILABLE SITE AREA: 260% % 80% 420% % MOUND % OF AVAILABLE SITE AREA: 390% 80% 140% 560% 5300% WOODED SPRAYING % OF AVAILABLE SITE AREA: 1400% 190% 300% 720% 13350% RAPID INFILTRATION % OF AVAILABLE SITE AREA: 90% 10% 20% 160% 900% ADDITIONAL MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED (ACRES): 0.1-1.1 0.0-0.4 0.0-0.3 0.1-0.7 0.0-0.6 * DEPTH TO WATER TABLE MEASURED 4/2/92, SEASONAL, HIGH MAY BE CLOSER TO GROUND SURFACE ** 30% OF TOTAL SITE AREA *** BASED ON CALCULATED FLOW DATA COMPARATIVE MATRIX TREATMENT LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER PROJECT ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION TECHNICAL FUTURE TREAMENT ALTERNATIVE MERIT MEETS CONSTR. OPERAT. LAND ENVIRO USE OPERATION CONSTR. RELATIVE YES/NO LIMITS COST COST REQ. IMPACT LIMITATIONS COMPLEXITY COMPLEXITY EFFECTIVENESS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE 20 15 10 15 10 5 7 3 SCREENING, SEPTIC, SLOW SAND FILTER W/RECIP YES 2 5 3 3 4 6 3 3 265 SCREENING, SEPTIC, SLOW SAND FILTER YES 2 5 3 3 4 5 3 3 265 SCREENING, SEPTIC, UPFLOW BIOFILTER YES 1 6 3 3 4 5 4 4 290 SCREENING, SEPTIC, ANAEROBIC CONTACTOR WITH RECIR YES 4 5 2 3 4 5 4 5 328 SCREENING, SEPTIC, PLASTIC MEDIA TOWER W/HIGH RECIF YES 2 6 6 3 4 5 5 5 340 SCREENING, SEPTIC, CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS YES 2 4 1 8 5 8 2 4 346 SCREENING, SEPTIC, ROTATING DISK YES 2 6 4 4 4 6 5 5 360 SCREENING, FACULTATIVE LAGOON YES 2 5 2 8 6 3 3 5 366 SCREENING, SEPTIC, SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR YES 2 7 6 3 4 6 8 6 369 SCREENING, SEPTIC, ACTIVATED SLUDGE YES 2 7 6 3 4 5 8 7 392 SCREENING, SAND FILTER. COAG./CLARIF./CARBON YES 1 8 9 3 4 5 7 4 401 SCREENING, AERATED LAGOON YES 2 7 4 8 5 3 4 5 413 SCREENING, SEPTIC, ULTRAFILTRATION/CARBON ADSORPI YES 1 9 9 3 4 5 7 5 419 SCREENING, SEPTIC, SAND FILTER, CARBON/POLYMER YES 2 8 9 3 4 6 7 5 429 DIRECT DISCHARGE (NO TREATMENT) NO VACUUM DIATOMITE FILTERS NO FOAM SEPARATION/FRACTIONATION NO SCREENING, SEPTIC, FLOATATION NO DIATOMACEOUS EARTH FILTRATION NO ELECTROLITIC TREATMENT NO REVERSE OSMOSIS NO SOLAR AQUATICS NO SCREENING, SEPTIC, CHEMICALS, FLOTATION NO Cl > 0 co w 0) 0 W L4 25-35% SLUDGE. HAUL TO POTW PH ADJUSTMENT CHEMICAL FEED RAW SCREENING COAGULATION DISSOLVED AIR SAND WASTE (DELINTING) H FLOTATION FILTRATION m C 0 z m ;o IN,0 0 rq rn c CARBON ADSORPTION (n REUSE CHLORINE rn (OPTIONAL) DISINFECTION @ffCOA( 114 00 02zo 0 0 14 ILA RAW SCREENING SEPTIC TANK FLOW EQUALIZATION INT RMITrANT SAND WASTE FILTER c z 0 z 0 0 rn m U) TO GROUNDWATER RAPID INFILTRATION ca C) 0 0.(A 00(00) 0 (o (A PH ADJUSTMENT CHEMICAL FEED RAW SCREENING COAGULATION SEDIMENTATION ILTRATION WASTE H c z vi 0 0 0 :1 rn > ;a PTION 0 STREAM Uv CARBON ADSOR rn DISCHARGE DISINFECTION I L'COAG't ED 0 -4 co @ (o 0) 000 RECYCLE PH ADJUSTMENT- NUTRIENT ADDITION RAW L EQUALIZATION ATTACHED GROWTH CLARIFICATION (A WASTE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 0 6 0 (A 0 FINAL INTERMITTENT Uv rn DISCHARGE SAND FILTERS 'o DISINFECTION 14 .0>0 o-'o >0 - I (D-ACA to to 0) ocow RECYCLE PH ADJUSTMENT NUTRIENT ADDITION RAW SCREENING EQUALIZATION ATTACHED GROWTH CLARIFICATION WASTE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 0 K 6 0 C) ai 0 0 i!-- T. ;u FINAL 0 Uv FILTRATION S DIMENTATION COAGULATION rn DISCHARGE DISINFECTION (A - cci 0>0 0-< I 0 co to to 0 FtJ @FEQI CD C:l (o (A PH ADJUSTMENT NUTRIENT ADDITION 0 RAW FACULTATIVE COAGULATION FLOTATION FILTRATION > WASTE POND 0 CHEMICAL X POLYMER FINAL UV rn DISCHARGE DISINFECTION [LFAC I F rn x X 1. @! -1 1 . . I . - , I I I I i . -I ECONOMIC ANALYSIS I -. I .I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER V -1 V. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. Cost of Disposal and Treatment Alternatives This report reviews treatment and disposal alternatives for five (5) facilities. Eight (8) methods of disposal have been considered in the evaluation and numerous methods of treatment. Each facility has unique features that must be factored into a final design regarding treatment and disposal. A cost estimate has been prepared for the alternatives and is based on a generic facility. The facility is assumed to have 28 machines with each used 2.5 times per day. This results in a discharge of 2,380 GPD. 1. Capital Cost The estima ted capital cost for each of the treatment and disposal alternatives is shown on Exhibit V-1. Cost of evaporation was not evaluated. The fuel cost alone disqualified this alternative and, therefore, further evaluation was unnecessary. The capital cost estimates are based on 1992 dollars. 2. Operation and Maintenance Cost The estimated operation and maintenance cost for the treatment alternatives and disposal alternatives are shown on Exhibit IV-2. The cost f or,operation and maintenance of the treatment and disposal system is also shown on a unit cost basis. This is the additional amount that must be charged to the user per wash load to cover operation and maintenance of the system. The operation and maintenance cost estimates are also based on 1992 dollars. V-1 3. Annual Equivalent Cost of Alternatives The total annual equivalent cost for each of the alternative treatment and disposal systems is shown on Exhibit V-3. This provides a means for comparison of the alternatives by reducing the cost associated with each alternative to an equivalent base of a uniform annual cost. The annual equivalent cost has been calculated based on a ten year life for the improvements at an annual interest rate of 12%. This rate and term is of course variable based on the lending institution. Loans may be available from the Farmer's Home Administration or from other agencies providing funds for economic development. Also included is the annual equivalent cost expressed as a cost per load of wash. This quickly shows the economic impact to the residents or consumers of the service. Rapid infiltration has the least annualized cost at approximately $9,100 per year. This is followed closely by discharge to a POTW that is an option for only one (1) facility (Onley) and on-site subsurface. These are annualized at $10,600 and between $10,000 and $16,000 respectively. These alternatives all add between $0.36 and $0.72 to the cost of doing a single load of laundry. These costs will, of course vary slightly for each facility depending on site specific requirements. Some facilities have existing equipment such as septic tanks and pumping stations that can be utilized in a new system. This will reduce the overall capital costs and potentially reduce additional operation and maintenance expenses. At some locations there is sufficient land for a rapid infiltration system and at others additional land may have to be purchased. This will, conversely, increase capital costs. v-2 B. Laundromat Economic Profile Coin operated laundromats on the Eastern Shore provide laundry service facilities to residences who are unable or do not' desire to own individual laundry facilities. According to the 1990 census, the population of the Eastern Shore is 44,764. The census determined that approximately 21% of the population lives below the poverty level. It is also estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 seasonal farm workers temporarily live on the Eastern Shore during the growing season. The majority of these temporary workers must rely on these facilities for their laundry needs. Undoubtedly a major concern of any improvement is the ability of the ownerls and ultimately the users to be able to afford the improvements. Information provided by the owner's for the last several years indicate that gross incomes have ranged from $20,000 to $70,000 for each of the five. (5) facilities. Information was incomplete for profits but the range is from zero to $19,000 with an average of less than .