CDM Smith Study - Eastern Pender Water System Improvements

FINAL REPORT
Eastern Pender Service Area Water System Improvements

DECEMBER 2019
Page 2 of 139
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
ES.1 Project Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................ES-1
ES.2 Hydraulic Modeling.............................................................................................................................................ES-2
ES.3 Alternatives Evaluation.....................................................................................................................................ES-3
ES.4 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................ES-6
ES.4.1 Interconnection Recommendations..........................................................................................ES-9
ES.4.2 Fee to Brunswick County ............................................................................................................ES-10
Section 1 - Introduction
1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................1-3
Section 2 – Existing System Description

2.1 Water Service Area ................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Study Area.....................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Existing Distribution System.............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Water Treatment Plant............................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.2 Storage Tanks ..............................................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.3 Pump Stations..............................................................................................................................................2-4
2.2.4 Transmission Mains..................................................................................................................................2-4
2.2.5 Interconnections ........................................................................................................................................2-5
Section 3 – Hydraulic Modeling

3.1 Water Demand Projections ................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Existing System Demands & Maximum Day Demand Peaking Factors..............................3-1
3.1.2 Near-Term and Long-Term Water Demand Projections ..........................................................3-1
3.2 Model Development and Calibration .............................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Existing Hydraulic Model .......................................................................................................................3-3
3.2.2 Model Updates.............................................................................................................................................3-6
3.2.3 Demand Allocation ....................................................................................................................................3-6
3.2.4 Model Calibration ......................................................................................................................................3-8
3.2.5 Extended Period Simulations ...............................................................................................................3-8
3.3 Hydraulic Evaluation Approach and Criteria ..........................................................................................3-12
3.3.1 Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................................3-12
3.3.2 General Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................3-12
3.4 Existing Water System Hydraulic Evaluation Results .........................................................................3-14
3.4.1 General.........................................................................................................................................................3-14
3.4.2 Water Age ...................................................................................................................................................3-16
3.4.3 Fire Flow .....................................................................................................................................................3-16
3.5 Storage Volume Evaluation .............................................................................................................................3-16
3.5.1 NC DEQ Storage Volume Requirements ........................................................................................3-16
3.5.2 Storage Volume Requirements for Equalization, Fire Protection, and Emergency....3-18
i
Page 3 of 139
Table of Contents  Eastern Pender Service Area Water System Improvement – Final Report
Section 3 – Hydraulic Modeling (continued)

3.6 Improvements Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................3-18
3.6.1 Alternative 1 – Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only ...........................3-20
3.6.2 Alternative 1A – Alternative Routing through New Hanover County ..............................3-25
3.6.3 Alternative 1B – Alternative Routing from WTP to Highway 210 .....................................3-29
3.6.4 Alternative 2 – New RO Groundwater WTP in the Hampstead area ...............................3-31
3.6.5 Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Area Evaluation............................................................................3-35
3.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................3-37
Section 4 – Alternatives Evaluation

4.1 General ........................................................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Cost Estimating ...........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions and Exclusions...............................................................................4-2
4.1.2.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Methodology...............................................4-2
4.1.2.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology...........................................4-3
4.1.2.3 20-year Net Present Value Methodology ........................................................................4-4
4.1.3 WTP Upgrades.............................................................................................................................................4-4
4.2 Alternative Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1 Alternative 1: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only;
Transmission along Hwy. 210 Routing ............................................................................................4-5
4.2.1.1 Conceptual Cost Estimates....................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1.2 Trenchless Installation ...........................................................................................................4-9
4.2.1.3 Alternative 1: Pros and Cons...............................................................................................4-9
4.2.2 Alternative 1A: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only; Routing
Through New Hanover County..........................................................................................................4-10
4.2.2.1 Conceptual Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................4-10
4.2.2.2 Trenchless Installation.........................................................................................................4-10
4.2.2.3 Alternative 1A: Pros and Cons ..........................................................................................4-13
4.2.3 Alternative 1B: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only; Alternative
Transmission Routing from Hwy. 421 to Hwy. 210.................................................................4-13
4.2.3.3 Alternative 1B: Pros and Cons ..........................................................................................4-16
4.2.4 Alternative 2: New PCU-Owned Reverse Osmosis (RO) Groundwater WTP ................4-16
4.2.4.1 Groundwater Availability and Feasibility....................................................................4-17
4.2.4.2 RO WTP Conceptual Design ...............................................................................................4-34
4.2.4.5 Alternative 2: Pros and Cons .............................................................................................4-41
4.2.5 Alternative 2A: New Privately-Owned RO Groundwater WTP.............................................4-41
4.2.5.2 Pros and Cons...........................................................................................................................4-43
4.3 Interconnections .....................................................................................................................................................4-44
4.3.1 Town of Topsail Beach..........................................................................................................................4-44
4.3.2 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA)................................................................................4-44
ii
Page 4 of 139
Section 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of Evaluation Results .......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Water Demand Projections....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Water Supply and Treatment Needs .................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2.1 Existing Surface WTP ..............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2.2 New RO WTP ...............................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Infrastructure Needs ................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 General............................................................................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................5-2
5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 2: New PCU-Owned RO WTP and Associated Infrastructure
Needs...............................................................................................................................................................5-2
5.3.2 Interconnections......................................................................................................................................5-10
5.3.2.1 Town of Topsail Beach .........................................................................................................5-10
5.3.2.2 CFPUA..........................................................................................................................................5-10
5.3.3 Fee to Brunswick County.....................................................................................................................5-10
iii
Page 5 of 139
Table of Contents • Eastern Pender Service Area Water System Improvement – Final Report
List of Figures
Figure ES-1 Recommended Alternative (Alternative 2)
Figure ES-2 Conceptual RO WTP Wellfield
Figure 1-1 Water and Sewer Districts
Figure 2-1 Existing Water System
Figure 3-1 Modeled Existing Water System

Figure 3-2 Topography of Water Service Area
Figure 3-3 Diurnal Pattern Supplied in PCU’s EPA Net model files
Figure 3-4 Hydrant Flow Test Locations
Figure 3-5 Modeled Pump Flow and Pressure Verification for June 26 – 28, 2019
Figure 3-6 Modeled Storage Tank Levels Verification for June 26 – 28, 2019
Figure 3-7 Hydraulic Grade Line Gradient WTP to Hwy 210 BPS During Peak Hours (June
2019 Demand)
Figure 3-8 Existing System Water Age (2019 Average Day Demand)
Figure 3-9 Alternative 1 Recommended Improvements – Water Supply from Existing WTP
Figure 3-10 Alternative 1A Recommended Improvements – Water Supply from Existing
WTP
Figure 3-11 Alternative 1B Recommended Improvements – Water Supply from Existing
WTP
Figure 3-12 Alternative 2 Recommended Improvements - Water Supply from New RO WTP
Figure 3-13 Elevations in the Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Area
Figure 4-1 Alternative 1 Recommended Improvements - Water Supply from Existing WTP
Figure 4-2 NC 210 Water Booster Pumping Station Expansion
Figure 4-3 Alternative 1A Recommended Improvements - Water Supply from Existing
WTP
Figure 4-4 Alternative 1B Recommended Improvements - Water Supply from Existing
WTP
Figure 4-5 Hampstead and Holly Shelter Game Lands Area and County-Owned Properties
Figure 4-6 Existing Water Supply Wells
Figure 4-7 Hydrogeologic Cross Section Locations
Figure 4-8 Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-A’
Figure 4-9 Hydrogeologic Cross Section B-B’
Figure 4-10 Peedee Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map
Figure 4-11 Castle Hayne Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map
Figure 4-12 Water Supply Well Yields
Figure 4-13 Conceptual RO WTP Wellfield – Site 1
Figure 4-14 Conceptual RO WTP Wellfield – Site 2
Figure 4-15 Proposed Process Flow Diagram
Figure 4-16 Typical Reverse Osmosis Unit with Sample and Control Panels
Horizontal Skid Layout
Figure 4-17 Typical Reverse Osmosis Facility Layout
iv
Page 6 of 139
Table of Contents • Eastern Pender Service Area Water System Improvement – Final Report
List of Figures (continued)

Figure 4-18 Alternative 2 Recommended Improvements – Water Supply from New RO WTP
Figure 5-1 Recommended Alternative (Alternative 2)

Figure 5-2 Water Demand and Supply by Service Area
Figure 5-3 WTP Schedule
v
Page 7 of 139
List of Tables
Table ES.1 Projected Water Demands by District
Table ES.2 Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives
Table ES.3 Alternative 2 Conceptual Cost by Phase
Table ES.4 Project Schedule for Recommended Improvements
Table 2-1 Existing Storage Tanks
Table 3-1 Projected Water Demands by District

Table 3-2 Modeled Water Distribution System Pipe Sizes and Length
Table 3-3 Allocated Demands by Pressure Zone
Table 3-4 Hydrant Test Results
Table 3-5 Summary of Evaluation Criteria
Table 3-6 System Storage Requirements based on Equalization, Fire Protection, and
Emergency Storage
Table 3-7 Alternative 1 Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Table 3-8 Alternative 1 Phasing of Improvements
Table 3-9 Alternative 1A HSPS Improvements
Table 3-10 Alternative 1A Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Table 3-11 Alternative 1A Phasing of Improvements
Table 3-12 Alternative 1B Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Table 3-13 Alternative 1B Phasing of Improvements
Table 3-14 Alternative 2 Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Table 3-15 Alternative 2 Phasing of Improvements
Table 4-1 Alternatives

Table 4-2 Level of Cost Categories
Table 4-3 Alternative 1 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 4-4 Alternative 1: Expected Trenchless Crossings
Table 4-5 Pros and Cons of Alternative 1
Table 4-6 Alternative 1A: Expected Trenchless Crossings
Table 4-7 Alternative 1A Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 4-8 Pros and Cons of Alternative 1A
Table 4-9 Alternative 1B Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 4-10 Alternative 1B: Expected Trenchless Crossings
Table 4-11 Pros and Cons of Alternative 1B
Table 4-12 Hampstead Area Water Supply Well Summary
Table 4-13 Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – Field Parameters
Table 4-14 Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – General Chemistry
Table 4-15 Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – Metals
Table 4-16 Alternative 2: Expected Trenchless Crossings
Table 4-17 Alternative 2: Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 4-18 Pros and Cons of Alternative 2
Table 4-19 Alternative 2A Conceptual Cost Estimate
vi
Page 8 of 139
List of Tables (continued)

