[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 Methodï¿½


                         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.