$6,000 annually. These figures are not reflect of the true profit. Most facilities do not show salary deductions which means that the profit figures contain the income of those individuals who own and also operate their facilities. Owners indicated that the profits the last two (2) years are slightly above the average. This is because they have been hesitant to invest in new equipment or make other improvements due to the uncertainty of their permit status. The cost of a new wastewater treatment and disposal system may be more than can be economically justified. The owner of each facility must decide individually if the cost can be recouped. Based on comments from the owners, all alternatives suggested in this document exceed their financial capability. Recouping the investment can only be done by increasing the cost of service which may price the service out of the reach of many of the V-3 users. Owners will have to evaluate if this will be an acceptable increase to the users. An increase of $0.50 per load may be required to pay for the capital and operation and maintenance cost of a new system. Many of the users and certainly the seasonal farm workers are low income and have no other means available for washing clothes. The owners do not believe that an increases in the cost per wash will be tolerated by their clientele. Additionally, just to increase the price charged for a load of wash requires the owners make a large investment. Each machine must be modified to accept additional coins. V-4 = = = m M M M m = m = t 0@ - = m m m 0 1 x ru 1-1 DISPOSAL METHOD CAPITAL COST DISCHARGE TO POTW $46,600 HAUL TO POTW 15,000 RECYCLEIREUSE 57,225 SUBSURFACE 52,000-102,000 SUBSURFACE MOUND 58,400 - 118,300 RAPID INFILTRATION 31,500 STR EAM 210,000 CAPITAL COST includes those costs necessary to design and construct the disposal method cited. Cost includes all labor, materials and services 100-363 ra CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 'EXH.IBIT MAY. 1992 10OA089C DISPOSAL METHOD AN N UAL O&M COST AN N UAL O&M COST PER LOAD DISCHARGE TO POTW $4,000 $0.18 HAUL TO POTW 47.500 1.53 RECYCLEIREUSE 30,000 0.58 EVAPORATION 198,000 7.80 SUBSURFACE 3,000 0.12 SUBSURFACE MOUND 3,000 0.12 RAPID INFILTRATION 5,000 0.20 'STREAM 30,000 1.19 ANNUAL 0 & M COST (operation and maintenance) includes'labor, utilities, materials, outside services, expenses and replacement of equipment and parts to ensure effective and dependable operation on an annual basis. 1100-363 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST EXHIBIT MAY, 1992 ESTIMATE 3E- 2 10OA090C I I -JI DISPOSAL METHOD ANNUALIZED COST ANNUALIZED COST PER LOAD DISCHARGE TO POTW $10,600 $0.42 HAUL TO POTW 40,800 1.61 RECYCLEIREUSE 22,104 0.87 SUBSURFACE 10,000 - 16,000 0.39-0.63 SUBSURFACE MOUND 10,500 -18,200 0.41-0.72 RAPID INFILTRATION 9,100 0.36 STREW 57,010 2.24 ANNUALrZED COST is the expression of a nonuniform series of costs as a uniform annual amount. Annualized cost for the purpose of this exhibit is based on a 10 year term and a 12 percent interest rate for capital investment plus annual operation and maintenance cost. ,c a c) e ANNUAUZED COST EXHIBIT 100-363 164AY. 19 9 2 ESTIMATE 7:-3 10OA091C 2 I I-- I . . U, . I I I I I ..I. CONCWSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I -, I I I I I I I II I I I CHMwMR VI II I VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The five (5) facilities have limited options for wastewater disposal. Site sizes, soil types, locations relative to POTW's, high water tables, and very limited expendable incomes all contribute to reducing the potential for effectively dealing with this opportunity. Many conclusions can be drawn from this document as it pertains to disposal and treatment. Several important items are as follows: 1. Stream discharge will become impractical, if not impossible, after August 1992 for all five (5) facilities. VPDES compliance schedules requires that four (4) of the five (5) operations cease discharge by that date. Chincoteague, although not identified in the current VPDES permit, faces a similar zero discharge based on conversations with the SWCB. Jt is also reported by the SWCB that if new VPDES permits-were to and 10 mg/l TSS .be issued that limits of less than 10 mg/1 BODS @would be necessary to alleviate alleged water quality -standard exceedences. A treatment system designed to meet such limits would necessitate an increase of at least $2.25 per wash in fees charged for laundering clothes. An increase of this magnitude could not be tolerated by the area's residents. 2. Hauling wastewater from the subject laundromats to a POTW as a disposal option is also impractical. The cost to haul and treat nearly 3,000 gallons of wastewater per day would require an increase of approximately $1.60 per wash in fees charged for laundering clothes. Again this increase would most likely not be tolerated. 3. Recycle/reuse of wastewater for washing clothes would require extensive treatment to almost the same degree as that required to stream discharge. This alternative is also impractical. The cost VI-I of recycle/reuse would require an increase of at least $0.87 per wash in fees charged for laundering clothes. 4. Evaporation of wastewater is extremely impractical. The cost of fuel alone, not considering capital or maintenance of the system, far exceeds the cost of all other alternatives considered. Fuel costs would add approximately $8.00 to the fee charged for washing a single load of clothes. 5. Spray irrigation, due to a lack of available land at the facilities, is one of the least practical of on-site treatment and disposal options. 6. Sub surf ace/mound systems provide for reasonably cost effective disposal and treatment. Due to laundromat wastewater characteristics though, this method of disposal may be inappropriate from a long -term prospectus. There is significant concern that these systems will fail as a result of suspended solids, BOD, detergent precipitation, etc. 7. Rapid infiltration as a disposal method is not a tried and proven method for laundromat wastewater. This alternative, when coupled with septic facilities and screening facilities may very well prove to be an @economical, environmentally sound alternative to stream discharge. Rapid infiltration has been successfully used to treat and dispose of domestic wastewater on the Eastern Shore. A typical layout is shown on Exhibit VI-1. The increase required in per wash fees to cover this alternative would be more than $0.36. Each coin operated laundromat has slightly differing operating constraints -based on size, available land, geographic location, soil types, water table elevations, etc. Due to these minor differences, it is appropriate to provide recommendations on an individual facility VI-2 basis. The following identifies the suggested approach for serving each facility with alternative treatment technology. 