Table 4-20 Pros and Cons of Alternative 2A (Privately-Owned RO WTP) Versus Alternative
2 (PCU-Owned RO WTP)
Table 5-1 Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives

Table 5-2 Evaluation matrix of alternatives
Table 5-3 Project Schedule for Recommended Improvements
Table 5-4 Alternative 2 Conceptual Cost by Phase
Appendices
Appendix A Modeling
Appendix B DWR Topsail Station Chlorides
vii
Page 9 of 139
Executive Summary
Introduction
ES.1 Project Purpose
Pender County Utilities (PCU) administers water and wastewater for six Water and Sewer
Districts established in 1996 to serve the residents of Pender County. The Districts include:
Rocky Point/Topsail, Maple Hill, Scotts Hill, Central Pender, Moore’s Creek, and Columbia-Union.
Within the County, PCU operates two public water supply systems: the Maple Hill Water District
and the PCU water system.
As the PCU water system has grown, particularly in the eastern portion of the service area near
Highway 17 (Rocky Point/Topsail and Scotts Hill Districts), the water transmission system
between the WTP and eastern portions of the service area has become limited in capacity to
support further growth. However, the majority of the County’s growth is expected in the
easternmost portion of the Rocky Point/Topsail District and the Scotts Hill District due to its
location near the City of Wilmington, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, PCU
initiated a study to evaluate the capacity of the existing water system and recommend
improvements to serve this future growth.
The purpose of this project is to analyze the most efficient way to provide potable water to the
rapidly expanding eastern service area. The scope of work includes the following tasks:
 Review of existing data

 Hydraulic model development, verification, update, and calibration
 Review of water demand projections developed by others
 Establishment of evaluation criteria
 Hydraulic evaluation of the following scenarios and identification of associated
transmission, storage, and pumping requirements to meet near-term and long-term
demands based on two water supply scenarios:
 Surface water supply from Pender County surface WTP, including upgrade or
replacement of the NC Highway 210 Booster Pump Station and alternative pipeline
routes
 Addition of a new reverse osmosis groundwater WTP in the Hampstead area to
supplement flow from the existing surface WTP
 Evaluation of two funding and operating modes for the proposed new groundwater WTP
including pros/cons:
 PCU-owned WTP, including desktop evaluation of groundwater availability and quality
in the eastern part of the service area
 Privately-owned WTP with long term wholesale purchase for PCU
ES-1
Page 10 of 139
 Executive Summary
 Evaluate a potential interconnection with the Town of Topsail Beach supplying up to 1 MGD
in the peak season
 Review of results provided by others on the feasibility of a potential interconnection with
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) on US 17 at the County line for up to 200,000
gpd
 Development of planning-level opinion of probable capital cost and annual operation and
maintenance cost estimates for the water supply alternatives and associated distribution
system improvements
 Preparation of a technical report summarizing the results of each task
ES.2 Hydraulic Modeling

A hydraulic evaluation was conducted to determine the adequacy of PCU’s water system to meet
existing and projected demands using a computer model of the water distribution system. The
system was modeled for the following three conditions:
 Existing (2019) conditions

 Near-term (2025) demand projections
 Long-term (2040) demand projections
Projected average day demands (ADDs) and maximum day demands (MDDs) provided by PCU are
based on the 2017 Interbasin Transfer Petition (IBT) and are summarized in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1. Projected Water Demands by District

Near-Term (2025 Long-Term (2040 IBT
Existing (2019) IBT Projections) Projections)
Water and Sewer District ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
Central 0.20 0.33 0.21 0.35 0.71 1.17
Moore’s Creek 0.12 0.20 0.50 0.82 1.30 2.15
Rocky Point Topsail 0.89 1.47 1.70 2.81 3.20 5.28
Scotts Hill 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33
PCU DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.61 4.31 5.41 8.93
Topsail Beach Bulk Sales 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.60 0.33 1.00
TOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.81 4.91 5.74 9.93
Note: All water demands are in million gallons per day (mgd).
PCU provided geographic information system (GIS) data to CDM Smith that reflected new
pipelines installed since the water model was last updated. CDM Smith updated the modeled
pipes to include pipes 12-inch diameter and greater that were recently added as well as any
additional pipes that would provide looping within the eastern portion of the system. The
updated existing system water model consists of 196 miles of pipe with diameters ranging from 4
to 24 inches.
ES-2
Page 11 of 139
Executive Summary 
The model was calibrated based on hydrant flow tests which were conducted by PCU staff at
strategic locations in the system. Tank levels, pump flow and pump discharge pressure data was
recorded at the time of each flow. Once the model was calibrated to the hydrant flow data,
extended period simulations of the existing system were run for a 72-hour period to verify model
results with SCADA data from June 26, 2019 through June 28, 2019.
Under existing average and summer conditions, the system meets the minimum pressure,
maximum velocity and maximum headloss criteria. However, during summer demand, the
turnover is limited in the Malpass Tank due to the significant headloss in the single long
transmission main between the Malpass and Rocky Point tanks.
Under existing maximum day demands (MDD), the system has inadequate capacity to
convey water to the eastern portions of the service area. Storage tanks empty and
minimum pressures cannot be maintained in the distribution system. This is consistent
with the operational difficulties experienced during recent maximum day demand conditions.
Due to these limitations, critical upgrades are required to provide uninterrupted drinking water
to customers.
ES.3 Alternatives Evaluation

The hydraulic modeling showed the existing system incapable of meeting MDD for current and
future conditions. As a result, several improvement alternatives were identified and evaluated to
address the system, transmission and distribution deficiencies, as presented below.
 ALTERNATIVE 1: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only; Transmission
along Hwy. 210 routing.
 New parallel pipeline routes from the WTP to Highway 17 follow existing alignments.
 New Highway 210 Booster Pump Station (PS)
 Expand the existing WTP capacity from 2 mgd to 10 mgd.
 Install a new 700,000-gallon elevated storage tank (EST) in Rocky Point
 Install a new 300,000-gallon EST in Scotts Hill
 ALTERNATIVE 1A: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only; Alternative
Transmission Routing through New Hanover County.
 New pipeline alignment running south from existing WTP along Highway 17, following
I-140 corridor to Scotts Hill
 Other parallel pipeline improvements following existing alignments.
 Install a new 700,000-gallon EST in Rocky Point
 ALTERNATIVE 1B: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only; Alternative
Transmission Routing from Hwy. 421 to Hwy. 210.
ES-3
Page 12 of 139
 New pipeline alignment between Highway 421 to Highway 210; additional pipeline
improvements along Highway 210 to Highway 17 following existing alignments.
 New Highway 210 Booster PS
 ALTERNATIVE 2: New PCU-Owned Reverse Osmosis (RO) Groundwater WTP
 New RO WTP in the Hampstead area
o PCU-owned and operated
o 3 mgd initial capacity, expandable to 5 mgd by 2040
 Miscellaneous pipeline improvements
 ALTERNATIVE 2A: New Privately-Owned RO Groundwater WTP

 New RO WTP in the Hampstead area designed, built and operated by a private water
company
o PCU would purchase water from the private water company
o 3 mgd initial capacity, with 5 mgd provided by 2040.
 Miscellaneous pipeline improvements
Table ES-2 summarizes the 5 alternatives and provides conceptual costs.
ES-4
Page 13 of 139
Table ES-2. Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2 Alternative 2A1
Length Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost
Page 14 of 139
Improvement Type Description (feet) (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate
Segment A 43,200 36 $26,600,000
Segment A* 41,700 36 $32,300,000
Segment B 31,100 30 $13,700,000 16 $9,100,000 16 $9,100,000 16 $9,100,000
Segment C 27,700 36 $15,600,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000
Segment D 32,700 24 $16,800,000 24 $16,800,000
Transmission
Segment E 40,300 24 $13,700,000 24 $13,700,000
Segment F 17,100 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000
Segment G 13,800 8 $2,000,000 24 $5,800,000 8 $2,000,000 8 $2,000,000 8 $2,000,000
Segment H 91,600 30 $45,500,000
Concentrate Discharge 52,800 $3,900,000
New Rocky Point EST (0.7
MG) $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000
Storage
New Scotts Hill EST (0.3
MG) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
New Hwy. 210 Booster PS
Phase 1 $3,60,000 $3,600,000
Phase 2 $300,000 $300,000
Pumping
HSPS
Increase to 6 mgd $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Increase to 12.4 mgd $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Existing WTP
2 to 6 mgd $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
6 to 10 mgd $27,000,000 $27,000,000 $27,000,000
WTP
New RO WTP
Initial 3 mgd $44,200,000 $3,900,000
3 to 6 mgd $10,000,000 $0
Inflation (2.4% per year through 2023) $6,800,000 $6,300,000 $8,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,600,000
Fee to Brunswick Co. for Raw water pipeline upgrades $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Engineering/Admin/Construction Mgmt. (Approx. 15%) $25,300,000 $20,400,000 $21,400,000 $15,300,000 $6,500,000
Total Planning Level Capital Cost Estimate $198,900,000 $162,000,000 $168,800,000 $122,600,000 $54,900,000
Annual O&M Cost Estimate (Year 2025) $1,550,000 $1,480,000 $1,550,000 $1,615,000 $4,434,000
20-Year Net Present Worth (O&M + Capital), 2019 dollars $151,000,000 $129,000,000 $143,000,000 $109,000,000 $100,000,000
1) It is assumed the county would be responsible for the concentrate pipeline installation with the privately funded RO WTP
ES-5
ES.4 Recommendations
Based on an evaluation of capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and non-cost
factors, the recommended alternative for improvements to meet the long-term demands of the
eastern service area is Alternative 2 which includes a new RO WTP in the Hampstead Area,
owned and operated by PCU.
See Figure ES-1 for recommended PCU improvements. See Figure ES-2 for a conceptual RO WTP
wellfield site.
A summary of the associated conceptual cost estimate for the improvements necessary to meet
near-term (2025) and long-term (2040) needs of the system is presented in Table ES-3.
Table ES-3. Alternative 2 Conceptual Cost by Phase*