1. The Chincoteague facility is not located close* to a POTW and therefore direct connection is not possible. Space constraints for this facility rule out spray irrigation and sub surf ac e/mound systems. Economically, recycle/reuse, stream discharge, evaporation, and most likely, hauling are beyond good business sense since annualized costs rival gross income for the facility. This leaves rapid infiltration as the most likely alternative for this site. This too, is most likely beyond the financial capability of the subject business. Another possibility is to determine what treatment requirements are necessary for a stream discharge. The limits of less than 10-10 have been volunteered as required for discharges to dry ditches by the SWCB. Obviously, the water body at Chincoteague -would -not be so classified :and @possibly higher limits with less treatment may be a practical solution. If a stream model yields more attainable limits, then treatment to meet these limits should be evaluated. Further, Chincoteague is in the discussion phase of providing central sewer. Near term connection is unlikely, but might prove to be a solution. 2. The Nelsonia facility is similar in most respects to the Chincoteague facility. One primary difference is that the site must discharge to a dry stream bed and, therefore, lesser limits of treatment for stream discharge are not a consideration. This facility is not located close enough to a POTW to be considered a viable option. Space constraints rule out spray irrigation and possibly -subsurface/mound systems. As with Chincoteague recycle/reuse, evaporation, and most likely hauling are beyond the financial wherewithal of the operation. Rapid infiltration is again the least costly, effective technology and is most likely beyond the owner's justifiable cost. vi-3 3. The Onley site is in most respects identical to Nelsonia. The only difference of consequence is that connection to a central sewer system may be possible. Based on a review of the*current service area of the Onancock POTW, this facility is less than 3,000 feet from a potential connection point. Although not inexpensive, it., is suggested that this approach be given priority followed by rapid infiltration if connection is not possible. Further, this facility is located in a planing area that is studying the need for a central sewage collection system. This may improve connection potential in the future. 4. The Exmore facility is in most respects almost identical in character to the Nelsonia facility. The only difference is that the area available for constructing an on-site system is less. Rapid infiltration would be the -most feasible near term solution at this site. This facility too, is in a planning -area where 'serious consideration is being given to central sewer service. 5. The Eastville facility is very similar again to Nelsonia. 'The one difference is that land availability, regardless of alternative treatment technology, will be an issue'. This is because the property itself it not owned by the proprietor. If land is available, rapid infiltration should again be considered for this site. The most cost effective means available to the facility owners, except for a POTW connection, is the technology of a rapid infiltration system. This technology should be tested prior to implementation via a pilot scale investigation. An investigation would range from $8,000 to $20,000 depending on the length and scale of the study. Piloting and further cost estimating are most likely moot issues though, since this technology is still beyond the facility owner's financial capabilities. VI-4 i 't, , mmmm = m m = M M = M.M.M m 1 .5 w 2 S3IMVA LL-LJ 7- r IBM TYPICAL LAYOUT EXHIBIT 100-363 M7AY,1992 RAPID INFILTRATION VI-1 looco3,3c i I . . 1. I I I k I ...I I . I I I I I I I I I I APPENDICES I 1 7 - ACCOMACK - NORTHAMPTON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT APPENDIX A Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission Coin Operated Laundromat Waste Water Treatment Project Virginia State Water Control Board 205(j) Water Quality Program Grant Application December 31, 1990 Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission P.O. Box 417 Accomac, VA 23301 Table of Contents Contents Pacre 1. Abstract I II. Problem to.be Addressed 1 III. Proj ec't Description 3 IV. Final Expected Product 3 V. Schedule for Completion of Project 4 V1. Budget 49 5 Appendix Exhibit A: Eastern Shore of Virginia Exhibit B: Location of Coin Operated Laundromats Exhibit C: Laundromat Effluent Guidelines (October 23, 1987) Acconack-Northampton Planning Distridt Co@mission Coin operated Laundromat Waste Water 7Yeatment Proiect T. Abstract This grant proposal is to fund a project to develop affordable alternative waste water treatment systems for six coin operated laundromats on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. - The proposal requests $15,000 in funding under the Virginia State Water Control Board 205(j) 'Water Quality Program. These funds will be matched by $5,000 in in-kind services provided by the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission and the owners of the six coin operated laundromats. The proposed project will be administered by the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission. The proposed project will be guided by a committee made up of Accomack- Northampton Planning District Commission staff, Virginia State Water Control Board staff and the owners of the six coin operated laundromats. The proposed project will consist of a review of the existing historical research on the laundromat waste water discharge problem, a review of each of the six coin operated laundromat waste water treatment systems, a review of the permit requirements established by the Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB), and a -detailed set of options for waste water treatment that will meet the VSWCB permit -requirements for each of the -six coin operated laundromats. Outputs from the project. will ,consist of a consultants 'report that will include -a description of the identified options for waste water treatment zt each of the six coin operated laundromats -with the final -recommendation or recommendations that will attain comol-iance with the VSWCB Water Quality requirements. 11. Pgobler to be Addressed The East-ern Shore of Virginia includes Accomack and Northampton Counties, Exhibit A, and is the easternmost part of Virginia's Coastal Plain physiographic province. The peninsula is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west and south by the Chesapeake Bay, and on -the north by the State of Maryland. Currently, there are a total of seven coin operated laundromats in operation on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Of the seven, only one laundromat discharges its waste water into a municipal waste water treatment system. This laundromat is located in the Town of Onancock and is not included in this study as it is not subject to a VSWCB waste water discharge permit. Coin operated laundromats provide laundry service facilities to those Eastern Shore residents -who are either unable to afford or do not desire to individually own laundry facilities. in -addition, these facilities provide laundry service fadilities to the 2,000 to 3, 000 migrate farm workers who annually work from May to October on the Eastern Shore as well as tourist visiting the Eastern Shore. The VSWCB has issued discharge permits to six coin operated laundromats on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Three of the six coin operated laundromats are located in Northampton County, one each in the Towns of Cheriton, Eastville and Exmore and three laundromats are located in Accomack County, one each in the Towns of Onl-ey, and Chincoteague and one in the Village of Nelsonia, Exhibit B. These privately owned facilities discharge to' open drainage ditches which provide essentially zero mixing. Based on the VSWCB Office of Water Resource Management