Improvement Type Near-Term (2025) Long-Term (2040) TOTAL (2025-2040)
Transmission $10,500,000 $13,200,000 $23,700,000
Storage $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $4,200,000
Pumping $500,000 $500,000
Ex. WTP $1,300,000 $1,300,000
New RO WTP $44,200,000 $10,000,000 $54,200,000
Adjust for Inflation $5,600,000 $12,800,000 $18,400,000
Payment to Brunswick Co. $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Eng./Admin./CM Fees (Approx. 15%) $9,300,000 $6,000,000 $15,300,000
Total $71,100,000 $51,500,000 $122,600,000
*For a more detailed breakdown, refer to Table 4-17 in chapter 4.
As shown in Table ES-2, Alternative 2 capital costs and present worth are lower than alternatives
1, 1a, 1b but higher than alternative 2A. However, alternative 2 has better O&M costs and the
County would be able to recover costs in an estimated 16 to 20-year time period after the new RO
WTP is put into operation (Estimated recovery year of 2041-2045).
The additional water source would improve reliability and redundancy of PCU’s water system
and allow the ability to feed the system with one water source out of service.
Although upfront costs are substantial, this alternative provides PCU full control of water quality,
production and distribution and eliminates additional stakeholder coordination when making
decisions. This option also allows better rate structure control.
Table ES-4 shows a breakdown of projects with recommended start and completion dates for
planning purposes.
ES-6
Page 15 of 139
Legend
Q Pender Co WTP Upgrade to 5 MGD

3
3
Q New RO WTP
T
U New Elevated Tanks
New Parallel Pipe Segment
B (16-inch)
Page 16 of 139
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
T
U
B( Rocky Point Tank
16 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (20 T
U
T
U Ú
"
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
New RO WTP (5 MGD) Ú "
Hampstead Tank
3
Q
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3
Q Additional 0.3 MG (Scotts Hill Tank)
Figure ES-1: Recommended Alternative

(Alternative 2)
´
Miles
0 2.5 5 Pender County Utilities
Legend
Road
215 acre eastern !
!
Holly
!
! Well portion of existing, Shelter Game
privately owned !
RO Plant
!
Lands
#
Water Line property
Hampstead Bypass
!
!
Proposed Right of Way !
!
Page
Game Lands
Si 17 of 139
!
!
rW
alt
er
Ct
!
! !
!
Wells !
!
!
!
(15 total)
#
!
Highlan
!
!
d s Dr
!
!
!
!
Ca
iso
n
Dr
!
!
RO Plant !
!
#
le
st r
Ca y D
M
Ba
oo C
W
re t
ind Hampstead Bypass

he
so
a
r
Proposed
d
Ct
Right of Way
Tr
an
sf
er
17
£
¤
St
17
at
-
io
US
n
Rd
Blu
Annand
Ests ebird
Vi MH
sta P
Ln
a
iah
le Ter
ar
M Cv
FigureES-2:
Figure 4-13: Conceptual RO WTP Wellfield
´
Feet Site 1
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Pender County Utilities
1 in = 1,000 ft
Table ES-4. Project Schedule for Recommended Improvements

Recommended Start Recommended
Project Year Completion Year
Obtain Permit modification for Surface WTP to operate
2020 2020
at 4-MGD
Groundwater Supply Wells 2019 2020
New RO WTP (3.0 mgd) 2020 2024
Segment C 2020/2021 2024
New Scotts Hill Elevated Storage Tank 2024 2027
Segment G 2024 2027
Expand Existing Surface WTP (6.0 mgd) 2030 2031
Existing HSPS Improvements 2030 2031
Segment B 2031 2033
New Rocky Point Elevated Storage Tank 2032 2033
Segment F 2033 2035
Expand RO WTP (5.0 mgd) 2033 2035
ES.4.1 Interconnection Recommendations

The following additional recommendations are provided for system interconnections.
Town of Topsail Beach

The Town of Topsail Beach has requested an interconnection with PCU where PCU will provide
up to 1 mgd of water for purchase by 2030. The Town will install a new pipeline under the
Intracoastal Waterway and connect to PCU’s existing distribution system with an assumed two-
way meter vault. It is anticipated that most water will be provided from PCU to the Town;
however, in case of pipeline rupture or other PCU system failure, water could be provided from
the Town. Once improvements are made, this interconnection will allow PCU to increase revenue
while also receiving an emergency backup, therefore CDM Smith recommends moving forward
with this project.
CFPUA
Prior to this study, a technical memorandum titled “SHWSD – CFPUA Interconnect Feasibility
Analysis” was prepared by Highfill in August, 2018 analyzing a potential interconnection with
CFPUA to supply water during high usage demand periods. The report recommended moving
forward with the interconnection and installing a pump station to account for hydraulic grade
line differences between CFPUA and PCU.
The new improvements recommended make the need for an interconnection with CFPUA less
urgent; however, having a backup water source between agencies can be mutually beneficial.
CDM Smith has reviewed the Highfill report analyzing this interconnection and believe PCU
should move forward with the interconnection.
ES-9
Page 18 of 139
ES.4.2 Fee to Brunswick County

PCU currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Brunswick County and
LCFWASA regarding capacity and cost allocation for the new raw water pipeline being
constructed by LCFWASA. The pipeline is being installed to support regional growth; increasing
the overall capacity in the region to 41 mgd.
Under the terms of the MOU, PCU has the option to purchase from Brunswick County an
additional 5 mgd of raw water capacity from the new LCFWASA pipeline. PCU must decide by
July 1, 2028 whether to make this purchase or the 5 mgd capacity is forfeited and will be claimed
by Brunswick County.
PCU’s portion of construction is 12.195% as shown in the MOU and with current construction and
engineering costs of slightly over $40,000,000, PCU’s portion would be approximately
$5,000,000. CDM Smith recommends PCU plan to purchase this additional 5 mgd capacity by July
1, 2028.
ES-10
Page 19 of 139
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Pender County encompasses approximately 933 square miles and is part of the City of
Wilmington’s metropolitan area. Located in the Coastal Plains section of North Carolina, the land
is essentially flat and consists mostly of agricultural lands, forest, and low-density residential area
and several small towns including the County seat of Burgaw.
Pender County Utilities (PCU) administers water and wastewater for six Water and Sewer
Districts established in 1996 to serve the residents of Pender County. The Districts, identified on
Figure 1-1, include: Rocky Point/Topsail, Maple Hill, Scotts Hill, Central Pender, Moore’s Creek
and Columbia-Union. Within the County, PCU operates two public water supply systems: the
Maple Hill Water District and the PCU water system.
The Maple Hill Water District serves approximately 20 commercial customers and 340 residential
customers and is located in the far northeast corner of the County. The Maple Hill Water District
purchases groundwater from the Chinquapin Water Association in neighboring Duplin County.
Due to its remote location and sparse population between Maple Hill and the PCU water system
with limited potential for growth between the two, it is anticipated that the Maple Hill Water
District will remain a separate system and supplied via the current water source into the future.
As of the date of this report, PCU was in discussions with Onslow Water and Sewer Authority
(ONWASA) for 2 interconnections to feed Maple Hill because it is anticipated the State may be
removing Maple Hill from the Chinquapin system.
The PCU water system originated in 1996 to supply the newly formed Rocky Point/Topsail Water
and Sewer District. Water was originally supplied from the Town of Wallace. In 2012, the Pender
County Surface Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was completed and the source water was changed
to surface water from the Cape Fear River provided by the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer
Authority (LCFWASA).
The PCU water system has since been expanded to provide water to approximately 400
commercial customers and 8,260 residential customers in the Moore’s Creek, Central Pender,
Rocky Point/Topsail, and Scotts Hill Water Districts. The PCU water system service area excludes
the Town of Burgaw, Surf City, Topsail Beach, Belvedere Plantation, and several other small
communities which have separate water systems. Many residents of unincorporated areas within
the County are still served by private wells, but PCU is planning to expand water services to
currently unserved portions of the County.
1-1
Page 20 of 139
V
U411
U
V
1828
V
U
1213
V
U
1116
V
U
41 Wallace 1152
U
V
V
U1309
V
U 1526
Maple Hill V
U
1106 V U
U
1105
V 1107
U
V
1007
V
U 11 V
U
1313 V
U
1520
V
U53
Page 21 of 139
V
U1100 Columbia-Union V
U
50
V
U
1318
117 Central
£
¤
U
V 1200 Burgaw
17
£
V
U 1550
421
£
¤ ¤UV 172
V
U
210
§
¦
¨
40
B l ack
V
U 53 Ri V
U
1121 Surf City
ve
V
U V
U
210
r
Moores Creek 210
r
ive
Legend Rocky
F e ar R
River Point/Topsail Topsail Beach
V
U 11
Municipal Boundary p
t Ca
e
V
U
1741
District Boundary theas V
U
1574 V
U 50
N or
Central ar River V
U
1002
V
U 87
C ape Fe V
U
1338
Columbia-Union
Maple Hill
V
U
1559
V
U
1572 Atlantic Ocean
Moores Creek
V
U
1878 Scotts Hill
Rocky Point/Topsail
Scotts Hill
£
¤74 V
U
1820
V
U
1426 §
¦
¨140
117
£
¤ £
¤ 17
County Boundary
V
U
1419
V
U
133 VU
U
1400
V 1491
Pender County
Figure 1-1: Water and Sewer Districts
´
Miles Pender County Utilities
0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 5 miles
Section 1  Introduction
As the PCU water system has grown, particularly in the eastern portion of the service area near
Highway 17 (Rocky Point/Topsail and Scotts Hill Districts), the water transmission system
between the WTP and eastern portions of the service area has become limited in capacity to
support further growth. However, the majority of the County’s growth is expected in the
easternmost portion of the Rocky Point/Topsail District and the Scotts Hill District due to its
location near the City of Wilmington, Intracoastal Waterway, and Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, PCU
initiated a study to evaluate the capacity of the existing PCU water system and recommend
improvements to serve future growth in the eastern portion of the service area.
1.2 Project Purpose

The purpose of this project is to analyze the most efficient way to provide potable water to the
rapidly expanding eastern service area. The scope of work includes the following tasks:
 Review of existing data

 Hydraulic model development, verification, update, and calibration
 Review of water demand projections developed by others
 Establishment of evaluation criteria
 Hydraulic evaluation of the following scenarios and identification of associated
transmission, storage, and pumping requirements to meet near-term and long-term
demands based on two water supply scenarios:
 Surface water supply from Pender County surface WTP, including upgrade or
replacement of the NC Highway 210 Booster Pump Station and alternative pipeline
routes
 Addition of a new reverse osmosis groundwater WTP in the Hampstead area to
supplement flow from the existing surface WTP
 Evaluation of two funding and operating modes for the proposed new groundwater reverse
osmosis WTP (RO WTP) including pros/cons:
 Privately-owned ROWTP with long term wholesale purchase for PCU
 PCU-owned ROWTP, including desktop evaluation of groundwater availability and
quality in the eastern part of the service area
 Evaluation of a potential interconnection with the Town of Topsail Beach supplying up to 1
million gallons per day (mgd) in the peak season
 Review of results provided by others on the feasibility of a potential interconnection with
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) on US 17 at the County line for up to 200,000
gpd
 Development of planning-level opinion of probable capital cost and annual operation and
maintenance cost estimates for the water supply alternatives and associated distribution
system improvements
 Preparation of a technical report summarizing the results of each task
1-3
Page 22 of 139
Section 2
Existing System Description
2.1 Water Service Area
The Pender County Utilities (PCU) water system currently provides water from the Pender
County Surface Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to residents within the following four Water and
Sewer Districts as shown on Figure 2-1:
 Rocky Point/ Topsail - The Rocky Point/Topsail District is located in the southeast
quadrant of the County and is bounded by the New Hanover County border and Scotts Hill
District to the south, the Onslow County border and Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Central
Pender District to the north, and the Moore’s Creek District to the west. Rocky
Point/Topsail has the largest water demand within the service area and serves
approximately 362 commercial customers and 6,843 residential customers.
 Scotts Hill - The Scotts Hill District is located in the very southeast corner of the County and
is bounded to the south and west by the New Hanover County border and to the north and
east by the Rocky Point/Topsail District and Atlantic Ocean. Scotts Hill has approximately
11 commercial customers and 538 residential customers.
 Central Pender - The Central Pender District is located in the northeast quadrant of the
County and is bounded to the north by the Duplin County border, to the northeast by the
Maple Hill District, to the south by the Rocky Point/Topsail District, to the east by the
Onslow County border, and to the west by the Columbia-Union and Moore’s Creek Districts.
Central Pender has approximately 6 commercial customers and 363 residential customers.
 Moore’s Creek - The Moore’s Creek District is located in the southwest quadrant of the
County and is bounded to the north by the Columbia-Union District, to the south by
Brunswick and New Hanover counties, to the west by Columbus, Bladen, and Sampson
counties, and to the east by the Central Pender and Rocky Point/Topsail Districts. Moore’s
Creek has approximately 19 commercial customers and 514 residential customers.
The PCU water system service area excludes the Town of Burgaw, Surf City, Topsail Beach,
Belvedere Plantation, and several other small communities which have separate water systems.
2.1.1 Study Area

The study area of this project focuses on the Rocky Point/Topsail and Scotts Hill Districts,
hereinafter referred to as the eastern service area, and the water transmission system between
the WTP and eastern service area.
2.2 Existing Distribution System

The location of PCU’s existing WTP, major transmission mains, pump stations, and storage
facilities are shown on Figure 2-1 and discussed below.
2-1
Page 23 of 139
DUPLIN COUNTY
Wallace
" Booster PS
Ú
SAMPSON
COUNTY
Page 24 of 139
Columbia-Union
Central ONSLOW COUNTY
St Helena
Malpass Tank Booster PS Ú
"
T
U
Topsail Tank
Rocky
BLADEN COUNTY Point Tank T
U
Rocky
T
U Ú
"
T
U Point/Topsail
Legend
Hampstead
" Sloop
Ú Point
Booster PS
3 WTP Water Pipe Diameter
Q Tank
T
U
6-inch and smaller
Ú
" Pump Station
8
Moores Creek
Tank 10
T
U
District Boundary
12 Scotts
16 WTP NEW Hill
COLUMBUS
Central
3
Q
COUNTY
20 HANOVER Atlantic Ocean
Columbia-Union
24 BRUNSWICK COUNTY
Moores Creek
Unknown COUNTY
Rocky Point/Topsail
County Boundary
Scotts Hill
Pender County
Figure 2-1: Existing Water System
´
0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 5 miles
Section 2  Existing System Description
2.2.1 Water Treatment Plant

The Pender County surface WTP is the sole source of potable water for the PCU water system. The
WTP is located in the southwest quadrant of the County just west of US Highway 421 and north of
the New Hanover County border. The plant has a finished water capacity of 2 million gallons per
day (mgd) and utilizes a conventional treatment process consisting of coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, and filtration. However, the plant is both configured and designed for rapid
expansion up to 6 mgd when necessitated by increasing water demands in the County.
Raw water is supplied to the WTP via an interconnection with the Lower Cape Fear Water and
Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) raw water pipeline. The LCFWASA draws water from the Cape Fear
River through an intake located above Lock and Dam Number 1 where the King’s Bluff Pump
Station delivers water through the 48-inch diameter raw water pipeline supplying Brunswick
County, Cape Fear Public Utilities Authority (CFPUA), several industries, and PCU’s WTP. The
current contract requires LCFWASA to provide up to 6 mgd to PCU.
2.2.2 Storage Tanks

PCU has seven storage tanks including the two clearwells at the WTP, four elevated storage tanks,
and three ground-level tanks for a total storage volume of 4.0 million gallons (MG). The two
clearwell storage tanks are pumped in parallel. One clearwell is required to meet chlorine contact
time at the WTP. The second clearwell is available for distribution storage. Table 2-1
summarizes the key attributes of the storage facilities.
Table 2-1. Existing Storage Tanks

Max. Volume Operating
Storage Tank Type Material Location WSEL (MG) Range (ft)
Ground Prestressed N/A
Clearwell 1 WTP 62.1 1.0
Level Concrete
Ground Prestressed N/A
Clearwell 2 WTP 62.1 1.0
Level Concrete
Ground Prestressed Hwy 210 Pump 21.3
Hwy 210 PS 43.3 0.2
Level Concrete Station
Malpass Hwy 421 near 30
Elevated Steel 184.5 0.5
Corner Malpass Elementary
Hwy 210 near Casha 30
Rocky Point1 Elevated Steel 184.5 0.3
Rd.
Hwy 17 near Topsail 37
Hampstead Elevated Steel 194.5 0.5
Middle School
Hwy 17 at Longson 30
Topsail Elevated Steel 215 0.5
Dr.
TOTAL VOLUME 4.0
TOTAL VOLUME AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION STORAGE2 3.0
1) Rocky Point Tank Levels assumed a 30-foot operating range per the existing hydraulic model provided by PCU since record drawings
were not available.
2) Clearwell volume of 1.0 MG is needed to meet chlorine contact time; second 1.0 MG clearwell is assumed to be available for distribution
storage
2-3
Page 25 of 139
2.2.3 Pump Stations

PCU owns and operates five pump stations throughout the County.
High Service Pump Station

The High Service Pump Station (HSPS) is located at the WTP and consists of two vertical turbine
pumps with a design point of 2,020 gallons per minute (gpm) at 200 feet total dynamic head
(TDH). The pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs) and are typically run at a
speed of 70 to 80 percent. These pumps deliver water from the clearwells to a common 24-inch
diameter transmission main which flows north along Highway 421. This station is controlled by
the water level elevations in the Rocky Point Tank and is responsible for supplying the entire
service area.
Wallace Booster Pump Station (PS)

Prior to construction of the PCU surface WTP, the system received water from the Town of
Wallace via the Wallace booster PS. The Wallace booster PS is currently only used under an
emergency situation and is capable of providing up to 1.1 mgd from Wallace to PCU.
St. Helena Booster PS

The St. Helena booster PS was used to further boost water from Wallace to areas in the
central/southern portion of the system when the system was supplied from the Town of Wallace.
The pump station consists of two 50-horsepower (hp) pumps, providing 550 gpm at 100 feet
TDH. PCU staff indicated that this pump station is rarely used since the Pender County WTP was
brought online. The station currently serves as an emergency backup.
Sloop Point PS
The Sloop Point PS consists of a pre-packaged water booster pump station manufactured by EFI-
Solutions. The station contains two 50-hp, 1800-revolutions-per-minute (rpm) Aurora pumps,
providing 400 gpm at 84 feet TDH.
NC Highway 210 PS
The existing NC Highway 210 (Highway 210) PS is a packaged water booster pump station
manufactured by EFI-Solutions coupled with an auxiliary 200,000-gallon water tank. Water
enters the station via a 10-inch diameter polyvinylchloride (PVC) waterline where it passes
through a 10-inch diameter Cla-Val back pressure and solenoid shut-off control valve. The
control valve maintains backpressure in the 12-inch diameter main in Highway 210 while filling
the tank. Once the tank reaches a preset level, the solenoid shutoff is activated, closing the valve.
The filled tank then provides a constant head (~12-20 feet) to the station’s two 50-hp horizontal,
end-suction pumps. Each pump can provide 450 gpm at 200 feet TDH. With each pump running,
the station produces approximately 900 gpm at 90 psi to the downstream distribution system.
2.2.4 Transmission Mains

PCU’s water system consists of 397 miles of pipe with diameters ranging from 2 to 24 inches.
The eastern service area is fed entirely through a 12-inch diameter main which follows Highway
210 to Highway 17 where it tees into a 12-inch diameter main running south on Highway 17 and
2-4
Page 26 of 139
16-inch diameter main running north on Highway 17. Any disruption to the 12-inch diameter
main in Highway 210 would cut off the eastern service area.
2.2.5 Interconnections
PCU has 2 interconnections system-wide supplying emergency water to the system:
 Surf City Interconnection - This interconnection is located at the intersection of Deer Run
Road and Highway 210 and consists of a 6-inch meter supplying approximately 100,000
gpd. PCU has a neighborhood off of Cedar Avenue near the Topsail tank supplied by Surf
City that is isolated from the rest of the system.
 Wallace Interconnection - This interconnection is located along Highway 117 at the
Pender/Duplin County line and serves as an emergency supply from Wallace to PCU’s
water system. PCU can receive up to 1.1 mgd from Wallace during an emergency situation.
2-5
Page 27 of 139
Section 3
Hydraulic Modeling
A hydraulic evaluation was conducted to determine the adequacy of PCU’s water system to meet
existing and projected demands using a computer model of the water distribution system. The
evaluation focused on the transmission to the eastern portion of PCU’s service area (Rocky
Point/Topsail and Scotts Hill Districts) where growth is anticipated to occur.
This section describes the hydraulic evaluation including existing and projected water demands,
model development and calibration, general approach and evaluation criteria for the hydraulic
modeling, and storage, pumping and transmission improvements to address system deficiencies.
3.1 Water Demand Projections