modeling and subsequent guidance to the Tidewater Regional Office, discharge permits which are two years in duration have been issued to the laundromats. These permits mandate that no discharge be attained upon permit expiration. The Tidewater Relgional Office will not reissue these permits. Hydraulic models suggest that if treated to the limits of technology, and discharged to a "dry ditch", the receiving streams would not maintain compliance with the Water Quality Standards. ' With only a "no discharge" option, these facilities will be forced to-close within the next two years unless an affordable alternative can -be -developed. Both Northampton and Accomack Counties in conjunction with the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission are in the early stages of evaluating their future sewage treatment 'needs. since expansion of Publicly Owned Treatment,Works will require several years, an acceptable Interim. solution will need to be developed. A research committee of VSWCB staff members was organized in 1987 to exDlore alternative treatment options which might achieve VPDES permit compliance. Using technology based limits (BOD 60 ng/l and @SS 45 mg/1) as a guideline, the committee proposed the following treatment scheme, ixhibit C. lint screen settling aeration dosing tank alternating sand filters Effluent quality produced from this treatment scheme would not be adequate to protect Water Quality Standards on the Eastern Shore of Virginia since discharges are to either low flow streams or dry ditches. Modelling of these receiving streams by Tidewater Regional Office personnel has documented standard violations. 2 III. Prolect Description The purpose of the proposed project is to explore the interim or long term options which would allow the private owners of coin operated laundromats to meet the VSWCB permit requirements. In order that "no discharge" options and regional long range planning might be evaluated, the use of 205(j) grant funds are being requested. These funds would be used by the A-NPDC to contract with an engineering firm to develop options for the'private owners of coin operated laundromats to utilize in meeting the VSWCB permit requirements.'. The engineering firm would be expected to provide research into the history of this problem and explore interim or long term options which might allow private owners of coin operated laundromats to continue this service. This proposal is outlined below: Interim/Long Range Evaluation Detailed Description of the option (if technical, provide specifics). Financial analysis including costs to the owner and users. A discussion of how each option might interface with the construction of local or regional municipal treatment facilities. 'Interim environmental impacts. Reg-ulatory community requirements. Geographical applicability of the options (county, town, community). Input from a Regional Committee including counties, municipalities, PDC, facility owners, the Water Control Board and Health Department. IV. Final Exvected Product The final product will consist: of a consultant report that will include a description of the identified options for waste water treatment, financial analysis, discussion of municipal treatment possibilities, interim environmental impact s, regulatory requirements, geographical applicability of - options and the committees' input into the project. Each of the six coin operated laundromats will be provided with the final recommendation or recommendations that will attain compliance with the VSWCB Water Quality requirements. 3 The consultant report will be utilized by the, six coin *operated laundromats in order to develop waste water -treatments that comply with the Commonwealth's Water Quality requirements and allow this needed service to continue operation in the communities of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. V. Schedule for Completion The work for the' proposed project will be done on a consultant basis. The Accomack-Northampton Planning District commission will select a consultant. A proposed work s7chedule is presented below: Request for Proposals: July It 1991 Deadline for Proposals: July 30, 1991 interviews: August 10, 1991 Selection: August 25, 1991 Contract Signed: August 30, 1991 Plan Development Begins: September 1, 1991 Progress Reports: October 15, 1991 January 15, 1992 April 15, 1992 June 15, 1992 Final Report: June 30, 1992 Estimated Time Frame for ComDletion. The proposed project will begin July 2, 1991 and end June 30, 1992. 4 VI. Budget Below is the budget for the proposed project. The total budget for the proposed project is $20,000. The consultant contract will be for $15,000 qand the A-NPDC will provide $5,000 in in-kind services for the administration of the project. Funding Source Expenditure 205(j) $15,000 (cash) A-NPDC 4,000 (in-kind services) Laundromat Mat Owners 1,000 (in-kind services) ___________ Total Funding $20,000 Budget Breakdown Item 75% 205 (j) 25% Local Salary: Executive Director (35 hours) $ 1,114 Director of Planning (105 hours) 2,302 Laundromat Owners (33 hours) 1,000 Benefits (16.47% of Salaries) 343 Travel 416 Equipment -0- Expendable Supplies -0- Contractual Services $15,000 -0- Indirect (46.32% of Salaries and Fringes) 1,225 'Totals $15,000 $ 5,000 Total Project Budget: $20,000 5 Appendix VIR INIA Mallwood BICUO 13 Park @ev cornac Onley aft qr Ma prea Painter q9 Cape titan Charles v Exhibit A Eastern Shore of Virginia VIRGINIA es4zis Kallwood aundromat Site Bl"O 13 Park ey CCOM&C Laundromat Site Onley ella AMPORT Aa Keller wach pre& we ,Painter 41M Seas AW Laundromat Site Laundromat Site Laundromat Site Cape Charles Exhibit B Location of Coin operated Laundromats 0 M E M O A N D U M STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD-TIDEWATER REGIONAL OFFICE R E G U L A T O R Y S E R V I C E S S E C T I O N Pembroke Two - Suits 310 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 SUBECT: Laundromat Effluent Guidelines - Committee Recommendations TO: W. L. Woodfin, Jr. FROM: R. P. Goods - Committee Chairman DATE: October 23, 1987 COPIES: Committee - (F.K. Cunningham, M.A. Donahue, D.L. Thompson) L.G. Lawson, M.G. Ferguson, Jr., Regional Offices Using the Laundromat Effluent Limitations - Draft Final Report as a strong base on which to further reviw laundromat discharges, the Committee which you established has final recommendations for laundromat affluent limitations. The limitations are almost identical to those proposed in the report prepared by Jack Vanderland and DERS. In follow-up to the DERS draft report, the Committee has been in touch with two other states which require a similar treatment scheme to meet the recommended technology-based limitations. Tennessee, which has an approved septic tank/sandfilter design, notai that the system shows good compliance (i.e. BOD in the range of 25-30 mg/l) while Pennsylvania could not supply any information. In addition, based on a facility in the Southwest Regional Office area, we are recommanding a system slightly modified from the OERS recommendation which should provide some improvement in removal efficiency. I. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS All laundromat discharges will be required, as a minimum, to meet the technology-based limitations listed below. Any discharge where the technology limitations would not meet water quality (e.g. dry ditch discharge), a basic model would be utilized to determine limitations for BOD with TSS following suit. Where chlorine limitations are required, a standard mass balance, as in the NPOES permit manual, would be conducted. If dechlorination is shown to be necessary (e.g. dry ditch discharge), the dechlorination language would be incorporated. Laundromat Effluent Guidelines - Committee Recommendations Page 2 II. TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS A. All Discharges - exception shellfish and public water supply designatios Parameter Limit Frequency* Type Flow NL** 1/month estimate BOD 60 mg/1 (max) 1/month grab TSS 45 mg/1 (max) 1/month grab pH WQS 1/month grab * See Special Condition No. 3 ** NL - No limit however, reporting is required. B. Dischargers to Shellfish and Public Water Supply Designated Waters Parameter Limit Frequency* Type Flow NL** 1/month estimate BOD 60 mg/1 (max) 1/month grab TSS 45 mg/1 (max) 1/month grab Feczal Coliform 400 N/CML (max) 1/month grab CL Residual see below 1/month grab pH WQS 1/month grab *See Special Condition No. 3 **NL - No limit however, reporting is required. ` Cl Residual 1.5-2.5 mg/1 special standard waters 1.0-2.0 mg/1 other waters Omitted from the existing limitations are the following: Oil and Grease - This parameter was omitted as it was believed that the proposed technology would remove some of the oil and grease and it would also prevent inaccurate values due to surfactants. Temperature - This parameter was omitted as it would not be a problem after going through the proposed treatment system. Laundromat Effluent Guidelines - Committee Recommendations Page 3 Fecal Coliform - As the wasterware is condidered industrial waste, not sanitary, limitations would not routinely be incorporated. In addition, the potential for high fecal coliform is somewhat mitigated through the use of bleach. An exception for this parameter is noted for shellfish and public water supply designated waters. Chlorine Residual - The proposed treatment systems should strip out chlorine produced by the bleach. An exception for this parameter is noted for shellfish and public water supply designated waters. C. Permit Special Conditions 1. Standard EPA reopener 2. Operations and Mainenance Manual The permittee will develop and operations and maintenance manual for the treatment system. This manual will address, as a minimum, treatment system design, treatment system operation, maintenance of each unit within the treatment system, critical spare parts inventory and recordkeeping. A copy of the manual will be submitted to the ______________ Regional Office of the State Water Control Board for staff review and approval. One approved, the permittee shall operate and maintain the treatment system in accordance with the manual. 3. Monitoring Frequency Reduction If the permittee can demonstrate compliance with all limitations contained within this permit for a minimum of six (6) consecutive months, the staff may consider a permit amendment to reduce the monitoring frequency to one per quarter. Laudromat Effluent Guidelines - Committee Recommendations Page 4 III. SUGGESTED TRATMENT SCHEME FOR TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS lint screening -----> settling -----> aeration ---------- remove strip Cl2; | settleables/ aerate waste | floatables prior to filter | | | -----alternate sandfilters <----- dosing tank <---------- | | | | --------> rip rap | assist in | postaeration | | --------> chlorination -------> rip rap shellfish and public water assist in supply designated waters postaeration IV. EXISTING DISCHARGES Permits would be modified to incorporate final limitations and include a Consent Order which would incorporate a schedule for upgrade to meet the final limitations within two years. Example Scedule: 1. Submit plans and 4 months after Order is specifications for review issued for approval. 2. Start construction 3 months after plans and specifications are approved 3. Complete construction 12 months after no. 2 4. Comply with all effluent 3 months after no. 3 limitations If an owner does not accept a Consent Order for upgrade, enforcement action for permit violations would be initiated. V. NEW PROPOSALS Recommend connection to central sewerage facilities if available, otherwide meet technology or water quality limitations upon issuance. /trs 14ARYLAND an o to am AtTantIc Ocean Chesapeake Say e.,.:.m UA Inki If b4&V0*N 46 COP A-44 I'm /C Y 9 4w LJ Crest --,r go EASTERN SHORE PLANNING AREA Scale z T Kilometers Source: SWC8 PART I Permit No. VA0056502 Page 2 of 4 B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE The permitte shall achieve compliance with the final limitations specified in this permit in accordance with the following schedule: 1. Submit plans or letter of February 10, 1991 intent to achieve final effluent limitations 2. Submit Status Reports August 10, 1991 3. Submit Status Reports February 10, 1992 4. Achieve Compliance with Final August 10, 1992 Effluent Limitations No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit to the Board, either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement. FACIUTY OUESTIONAIRES APPENDIX 8 COO OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER T M TMENT PROJECT QUESTTONNAIRE EASTVTLLE LAUNDROMAT OPERATIONS 1. How many washing machines do you have? 2. Are all of your machines normally working? If the answer is no, how many machines are routinely out O'f service? 3. What time do you open? 4. What time do you close? 5. How many days per week are you open? 7 6. What is your busiest day of the week! _sQfvr&Y 7. What percentage of your business occurs on the busiest day? 8. What is your busiest season? WASHING 4ACHINES 1. How many gallons of water are utilized, an an average, per wash -cycle? 2. How many gallons of water do you use per day?3,000 per week? ,21,000 per month? (during your busiest times of the year) 3. Please provide us with all monthly or quarterly water usage (water bills) summaries that are available. Page 1 of 4 @00 4. On your busiest days of the year how many loads of wash do you estimate are done at your facility? )00- I'M WASTEWATER 1. When the washing machines discharge from your building we believe that the treatment system is as follows: Wastewater exits the laundromat and dischar,,es into a small settling tank which measures approximately 4 feet wide, 8 feet long and 4 feet deep. From this tank water spills over into a 10,000 gallon below grade concrete tank. Wastewater then exits the 10,000 gallon tank which has a submersible pump with a float to transfer the wastewater from this tank to the stream discharge point. Please review this last statement carefully and provide us with any additional information that you-may have on the sheet of paper provided at the end of the questionnaire. Please add any underground tankage you may have that we were unable to identify@on our site visit. Please provide sizes of all tanks if they are known and make any corrections to our narrative statement. Additional Land 1. Do you own the land that your laundromat is situated on? na 2. What is the lot (or parcel) size in square feet or acres. 2.0 3. Do you own any more lots or parcels of land nearby? 40 4. If you do own additional parcels how far are they from the laundromat? Page 2 of 4 5. Is it possible that you could purchase additional land? must be explored 6. If you could purchase additional land what would it cost per acre? _____ I have no idea Page 3 of 4 I *I .. I 1 1. I . . I ; ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I - I II .1 - k ...I I . I I I I I I I I I , I Page 4 of 4 1 COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE - F & G LAUNDROMAT OPERATIONS 1. How many washing machines do you have? 23 2. Are all of your machines normally working? NO If the answer is no, how many machines are routinely out of service? 