To develop water demand projections, information was evaluated from the following sources:
 Finished water output from the Pender County WTP from May 2018 to July 2019 (includes
billed and non-revenue water)
 Total monthly water billed by district from July 2010 through August 2019
 Water demand projections from the 2017 Pender County Interbasin Transfer Petition
(includes projected customer demands and non-revenue and operational water demands)
3.1.1 Existing System Demands & Maximum Day Demand Peaking Factors
The existing average day demand (ADD) was determined based on review of WTP production
data from June 2018 through July 2019. To determine the projected maximum day demand
(MDD), a peaking factor of 1.65 is applied to the average day demand based on the MDD:ADD for
July 2018 through June 2019. This peaking factor is higher than factors used in previous studies
but reflects the seasonal nature of PCU’s demands in the coastal areas. The existing ADD and
MDD are 1.31 mgd and 2.16 mgd, respectively.
As discussed in Section 2.1, the PCU water system provides water to the following districts:
Central, Moore’s Creek, Rocky Point/Topsail, and Scotts Hill. Existing demands were allocated to
each of these districts based on the spatial allocation of demands in the existing hydraulic model
and review of billed water consumption by district. The majority of the existing water users are
in the Rocky Point/Topsail district which represents the eastern portion of the system (see Table
3-1).
3.1.2 Near-Term and Long-Term Water Demand Projections

For Pender County’s 2017 Interbasin Transfer Petition (IBT), future water demands were
developed for each water and sewer district and within each river basin. The demand projections
for this study are based on the IBT projections. Based on discussions with PCU staff, two planning
periods were identified for analysis under this study:
 Near-Term – based on the IBT demand projections for 2025
3-1
Page 28 of 139
Section 3  Hydraulic Modeling
 Long-Term – based on the IBT demand projections for 2040
The total projected ADD and MDD for PCU’s water districts are summarized in Table 3-1. As
shown in Table 3-1, the majority of growth is anticipated to occur in the Rocky Point/Topsail
District. Based on Pender County’s GIS future land use classifications and discussions with PCU
staff, growth within the Rocky Point/Topsail District is projected to occur mainly along NC
Highway 17 and NC Highway 210. By near-term, the water demand within PCU’s water and
sewer districts is anticipated to double. By long-term, the water demand within PCU’s water and
sewer districts is projected to be approximately 4 times the existing demand.
The Town of Topsail Beach maintains its own water system and currently relies on groundwater
wells for water supply. It is anticipated that as demands in this area increase, the current water
source will not be able to meet the increase in the Town’s demands. In the future, it is assumed
that the Town of Topsail Beach will purchase water from PCU at a connection point along the
existing 16-inch diameter PCU main along Highway 17 near Transfer Station Road. Based on
discussion with PCU staff, it is anticipated that PCU should plan to supply an average of 0.2 mgd to
Topsail Beach by the near-term planning period, increasing to an average of 0.33 mgd by long-
term. Due to Topsail’s high seasonal demands, for this study, it was assumed that the MDD being
purchased by Topsail Beach would be 0.6 mgd in the near-term, increasing to 1.0 mgd by the
long-term as shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Projected Water Demands by District

Near-Term (2025 Long-Term (2040 IBT
Existing (2019) IBT Projections) Projections)
Water and Sewer District ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
Central 0.20 0.33 0.21 0.35 0.71 1.17
Moore’s Creek 0.12 0.20 0.50 0.82 1.30 2.15
Rocky Point/Topsail 0.89 1.47 1.70 2.81 3.20 5.28
Scotts Hill 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33
PCU DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.61 4.31 5.41 8.93
Topsail Beach Bulk Sales 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.60 0.33 1.00
TOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.81 4.91 5.74 9.93
3.2 Model Development and Calibration

PCU provided CDM Smith with EPA Net model files for the existing hydraulic model used for the
Scotts Hill District and CFPUA Feasibility Analysis developed by Highfill Infrastructure
Engineering. CDM Smith converted the hydraulic model to Innovyze InfoWater model software,
updated the model with recently constructed infrastructure, calibrated the model to hydrant flow
tests and verified the calibrated model with field data.
3-2
Page 29 of 139
3.2.1 Existing Hydraulic Model

PCU’s existing system water model includes PCU’s existing WTP, major transmission mains,
pumps stations, storage facilities and pressure zones as shown in Figure 3-1. As shown in Figure
3-2 the elevation varies between approximately 10 to 30 feet near the WTP to 50 to 65 feet in the
eastern portion of the system near the Topsail tank. There are three main pressure zones in PCU’s
existing system as shown on Figure 3-1:
 Main pressure zone - The Main pressure zone extends from the Pender County WTP to the
Highway 210 ground storage tank and booster pump station (PS). The Main pressure zone
operates at a hydraulic grade line elevation (HGLE) of 184.5 feet and includes the Rocky
Point and Malpass elevated storage tanks. The following water districts are included in the
Main pressure zone: Central, Moore’s Creek, and a portion of the Rocky Point/ Topsail
District.
 Hampstead booster area - The Hampstead booster area extends from the Highway 210
ground storage tank and booster PS to the Sloop Point booster PS. The Hampstead booster
area is supplied from the Highway 210 booster PS and operates at an HGLE of 194.5 feet as
dictated by the high water level in the Hampstead elevated storage tank. The following
water districts are included in the Hampstead booster area: Scotts Hill and a portion of
Rocky Point/ Topsail District.
 Sloop Point/Topsail booster area – The Sloop Point/Topsail booster area extends from the
Sloop Point booster PS to the northern end of PCU’s water system on Highway 17. The
Sloop Point/Topsail booster area is supplied from the Sloop Point booster PS and operates
at a HGLE of 215 feet as dictated by the high water level in the Topsail elevated storage
tank. The Sloop Point/Topsail booster area includes a portion of the Rocky Point/ Topsail
District.
It should be noted that while PCU’s system currently has two interconnections with the
neighboring water systems, Wallace and Surf City, the interconnection with Wallace is used for
emergency situations only. Surf City currently supplies an isolated neighborhood at the far
northern end of the system near the Topsail tank. However, PCU intends to continue to serve
these customers from its own supplies in the future; hence, water transfer through these
connections was not simulated in the hydraulic model.
PCU is planning for an interconnection with CFPUA in 2020. However, this interconnection would
also be for emergency situations only and therefore was not included in the hydraulic model
evaluation for this study. Since the CFPUA system operates at an HGLE of 181.5 feet, which is 13
feet lower than the Hampstead booster area, water would need to be pumped from CFPUA to
PCU’s system to maintain desirable pressures. Additional details of the suggested infrastructure
to create an interconnection are given in the August 2018 SHWSD-CFPUA Interconnect Feasibility
Analysis Technical Memorandum by Highfill Infrastructure Engineering.
PCU also is planning to install up to three wells in the Hampstead area by May, 2020 providing a
total capacity up to 1 mgd. This is a stopgap measure needed to provide water to customers
3-3
Page 30 of 139
Page 31 of 139
Malpass Tank Main

Pressure
T
U Zone
Sloop Point
/ Topsail
Booster Area
Rocky Topsail Tank
Point Tank T
U
T
U Ú
"
T
U
NC 210 Ground
Storage Tank
Hampstead " Sloop
Ú Point
Booster PS
Legend Booster
and Booster PS
Area T
U
3 WTP Water Pipe Diameter Hampstead
Q
6-inch and smaller Tank
Ú
" Pump Station
8
Tank 10
T
U WTP
12 Atlantic Ocean
Hampstead Booster Area 3
Q
16
Main Pressure Zone
20
Sloop Point / Topsail Booster Area
24
County Boundary
Unknown
Pender County
Figure 3-1: Modeled Existing Water System
´
0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 5 miles
Page 32 of 139
Malpass Tank Main

Pressure
T
U Zone
Sloop Point
/ Topsail
Booster Area
Rocky Topsail Tank
Point Tank T
U
T
U Ú
"
T
U
NC 210 Ground
Storage Tank
Hampstead " Sloop
Ú Point
Booster PS
Booster
Legend and Booster PS
Area T
U
Hampstead
3 WTP Water Pipe
Q Tank
Water Pipe
Ú
" Pump Station
Topographic Contour Line
Tank 0-19 feet WTP
T
U Atlantic Ocean
Pressure Zone Boundary
20-39 feet 3
Q
40-59 feet
County Boundary
60-79 feet
Pender County
80-99 feet
100-112 feet
Figure 3-2: Topography of Water Service Area
´
0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 5 miles
during peak day demands during summer months for several years while improvements are
being designed and built. Due to the unknowns of these well locations, capacities, etc., they have
not been included in the hydraulic model.
3.2.2 Model Updates

PCU provided geographic information system (GIS) data to CDM Smith that reflected new
pipelines installed since the water model was last updated. CDM Smith updated the modeled
pipes to include pipes 12-inch diameter and greater that were recently added as well as any
additional pipes that would provide looping within the eastern portion of the system. The
updated existing system water model consists of 196 miles of pipe with diameters ranging from 4
to 24 inches as summarized in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Modeled Water Distribution System Pipe Sizes and Length
Diameter Length (ft)
6-inch and smaller 200,310
8 inches 290,870
10 inches 78,450
12 inches 314,260
16 inches 56,670
20 inches 53,420
24 inches 42,650
Total 1,036,630
The high service pump station (HSPS) pumps at the WTP were modeled based on pump curves
provided in the model. HSPS pump operations were controlled by the level in the Rocky Point
elevated tank as described in Section 3.2.5. Pump curves were also provided in the model for the
Highway 210 booster PS, and a single point pump curve was provided for the pump at Sloop Point
booster PS. The Highway 210 booster PS and Sloop Point booster PS operations were controlled
by the levels in the Hampstead and Topsail elevated tanks, respectively, as described in Section
3.2.5.
Storage tank data in the model (maximum water surface elevation, head range, and volume) was
adjusted based on as-built drawings for the Malpass elevated storage tank, Hampstead elevated
storage tank, Highway 210 ground storage tank, and Topsail elevated storage tank. A summary
of the modeled storage tanks is provided in Section 2.
The back pressure and solenoid shutoff valve that controls the filling of the Highway 210 ground
storage tank was modeled to maintain a pressure upstream of the tank of approximately 50
pounds per square inch (psi) based on the current operation controls.
3.2.3 Demand Allocation