1 3. What time do you open? 7:00 AM 4. What time do you close? 9:30 PM 5. How many days per week are you open? 7 6. What is your busiest day of the week? Sunday 7. What percentage of your business occurs on the busiest day? 22% 8. What is your busiest season? Summer (July) WASHING MACHINES 1. How many gallons of water are utilized, on an average, per wash cycle? 34 2. How many gallons of water do you use per day? 3760 per week? 26,615 per month? 115,333 (during your busiest times of the year) 3. Please provide us with all monthly or quarterly water usage (water bills) summaries that are available. information given to James Freiss during vis to facility on 4-2-92. Page 1 of 4 4. On your busiest days of the year how many loads of wash do you estimate are done at your facility? 3&16 WAS ATER 1. When the washing machines discharge from your building we believe that the treatment system is as follows: Wastewater exits the laundromat and discharges into a 2 feet by 4 feet by 1.7 feet deep settling tank. This tank then overflows to a gravity sewer line which transmits the wastewater to a storm sewer which then discharges to the Chincoteague Channel. Please review this last statement sketch carefully and provide us with any additional information that you may have on the sheet of paper provided at the end of the questionnaire. Please add anyunderground tankage you may have that we were unable to identify an our site visit. Please provide sizes of all tanks if they are known and-make any corrections to our narrative statement. Additional Land 1. Do you own the land that your laundromat is situated on? v 2. What is the lot (or parcel) size in square feet or acres. I/ 3. Do you own any more*lots or parcels of land-nearby? Pj 4. If you do own additional parcels how far are they from the laundromat? 5. Is it possible that you could purchase additional land? TN/r'@ Page 2 of 4 If you could purchase additional land what would it cost per acre? Page 3 of 4 I 'ZI I -I- I . .. ; . I . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I I I I : .I I . I I I I - -1 II I I I I Page 4 of 4 I COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE - MESSICK & WESSELLS - ONLEY, VIRGINIA OPERATIONS 1. How many washing machines do you have? 32 2. Are all of your machines normally working? NO If the answer is no, how many machines are routinely out of service? 3-5 3. What time do you open? 24 hrs. 4. What time do you close? 5. How many days per week are you open? 7 6. What is your busiest day of the week? Sat. 7. What percentage of your business occurs on the busiest day? 8. What is your busiest season? summer WASHING MACHINES 1. How many gallons of water are utilized, on an average, per wash cycle? 40 2. How many gallons of water do you use per day? 2000-3000 per week? 15,000 per month? 60,000 (during your busiest times of the year) provide us with all monthly or quarterly water usage (water that are available. 1 of 4 4. On your busiest days of the year how many loads of wash do you estimate are done at your facility?' WASTEWATER 1. When the washing machines discharge from your building we believe that the treatment system is as follows: Wastewater exits the laundromat and discharges into a precast septic tankrmeasuring approximately 4 feet by 8 feet by 4 feet deep. One (1) submersible pump installed in this tank transfers the wastewater to an aboveground package treatment plant which was manufactured by Clow Aeroflow. The Clow system is operational at this time. Wastewater discharges from the Clow unit by gravity to the stream discharge point. Please review this last statement sketch carefully and provide us with any additional information that youmay have on the sheet-of paper provided at the end of the questionnaire. Please add any underground tankage you:may have that we were unable to identify on our site visit.. Please provide sizes of all tanks if they are known and make any corrections to our narrative statement. Additional Land 1. Do you own the land that your laundromat is situated on? ves 2. What is the lot (or parcel) size in square feet or acres. -3s* A Ue, 3. Do you own any more lots or parcels of land nearby? A/0 COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE - MESSICK & WESSELLS - NELSONIA, VIRGINIA OPERATIONS 1. How many washing machines do you have? 26 2. Are all of your machines normally working? No If the answer is no, how many machines are routinely out of service? 2-4 3. What time do you open? 24 Hrs. 4. What time do you close? 5. How many days per week are you open? 7 6. What is your busiest day of the week? SAT. 7. What percentage of your business occurs on the busiest day? ? 8. What is your busiest season? summer WASHING MACHINES 1. How many gallons of water are utilized, on an average, per wash cycle? 40 2. How many gallons of water do you use per day? 3,00o-5000 per week? 20,000 per month? 80,000 (during your busiest times of the year) 3. Please provide us with all monthly or quarterly water usage (water bills) summaries that are availabel. none Page 1 of 4 4. If you do own additional parcels how far are they from the laundromat? 5. Is it possible that you could purchase additional land? No 6. If you could purchase additional land what would it cost per acre? $5000 No Comments Page 3 of 4 fV W 04 4. On your busiest days of the year how many loads of wash do you estimate are done at your facility? /0 0 1 1. When the washing machines discharge from your building we believe that the treatment system is as follows: Wastewater exits the laundromat and discharges into a precast septic tank measuring approximately 4 feet by 8 feet by 4 feet deep, Two (2) submersible pumps installed in this tank transfer the wastewater to an aboveground package treatment plant which was manufactured by Clow Aeroflow. The Clow system is not operational at this time. 13 Wastewater discharges from the Clow unit by gravity to the stream ID dis.charge point. Please review this last statement sketch carefully and provide us with any additional information that you may have on the sheet of paper provided at the end of the questionnaire. Please add any underground tankage you may have that we were unable to identify on our site visit. Please provide sizes of all tanks if they are known and make any corrections to our narrative statement. Additi2nal Land 1. Do you own the land that your laundromat is situated on? 2. What Is the lot (or parcel) size in square feet or acres. 12 0 3. Do you own any more lots or parcels of land nearby? NO Page.2 of 4 4. if you do own additional parcels how far are they from the laundromat? 5. Is it possible that you could purchase additional-land? probably not 6. If you could purchase additional land what would it cost per acre? $2000 N0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Page 3 of 4 APR 27 1992 COIN OPERATED LAUNDROMAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT OUESTIONNAIRE - BROAD STREET LAUNDRY 1. How many washing machines do you have? 38 2. Are all of your machines normally working? NO If the answer is no, how many machines are routinely out of service? 1 OR 2 3. What time do you open? 7:30 AM 4. What time do you close? 7:00 PM M-TH 7:30PM F AND SAT 3:00PM SUN 5. How many days per week are you open? 7 6. What is your busiest day of the week? SATURDAY 7. What percentage of your business occurs on the busiest day? 30% 8. What is your busiest season? SUMMER MAY-SEPTEMBER WASHING MACHINES 1. How many gallons of water are utilized, on an average, per wash cycle? 60 2. How many gallons of water do you use per day? 5460 per week? per month? See attached (during your busiest times of the year) 3. Please provide us with all-monthly or quarterly water usage (water bills) summaries that are available. See attched Page 1 of 4 4. On your busiest days of the year how many loads of wash do you estimate are done at your facility? s 'WASTEWATER 1. When the washing machines discharge from your building we believe that the treatment system is as follows: Wastewater exits the laundromat and discharges into a precast septic tank measuring approximately 4 feet by 8 feet by 4 feet deep. Two (2) submersible pumps installed in this tank transfer the wastewater to an aboveground package treatment plant which wasmanufactured by Clow Aeroflow. The Clow system is not operational at this time. Wastewater discharges from the Clow unit by gravity to the stream discharge point. Please review this last-statement sketch carefully and provide-us with any additional information that you may have on the sheet of paper provided at the end of the questionnaire. Please add any underground tankage you may have that we were unable to identify on our site visit. Please provide sizes of all tanks if they are known and.make any corrections to our narrative statement. Additional Land 1. Do you own the land that your laundromat is situated on? Ve-,S7 2. What is the lot (or parcel) size in square feet or acres. -so-toc- 3. Do you own any more lots or parcels of land nearby? Vc Page 2 of 4 4. If you do own additional parcels how far are they from,.the laundromat? 5. Is it possible that you could purchase additional land? t" 6. If you could purchase additional land w@at would it cost per acre? page 3 of 4 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Al T)p All c e) - Li L7;o--e r Pase 4 of 4 1. 1 - 1. I I . *. I . I , i I I 1, Ii REFERENCE DOCUMENTS I . - , I I I I I I .i I I I 7 1 APPENDIX C I I REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Aulenbach, Donald B., Patrick C. Town, and Martha Chilson. "Treatment of Laundromat Wastes II. Operation of a Diatomaceous Earth Filtration System for Purification of Coin-Op Laundromat Waste". Proceedings of the 26th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University May 4, 5, and 6, 1971, Page 22. Bennett, E.R., L.E. Leach, Carl G. Enfield, and David M. Walters. Project Summary: Optimization of Nitrogen Removal by Rapid Infiltration. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, EPA/600/S2-85/016, April, 1985. Bhattacharyya, D., J.L. Bewley, and R.B. Grieves. "Ultrafiltration of Laundry Waste Constituents". Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 46, No. 10, October, 1974, Page 2372. Cashell, Margaret M., David D. Effert, and James M. Morand. Project Summary: Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems on Severely Limited Sites. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, EPA/600@S2-86/116, May, 1987. Cogger, C.G., L.M. Haijar, C.L. Moe, and M.D. Sobsey. "Septic System Performance on a Coastal Barrier Island". Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 17, No. 3, 1988, Page 401. Cordoba-Molina, J. Francisco, Robert R.Hudgins, and Peter L. Silveston. "Settling in Continuous Sedimentation Tanks". Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, December, 1978, Page 1263. Flynn, John M., and Barry Andres. "Launderette Waste Treatment Processes". Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 35, No. 6, June, 1963, Page 783. Galonian, G.E. and D.B. Aulenbach. "Phosphate removal from laundry wastewater". Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 45, No. 8, August, 1973, Page 1708. Grieves, Robert B., and Jerry L. Bewley. "Treating Laundry Wastes by Foam Separation". Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 45, No. 3, March, 1973, Page 470. Hudson, James. Project Summary: Forecasting Onsite Soil Absorption System Failure Rates. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development, EPA/600/S2-86-060, September, 1986. Ives, Kenneth J., M. ASCE, and Anand G.,Bhole. "Theory of Flocculation for Continuous Flow System". Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, February, 1973, Page 17. Jenq, Fu-Tien, and Chien-Jen Shih. "Treatment of Laundry Wastewater From a Nuclear Power Plant by Reverse Osmosis". Proceedings of the 39th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University, May 8, 9, 10, 1984, Page 281. Lent, Daniel S. ItTreatment of Power Laundry Wastewater Utilizing Powdered Activated Carbon and Cationic Polyelectrolyte". Proceedings of the 30th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University, May 6, 7 and 8, 1975, Page 751. Letterman, Raymond D. and A.M. ASCE. "Economic Analysis of Granular-Bed Filtration". Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, April, 1980, Page 279. Olcott, John Z. and Tom A. Pedersen. "Landscape Design Helps Sell Innovative Wastewater Effluent Disposal System". Public Works, October, 1984, Page 74. Pell, Mikael, and Fred Nyberg. "Infiltration of Wastewater in a Newly Started Pilot Sand-Filter System: I. Reduction of Organic Matter and Phosphorous". Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 18, Oc tober-Dec ember, 1989, Page 451. Pell, Mikael, and Fred Nyberg. "Infiltration of Wastewater in a Newly Started Pilot Sand-Filter System: II. Development and Distribution of the Bacterial Populations". Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 18, October-December, 1989, Page 457. Pell, Mikael, and Fred Nyberg. "Infiltration of Wastewater in a Newly Started it Pilot Sand-Filter System: III. Transformation of Nitrogen . Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 18, October-December, 1989, Page 463. Poon, Calvin P.C. "Electrolytic Treatment of Laundry Waste Produces Quality Effluent". Industrial Wastes, March/April 1976, Page 32. Sauer, David K., William C. Boyd, M. ASCE, and Richard J. Otis. "Intermittent Sand Filtration of Household Wastewater". Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, August, 1976, Page-789. Stecker, Philip P. "A Successful Low Technology Wastewater Process". Wa ter Engineering & Management, August, 1981, Page 46. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research and Development. Treatability Manual Volume II Industrial Descriptions, EPA/600 8 80 042B,. July, 1980, Chapter 11.2 Auto and Other Laundries. Van Gils, Gerard J., Massoud Pirbazari, Sung-Hyun Kim, and Jacob Shorr. "Treatment of Emulsified and Colloidal Industrial Wastewater Using a Combined Ultrafiltration Carbon Adsorption Process". Proceedings of the 39th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University, May 8, 9, 10, 1984, Page 269. Van Gils, G.J. and M. Pirbazari. "Pilot Plant Investigations for the Removal of Toxic Pollutants From Industrial Laundry Wastewater". Proceedings of the Seventeenth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, Page 186. 2 Young,'Kevin S. "Techniques for Treating Prewashed Denim Laundry Wastewaters". Proceedings of 44th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University, May 9, 10, 11, 1989, Page 307. Young, Kevin S., and James H. Grant. "Treatment of Prewash Denim' Laundry Wastewaters: Case Histories". ProceedingsL-of the 46th Industrial Waste Conference, Perdue University, May 14, 15, 16, 1991, Page 235. 