The PCU EPA Net model files provided to CDM Smith for use in this study included demands
allocated to specific junctions. Since the demands were from previous modeling efforts, CDM
3-6
Page 33 of 139
Smith applied a global factor to adjust the model demands to match the existing demand based on
the finished water production records.
The existing demands were adjusted in the model to near-term and long-term projected demands
by scaling demand nodes in each district from the existing district demand as provided in the
model from PCU to the projected district demand per the IBT using a global factor for each
district. A summary of the resulting demands in each of the three pressure zones for the existing,
near-term, and long-term planning periods is presented in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Allocated Demands by Pressure Zone

Existing (2019) Near-Term (2025 IBT Long-Term (2040 IBT
Projections) Projections)
Pressure Zone ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
Main Pressure Zone 0.66 1.09 1.34 2.21 3.19 5.27
Hampstead Booster Area 0.40 0.67 0.90 1.49 1.52 2.50
Sloop Point/Topsail
Booster Area 0.25 0.40 0.37 0.61 0.70 1.16
PCU SUBTOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.61 4.31 5.41 8.93
Topsail Beach Bulk 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.60 0.33 1.00
TOTAL 1.31 2.16 2.81 4.91 5.74 9.93
Each demand node in the previous model included the general hourly diurnal pattern shown on
Figure 3-3. The same diurnal pattern was applied for the existing and future model simulations
in this study.
Figure 3-3. Diurnal Pattern Supplied in PCU’s EPA Net model files
1.6
1.4
Demand Factor
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 6 12 18
Simulation Hour
3-7
Page 34 of 139
3.2.4 Model Calibration

The accuracy of a computer model is highly dependent on its degree of calibration. To determine
if a computer model is calibrated, actual field conditions based on hydrant flow tests are
simulated using the model. System operating parameters (e.g. system pressures, pump flows, etc.)
generated by the model are compared with the parameters measured in the field.
Hydrant flow tests were conducted by PCU staff at strategic locations identified by CDM Smith.
The hydrant test locations are shown on Figure 3-4. Tank level, pump flow, and pump discharge
pressure data at the time of each flow test was recorded. Computer simulations were conducted
to compare model results with the field test results. A summary of the results is provided in
Table 3-4. The flow hydrant for hydrant test 3 was mistakenly performed on a parallel Surf City
hydrant therefore the results from the hydrant test were not used for calibrating the model. For
the remaining hydrant tests, the model results compared reasonably well with the field test
results except for hydrant test 5. While the static pressure was off by 12 psi, the model residual
pressure was within 1 psi and the static pressure recorded for the flowing hydrant prior to the
test was similar to the model results. In addition, the modeled flow/pressure at the high service
pump was within 5 gpm and 5 psi, and the modeled flow/pressure at the Highway 210 booster PS
was within 8 gpm and 2 psi, therefore it was concluded that the recorded static pressure may
have been inaccurate for hydrant test 5. The model was considered calibrated based on the other
hydrant test results.
Table 3-4. Hydrant Test Results
Flow Static Pressure (psi) Residual (Flowing) Pressure (psi)

Test No.1 (gpm) Field Model Difference Field Model Difference Relative Difference
1 550 50 50 0 30 31 1 1
2 1,115 64 63 -1 52 55 3 4
4 600 76 74 -2 51 53 2 4
5 710 73 61 -12 40 41 1 13
1) Test No 3 was performed on a Surf City Hydrant and therefore was not used for the modeling calibration.
3.2.5 Extended Period Simulations

PCU provided CDM Smith with water system supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
data for February through July 2019. A summer verification analysis was performed for a 72-hour
extended period simulation (EPS) using the Wednesday, June 26 through Friday, June 28, 2019
SCADA data; this time period was selected because it provided a consistent diurnal pattern over
the three days and was a higher demand period averaging 1.76 mgd. These selected conditions
represent typical summer demand system operations within PCU’s system.
For verification purposes, the following assumptions and inputs were applied in the model:
 Demand: The total system demand was adjusted in the model using a global factor to
match the average water supplied during this time period (1.76 mgd). Diurnal demand
patterns presented in Section 3.2.3 were used in the model.
3-8
Page 35 of 139
Page 36 of 139
Malpass Tank Ú
"
T
U
Test 3
Topsail Tank !
.
Rocky T
U
Point Tank Test 1
T
U !
.
Ú
"
T
U Test 4
Hampstead
Tank
Ú
" !
.
T
U
Test 2
Legend
!
.
!
. Hydrant Tests Water Pipe Diameter
6-inch and smaller
3
Q WTP WTP
8-inch 3
Q Test 5
Ú
" Pump Station 10-inch
12-inch
!
.
Tank
T
U 16-inch
20-inch
24-inch
Unknown
Figure 3-4: Hydrant Flow Test Locations
´
0 2.5 5 10
1 inch = 4 miles
 HSPS: The modeled pump curves for the HSPS at the WTP were provided in the EPA Net
model files. PCU staff indicate that a single high service pump is typically operated at
reduced speed based on the water levels of the Rocky Point elevated tank (pump on at tank
water level of 14 feet, pump off at tank water level of 26 feet.) For verification, the model
was setup to turn the pump on or off at a speed of approximately 80 percent based off of
the Rocky Point tank water levels.
 Storage Tanks: The initial elevated tank water levels were obtained from SCADA data and
input into the model.
 Highway 210 Booster Pump Station: For the Highway 210 booster PS, all water in the
existing 12-inch diameter transmission main is reduced in pressure to flow through the
ground storage tank. The filling of the tank is controlled by a valve that maintains a set
pressure of approximately 50 psi in the 12-inch diameter main on the upstream side of the
tank. The booster pump station takes suction from the ground tank and boosts flow to the
Hampstead booster area. Pumping at the Highway 210 ground storage tank is controlled
by the water level of the Hampstead elevated tank.
 Sloop Point Booster Pumps: The Sloop Point booster pumps were modeled to turn on and
off based on water levels in the Topsail elevated tank.
Model-simulated tank levels, pump flow and pump discharge pressures resulting from the above
operational controls were verified with SCADA data to confirm that model results reasonably
match typical system operations. The model appears to reflect the existing system within
reasonable accuracy based on the following results:
 Pump Flow and Discharge Pressure Verification

The model-simulated flows and discharge pressures at the HSPS and Highway 210 booster
PS followed a similar pattern as the SCADA data. Although SCADA flow data was not
available for the Sloop Point booster PS, the modeled discharge pressure followed a similar
pattern as the SCADA data. Modeled flows were within 11 percent of the SCADA data and
modeled pump station discharge pressures were generally within 5 psi of the SCADA.
Figure 3-5 includes a comparison of the pump station flow and discharge pressures
generated by the model.
For the high service pump, SCADA data was not available for June 27, 2019; however,
during typical operations, the high service pump runs most of the day, turning off for a few
hours overnight as modeled. In the model, the high service pump is set to turn on or off
based on maintaining the Rocky Point tank water level between 14 feet and 26 feet.
Variations greater than 5 psi between the model and field pressures are caused by lower
field readings for the Rocky Point tank water level than what was modeled.
3-10
Page 37 of 139
WTP HSPS Flow WTP HSPS Pressure
SCADA Model SCADA Model
2,000 100
1,800
Discharge Pressure (PSI)

1,600 90
1,400
Flow (GPM)
80
1,200
1,000 70
800
600 60
400 50
200
0 40
26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h 26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h
Date Date
Hwy 210 Booster Pump Station Flow Hwy 210 Booster Pump Station Pressure
1,000 110

900
100
Flow (GPM)
800
700 90
600 80
500
70
400
300 60
200 50
100
40
0 26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h
26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h
Date
Date
Sloop Point Booster Pump Station Flow Sloop Point Booster Pump Station Pressure
Model SCADA Model
800 100
700
90
600
Flow (GPM)
500 80
400 70
300
60
200
100 50
0 40
Date Date
Figure 3-5. Modeled Pump Flow and Pressure Verification for June 26 – 28, 2019
Page 38 of 139
 Storage Tank Level Verification

In general, model-simulated water levels in the storage tanks were within a few feet of the
field data and followed a similar pattern as the SCADA data. Figure 3-6 shows a
comparison of the model and SCADA tank water levels for the Rocky Point elevated storage
tank, Highway 210 ground storage tank, Hampstead elevated storage tank, and Topsail
elevated storage tank. It should be noted that the Malpass elevated storage tank is not
currently on SCADA; hydraulic modeling showed minimal turnover is occurring in this tank
for the June 26-28, 2019 demands. Water level comparisons were not made for the
clearwell storage facilities at the plant since they are pumped out of, not into, and were
therefore modeled as fixed-head reservoirs.
3.3 Hydraulic Evaluation Approach and Criteria

CDM Smith conducted hydraulic model evaluations with the calibrated model to assess the
adequacy of the distribution system to meet demands in the eastern portion of PCU’s service area.
A description of the modeling approach and evaluation criteria follows.
3.3.1 Modeling Approach

Hydraulic model simulations of the existing water distribution infrastructure were run with
existing, near-term, and long-term projected ADDs and MDDs. The diurnal demand hydrograph
included in the model was applied to the MDD to simulate fluctuation in demands including peak
hour. Simulations were run for a duration of 72 hours to determine if tanks can fill during
nighttime hours under MDD. MDD plus fire flow demands were also simulated in the hydraulic
model to determine the adequacy of the available fire flow. ADDs were simulated in the hydraulic
model to evaluate water age.
The model results were compared to the evaluation criteria developed for the water system
described in Section 3.3.2. The inability of system components to adhere to the evaluation
criteria was considered a deficiency and the potential need for an infrastructure and/or
operational improvement was assessed.
3.3.2 General Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria used to assess the existing water system include system pressure, water
main velocity, water main headloss, water age, available fire flow, and system storage. The
evaluation criteria serve as triggers for identifying the potential need for infrastructure and/or
operational improvements. Table 3-5 summarizes the evaluation criteria for each parameter.
3-12
Page 39 of 139
Rocky Point Elevated Storage Tank Hwy 210 Ground Storage Tank
30 25
25 20
Tank Level (ft)