3 SOIL CONSERVATION EASTERN SHORE SOILS APPENDIX D EASTERN SHORE SO The coastal plains soils of the Eastern Shore are generally very level soils that are considered to be prime farmland by the USDA and very suitable to the production of vegetables, small grains and soybeans. The dominant agricultural soils are high in sand content w1iich results in a highly leached condition, an acid pH and a lczf natural fertility. The poorly drained soils are very productive when adequate artificial drainage is provided. The two main soil associations are distinquished primarily by the topography of the land which affects the groundwater. The Bojac-Munden-Molena association is nearly level with minor areas of steep slope and moderately well drained to somewhat exoessively drained. These loamy and sandy soils are primarily found on broad flats and occasionally on ridges. The second association is the Nimmo-.41mden-Dragston association which is nearly level and primarily poorly drained except the Munden soil that is moderately well drained. These loamy soils are found on broad flats and in depressions. The groundwater during the winter months rises to within 0 to 1 feet from the surface, however, during the groving season it drops, March 1988 ACCOMACK COUNTY NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Navenber, 1988 1 Polawana loamy sand is a nearly-level very deep and very poorly drained soil that is located in floodplains. Not suited for cultivated crops or nursery. This soil is mainly used for woodland and wildlife habitat. -Capability subclass is VIw. 2 Chincoteague silt loam is a nearly-level very deep and very poorly drained soil that is located primarily in salt marshes on the barrier islands. This soil is used for wildlife habitat. Capability subclass is VIIIw. 3 Magotha fine sandy loam is a nearly-level very deep and poorly drained soil that is the fringe between the Chesapeake Bay and the low salt marsh. This soil is mainly used for wildlife habitat. Capability subclass is VIIw. 4 Beaches are nearly level to moderately sloping units of sand sediment located between the barrier islands and the Atlantic Ocean. This soil is mainly used for recreation and wildlife habitat. 6 Udorthents and Udipsamments are nearly level to steep soils that are very .,deep and may range from well drained to somewhat poorly drained. They consist of fill material and excavated borrow pits. They are in urban areas, around ponds and highways or dredged areas -near marshes. 7 Assateague fine sand is a gently to steeply sloping, very deep and exces- sively drained soil that is primarily located on Assateague, Chincoteague, Wallops and Parramore Islands. This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat and recreation. 9B Bojac loamy sand is a gently sloping very deep and well drained soil that is located on side slopes and rims of Carolina Bays. This soil is mainly used for cultivated crops. The main limitations are droughtiness, slope and erodibility. Capability subclass is IIe. 10B Bojac sandy loam is a nearly level, deep and well drained soil that is located on broad flats. These soils are prime farmland and used mostly for cultivated crops. Capability class is I. 11A Bojac fine sandy loam is a nearly level very deep and well drained soil located on broad flats. This soil is prime farmland and is used mainly for cultivated crops. Capability class is I. 118 Bojac loamy sand - see 9B 14 Bojac loamy sand - see 98 16 Udorthents and Udipsamments see 6 24 Fisherman fine sand is a nearly level to gently sloping' soil that is very deep and moderately well drained. It is located in depressions and undulating areas associated with dunes and marshes on the barrier Wands. This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat and recreation. Capability subclass Is VIIw. 26 Molena loamy sand is moderately sloping to very steep soil that is very deep and somewhat excessively drained. This soil is used mainly for woodland and wildlife. Cultivated crops are unsuited to this soil due to severe erosion hazard and low available water. Capa- bility subclass is VIs. 28 Seabrook loamy sand is a nearly level very deep and -moderately well -drained soil that is located along the base of rims of Carolina bays @and in depressions. This soil is used for cultivated crops and wood- land. Crop production is limited by low available water. Capability subclass is IN. 30 Munden sandy loam is a nearly level very deep and moderately well -drained soil that is found an broad flats and in depressions. This soil is prime farmland and used mainly for cultivated crops. and some @areas are in woodland. tapability subclass is IN. 32 Aunden sandy loam - see-number 30 45 Fisherman- Camocca fine sands complex is a combination of two soils that are so intermingled that it is not practical to map them separately. Fisherman soil is moderately well drained and the soil is very poorly drained. These soils are located 'in depressions and on undulating areas associated with dunes and salt imarshes an the barrier islands. These soils are used mainly for wildlife and recreation. Capability subclass is VIIwand VIIIw. Dragston f i ne sandy 1 oam i s a nearly level very - deep and somewhat poorly drained soil that is located on flats and in depressions. When adequately drained this is prime farmland and is primarily used for cultivated crops and woodlands. The capability subclass is IIIw when undrained and IN when drained. 52 Nimmo sandy loam - see number 55 55 Nimmo sandy loam is a nearly- level very deep and pporly drained soil that is located on flats and in depressions of Carolina bays. The capability subclass is IVw when undrained and IIIw when drained. Undrained sections of this soil are poorly suited to cultivated crops. Drained sections are well suited to crops. The main use of this soil is cropland and woodland. 60 Arapahoe loam is a nearly level very deep and very poorly drained soil that is located on flats and in depressions of Carolina bays. This soil is used mostly for woodland and wildlife with a minimum of acreage devoted to cropland. When the soil is drained it is suitable for cropland. The capability subclass is VIw when undrained and IIIw when drained. 64 Camocca fine sand is a nearly level-very deep and very poorly drained soil, that is located in depressions and on flats associated with dunes and marshes on Assateague, Chincoteague, Wallops and Parra- -more Islands. This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitatand .recreation. Crops -are unsuited to this soil. The capability -,Subclass is VIIIw. 88 Fisherman - Assateague fine sands complex is a nearly level to-very steep soil that is very deep. The two soils are so intermingled that it was not@practical to map them separately. The Fisherman toil is moderately well drained and the Assateague soil is excessively ,drained. The soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat-and recreation. Crops are unsuited to this soil. The capability subclass is VIs and VIIs. 102 Chincoteague silt loam - see number 2 103 Magotha fine sandy loam - see number 3 110 Bojac fine sandy loam is a nearly level very deep and well drained soil located on broad flats in the southwestern and northeastern sections of Accomack County. This soil is prime farmland and used mainly for cultivated crops. The capability class is I. 114 Bojac sandy loam see number 10 126 Molena loamy sand see number 26 130 Munden sandy loam - see number 30 132 Munden sandy loam - see number 30 150 Dragston fine sandy loam - see number 50 160 Arapahoe loam - see numb3r 60 410 Mtolena loamy sanrl see number 26 S 0 ;,a. 3 0 rnw"@. ;L, 10 -Z.0, 10 (@* i C'-C@ - DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 JPRINTED IN U.S.A.