Tank Level (ft)
20
15
15
10
10
5 5
0
26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h 0
Date
Date
Hampstead Elevated Storage Tank Topsail Elevated Storage Tank

35 25
30
20
25
Tank Level (ft)

Tank Level (ft)
15
20
15 10
10
5
5
0 0
26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h 26 Jun 0h 26 Jun 12h 27 Jun 0h 27 Jun 12h 28 Jun 0h 28 Jun 12h 29 Jun 0h
Date Date
Figure 3-6. Modeled Storage Tank Level Verification for June 26 – 28, 2019
Page 40 of 139
Table 3-5. Summary of Evaluation Criteria
Parameter Condition Evaluation Criteria

30 psi for average, maximum, and peak hour demand, with desirable average
Minimum pressures of at least 50 psi
Pressure
20 psi for fire flow1
Maximum 100 psi
Velocity Maximum 10 fps, with less than 5 fps desirable
10 feet/1,000 feet for pipes < 16-inch diameter
Headloss Maximum
3 feet/1,000 feet for pipes ≥ 16-inch diameter
1,500 gpm desirable
Fire Flow Minimum2
500 gpm minimum on dead ends and cul-de-sacs
Equalization, Fire Protection, and Emergency
Storage Minimum3
50% of average day demand (NCAC 15A.18C)
Water Age Maximum Desirable 5 days or less
1) Based on North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Subchapter 18C.
2) As noted in Appendix B of the North Carolina State Building Code: Fire Prevention Code, the fire chief is authorized to reduce the fire-flow
requirements for isolated buildings or a group of buildings in rural areas or small communities where the development of full fire-flow
requirements is impractical. Additionally, for 1- and 2-family dwellings not exceeding 2 stories in height that are more than 100 feet
between buildings, the Insurance Service Office’s (ISO) Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow lists a needed fire flow of 500 gpm.
3) Requirement based on whichever criterion is greater.
3.4 Existing Water System Hydraulic Evaluation Results

3.4.1 General
The calibrated hydraulic model of the existing system was run with average day (1.31 mgd),
summer (1.76 mgd), and maximum day (2.16 mgd) demands. For these simulations, all water is
supplied from the Pender County WTP without any supplemental supply from Wallace or Surf
City.
Under ADD and summer demand conditions, the system meets the minimum pressure, maximum
velocity and maximum headloss criteria given in Table 3-5. However, during summer demand,
the turnover is limited in the Malpass Tank. The Malpass tank is filled first and remains full while
the WTP high service pumps operate to fill the Rocky Point tank. Figure 3-7 shows the difference
in HGLE between the WTP and Rocky Point tank during peak morning hours. The HGLE
difference, due to the significant headloss in the single long transmission main between the
Malpass and Rocky Point tanks (approximately 10 miles), results in the difficulty in operating
both the Malpass and Rocky Point tanks effectively.
Under MDD conditions, the transmission system has inadequate capacity to convey water to the
eastern portions of the service area. The storage tanks empty and minimum pressures cannot be
maintained in the distribution system. This is consistent with the operational difficulties
experienced during recent MDD conditions, resulting in the need for PCU to purchase water
through system interconnections to maintain acceptable operations.
3-14
Page 41 of 139
166ft
16
4 ft
Page 42 of 139
160 ft
t
6f
ft
162
17
154 ft
156 ft 158 ft
172 f
Malpass Tank
150 ft 2 ft
T
U 17
5
8 ft
1
146 ft
Topsail Tank
t
18
148 f
0 ft
T
U
142 ft
170 ft
174ft
Rocky Point Tank
Legend Hwy 210 Tank
t
144 f
T
U Ú
"
U
T
3 Pender Co WTP
Q 18
ft
2f Ú
"
168
184 ft t Hampstead Tank
Ú
" Existing Booster Pump Station
T
U
T Existing Tanks
U
Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation
18 t
18
6f
140 to 148 feet

8f
148 to 158 feet

19
158 to 170 feet

0 ft
170 to 180 feet

3
Q
180 to 192 feet
Figure 3-7: Hydraulic Grade Line Gradient

WTP to Hwy 210 BPS
´
Miles
0 2.5 5 10
During Peak Hours (June 2019 Demand)
Pender County Utilities
Since the existing distribution system is unable to meet existing MDD under normal operating
conditions (without purchase of supplemental water supply), hydraulic improvements are
needed to meet both existing and future demands.
3.4.2 Water Age

Water age within the distribution system and storage tanks was also considered since water age
is an indicator of potential water quality issues. Water age is a primary factor that influences the
system’s ability to maintain disinfection residuals. As water age increases, disinfection residual
tends to decrease. Similarly, areas of high water age may also indicate an increased likelihood for
nitrification, formation of disinfection by-products, microbial regrowth, or taste and odor issues.
Average water age in the existing system, as simulated in the hydraulic model, is shown in Figure
3-8. Model results indicate that the majority of the system has water age less than 5 days;
however, some areas have water age greater than 10 days, including areas downstream of the
Topsail tank and in the portion of the system north of NC Highway 210 and east of Interstate 40.
PCU staff indicated that there are no significant water quality complaints in the distribution
system.
3.4.3 Fire Flow

The existing system does not have capacity to sufficiently meet regular water demands on a
maximum day. Therefore, the system cannot meet MDD plus fire flow demands. Improvements
are needed to the transmission system for PCU to adequately meet customer demands from the
WTP without purchase from interconnections.
3.5 Storage Volume Evaluation

Storage in a water distribution system has three functions: equalization, fire protection, and
emergency. Section 2 provides a description of the existing storage facilities. This section
discusses the evaluation of storage volume in PCU’s existing system. The hydraulic effectiveness
of the existing storage facilities is discussed with the hydraulic evaluation results in Section 3.6.
The required storage volume is generally considered to be the greater of the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) requirements or the volume needed to satisfy
equalization, fire protection, and emergency storage.
3.5.1 NC DEQ Storage Volume Requirements

As required by the NC DEQ, the total volume of finished water storage must be at least one-half
day’s supply of the ADD of the system. The NC DEQ storage requirements for PCU’s system are
based on the projected demands presented in Table 3-3. The NC DEQ requirement is calculated
for the total demand of PCU’s water system, including booster areas. Since the large bulk water
customer maintains their own storage facilities, the bulk user demands (i.e. future Topsail Beach
demands) are not included in this calculation. The minimum storage requirement for the existing
demand is 0.7 MG, increasing to 2.7 MG by long-term (2040).
With the existing 2.0 MG of distribution storage and assumed 1.0 MG of clearwell storage
available at the WTP, the existing facilities are adequate to meet NC DEQ’s minimum storage
volume requirement through the long-term planning period.
3-16
Page 43 of 139
Page 44 of 139
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
T
U
Rocky Point Tank Hwy 210 Tank
T
U Ú
"
U
T
Hampstead Tank
Ú
"
Legend
T
U
3 Pender Co WTP
Q
Ú
" Existing Booster Pump Station
T Existing Tanks
U
Average Water Age
Less than 2 days
3
Q
2 to 3 days
3 to 5 days
5 to 7 days
7 to 10 days
Greater than 10 days
Figure 3-8: Existing System Water Age

(2019 Average Day Demand)
´
Miles
0 2.5 5 10 Pender County Utilities
3.5.2 Storage Volume Requirements for Equalization, Fire Protection, and

Emergency
Equalization storage is needed to meet hourly fluctuations in demand that occur daily. The
equalization storage needed to supply demand variations is determined from the diurnal water
demand hydrograph and is specific to an individual water utility. The equalization storage
needed to supply demand variations for PCU’s service area is estimated to be 15 percent of the
MDD, excluding the large bulk water customers.
Fire flow requirements vary based on the type and use of buildings within a service area. For the
primary portions of PCU’s service area, the fire protection storage is estimated to be the volume
required to provide 3,500 gpm for a duration of 3 hours. For the booster areas, which are
primarily residential, the fire protection storage is estimated to be the volume required to
provide 1,500 gpm for a duration of 2 hours.
Emergency storage is used to satisfy system demands during any disruption in supply such as
water main breaks. The volume of emergency storage necessary can vary based on service area
needs and operations preferences. PCU has emergency standby power at the WTP and at the
Highway 210 booster PS. For the purposes of this analysis, emergency storage requirements of
25 and 50 percent of the ADD are considered.
Table 3-6 presents the estimated combined storage volume requirements for equalization, fire
protection, and emergency for each scenario. Volume requirements are calculated separately for
the Main pressure zone and each boosted pressure zone.
Assuming 25 percent emergency storage, the resulting storage requirements can be met with
existing distribution and clearwell storage through the near-term planning period. By the long-
term planning period, additional storage is needed in the Main pressure zone and Hampstead
booster area. Recommendations for location and size of future storage facilities are discussed in
the improvements evaluation in Section 3.6.
3.6 Improvements Evaluation

Results of the hydraulic analyses indicate that the existing water infrastructure is inadequate to
meet desirable pressures and storage operations for the existing and future planning periods.
Additional hydraulic modeling analyses were conducted to identify the appropriate operational
and infrastructure improvements required to resolve system deficiencies.
To address system needs to meet future demands, two alternatives for water supply were
evaluated:
 Alternative 1 – Surface water supply from the Pender County WTP only (Sub-alternatives
1A and 1B present two different transmission main routing options for this alternative.)
 Alternative 2 –New reverse osmosis (RO) groundwater WTP in the Hampstead area
3-18
Page 45 of 139
Table 3-6. System Storage Requirements based on Equalization, Fire Protection, and Emergency Storage
Existing Near-Term Long-Term

(2019) (2025) (2040)
Main Zone (185 ft)
Existing Distribution Storage (MG) 0.8 0.8 0.8
Available Clearwell Storage for Main Zone (MG) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Finished Water Storage (MG) 1.8 1.8 1.8
Storage Requirement:
Equalization + Fire Protection + Emergency @ 25% ADD (MG) 1.0 1.3 2.2
Hampstead Booster Area (195 ft)
Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Area (215 ft)
TOTAL
Finished Water Storage (MG) 3.0 3.0 3.0
NC DEQ Requirement (MG) 0.7 1.3 2.7

Notes:
1) Available clearwell storage assumes 1MG would remain for chlorine contact time.
2) Equalization Storage = 15% of Maximum Day Demands
3) Fire Protection Storage:
a. 3,500 gpm for 3- hour duration (ISO’s basic fire flow requirement) for Main zone
b. 1,500 gpm for 2-hour duration for Hampstead and Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Areas
4) Emergency Storage = % of Average Day Demand as noted
3-19
Page 46 of 139
Water supply, transmission, storage, and pumping improvements for each alternative are
discussed in the following sections. Improvements were identified and sized to meet the criteria
given in Table 3-5 for long-term demand projections. Section 4 provides cost estimates,
additional details and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
3.6.1 Alternative 1 – Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only
Alternative 1 evaluates the water system improvements assuming all water supply is from the
current Pender County surface WTP. Because of the substantial distance between the existing
WTP and the eastern service area combined with the large amount of growth expected, significant
pipeline, storage and pumping improvements are necessary. Recommended improvements are
shown in Figure 3-9 and described in the following paragraphs.
Water Treatment & HSPS Improvements

The existing WTP will need to be upgraded to at least 5 mgd to meet near-term demands and then
10 mgd to meet long-term demands. The existing WTP has been designed and built for 6 mgd
capacity. Upgrading to this capacity will require additional pumps and other miscellaneous
equipment. Upgrading from 6 mgd to 10 mgd will require more grading, piping, tanks, and
structural work.
Additional HSPS capacity will also be needed. Based on the proposed phasing of the transmission
improvements, additional high service pumps are recommended to provide firm pumping
capacity of 4,500 gpm at a total dynamic head (TDH) of 220 feet for near-term and 7,000 gpm at a
TDH of 165 feet for long-term. The near-term pumping capacity exceeds the treatment capacity
since the HSPS will supplement peak hour demands from storage in the clearwell until additional
in-system storage is implemented in the long-term. Implementing the new pipe segment A from
the WTP to Highway 210 in the long-term reduces the TDH requirement for the HSPS. The
pumps should be controlled based on levels in the Rocky Point elevated storage tank.
Booster Pumping Improvements

A new in-line booster PS at Highway 210 near the location of the existing ground storage tank and
pump station is recommended to boost pressures from the Main pressure zone to the Hampstead
booster area. The proposed booster PS will operate differently from the existing facility since it
will take suction directly from the Main pressure zone transmission pipeline, instead of the
ground storage tank, and boost to the Hampstead booster area. This will reduce the total head
needed at the pump station. The existing Highway 210 ground storage tanks and pump station
could remain in-service to provide storage to the Hampstead booster area during peak daily
demands. The ground storage tank would be set to refill during nighttime/low demand hours
only.
For near-term, a new package duplex booster pump station with firm capacity of 2,300 gpm at a
TDH of 50 feet is recommended along Highway 210 near the existing pump station. By long-term,
the station will need to provide a firm pumping capacity of 3,400 gpm at a TDH of 70 feet. The
pumps should be controlled based on levels in the Hampstead elevated storage tank.
3-20
Page 47 of 139
Legend

3
T
Ú
[ New Booster Pump Station
A (36-inch)
B (30-inch)
Page 48 of 139
C (36-inch)
D (24-inch)
Malpass Tank E (24-inch)
F (16-inch)
T
U G (8-inch)
Topsail Tank
'') T
U
24
D(
B( Rocky Point Tank
30 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (36 T
U
T
U Ú
Ú
"
[
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
E(
24
Ú
"
'')
Hampstead Tank
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
A(
36'
')
'')
(8
G
T
U
3
Figure 3-9: Alternative 1 Recommended Improvements

Water Supply from Existing WTP
´
Miles
Transmission Pipeline Improvements

Hydraulic modeling results indicate that the transmission mains from the WTP to Highway 17 do
not have adequate capacity to meet future water demands while maintaining adequate system
pressures. Pipeline upgrades are needed to meet the significant demand increase in the
Hampstead and Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas, along with the bulk water provided to Topsail
Beach in the future.
The recommended pipeline improvements identified in Table 3-7 represent parallel pipeline
sizes. Existing pipelines are to remain in operation. The need for large pipelines is due to
minimal system looping, the long distance (approximately 33 miles) between the WTP and
Highway 17, and the large portion of system demand located at the Hampstead and Sloop
Point/Topsail booster areas. These factors lead to substantial head losses in the existing system
and create the need for considerably more capacity.
Table 3-7. Alternative 1 Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Pipe Diameter Length

Segment[1] Description (In.) (Ft.)
New pipeline along Hwy 421 from WTP to Montague Rd; parallel to
A 36 43,200
existing 24-inch transmission main
New pipeline along Montague Rd from Hwy 421 to Hwy 210 and along
B 30 31,100
Hwy 210 to Little Kelly Rd; parallel to existing 20-inch transmission main
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Rd to Hwy 117; parallel to
C 36 27,700
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from Hwy 117 to 210 Booster PS; parallel to
D 24 32,700
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from 210 Booster PS to Hwy 17; parallel to
E 24 40,300
New pipeline along Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to Hampstead Tank; parallel to
F 16 17,100
New pipeline along Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New Scotts Hill WSD Tank;
G 8 13,800
parallel to existing 12-inch transmission main
1) See Figure 3-9 for a map showing the locations of piping upgrades.
The proposed sizes represent the diameters necessary to move water from the WTP to the
Hampstead Tank while minimizing headlosses and meeting desired system pressures. Parallel
pipelines will provide additional capacity and also add redundancy to the system if one pipeline
were to be out of service during an emergency. The phasing and need for each project are as
follows:
 Parallel pipe segment A is needed in the long-term to increase capacity since this segment
delivers water to the entire PCU system.
 Parallel pipe segments B and C are needed in the near-term to convey water to the Rocky
Point elevated tank. These improvements increase capacity and decrease headloss
3-22
Page 49 of 139
between the Malpass tank and Rocky Point tank, allowing both tanks to function effectively
and turnover during MDD (see Figure A1-6 in Appendix A).
 Parallel pipe segments D and E are needed in the near-term to provide adequate capacity
for pumping water from the Main pressure zone to the Hampstead booster area.
 Parallel pipe segment F is needed in the long-term to fill the Hampstead tank as demands in
the Hampstead and Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas increase. This includes delivering up
to 1.0 mgd from Highway 17 near Transfer Station Road to Topsail Beach during MDD.
 Parallel pipe segment G is needed in the long-term to fill the proposed Scotts Hill elevated
storage tank.
Storage Improvements
Results of the storage volume evaluation presented in Section 3.4 indicate that additional storage
volume is needed in the Main pressure zone and Hampstead booster area in the long-term to
meet growing demands. The effectiveness of additional storage was evaluated in the hydraulic
model. The following new storage facilities are recommended for the long-term planning period:
 Main Pressure Zone Storage: Add a new 0.7-MG elevated storage tank or replace the
existing Rocky Point elevated storage tank with a new 1.0-MG elevated storage tank. The
new tank will provide water supply for daily demand peaks and reduce peak pumping at
the WTP. The new storage tank is recommended to be located near the existing Rocky
Point tank since this is close to the location of existing/projected demand growth.
However, as the system grows, the location of the tank should be re-evaluated with respect
to the demand centroid.
 Hampstead Booster Area Storage: Add a new elevated storage tank along Highway 17 in
the Scotts Hill WSD adjacent to the Pender EMS and Fire Station 18 (see Figure 3-9). This is
the same tank location that was evaluated in the August 2018 SHWSD-CFPUA Interconnect
Feasibility Analysis Technical Memorandum by Highfill Infrastructure Engineering. This
tank will also provide benefits for increasing fire flow and maximizing potential transfer of
water from Cape Fear Public Utilities Authority (CFPUA) to PCU in an emergency. A
minimum volume of 0.3 MG is recommended to meet the storage criteria for the
Hampstead booster area in Table 3-6. However, if the existing 0.2-MG ground storage tank
at Highway 210 is decommissioned, the new Scotts Hill tank should be at least 0.5 MG.
Alternative 1 Summary and Phasing

Model-predicted minimum pressures, maximum pressures, water age, available fire flow, and
tank levels for Alternative 1 improvements are presented in Appendix A. With Alternative 1
improvements, the system meets the criteria in Table 3-5 for pressure, velocity, headloss, and
storage.
Improvements to increase available fire flow would include looping or increasing the size of the
neighborhood distribution lines. Since this evaluation focuses on the transmission to eastern
Pender County (i.e. pipe sizes greater than or equal to 12-inch diameter), specific fire flow
improvements are not identified.
3-23
Page 50 of 139
Water age in the eastern portion of the system is anticipated to decrease in the future, even with
the addition of large transmission mains in near-term.
Table 3-8 presents a summary of the recommended phasing for the Alternative 1 improvements.
Costs are presented in Section 4.
Table 3-8. Alternative 1 Phasing of Improvements

Near-Term (2025) Improvements
Improvement Description
Pipeline Segments B, C, D, E shown in Table 3-7
Storage None
New Hwy 210 PS
 Build station for full capacity
Pump Station  Install 2 smaller pumps (50 hp each)
 Install pump bases/piping for future pumps
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 6.5 mgd
WTP Increase treatment capacity at existing WTP to 6 mgd
Long-Term (2040) Improvements
Pipeline Segments A, F, G shown in Table 3-7
New Rocky Point Tank
 Elevated Storage Tank
 Need 700,000 gallons
 Replace existing 300,000-gallon tank with 1,000,000-gallon tank or install a parallel
700,000-gallon tank.
Storage
 Locate near existing Rocky Point tank
New Scotts Hill Tank
 >300,000 gallons
 On Hwy 17 near Pender Fire Station 18/EMS in Scotts Hill
Add pumps to increase New Hwy 210 PS capacity to 5 mgd
Pump Station
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 10 mgd
WTP Increase treatment capacity of existing WTP from 6 mgd to 10 mgd
1) See Figure 3-9 for a map showing the locations of Alternative 1 upgrades.
3-24
Page 51 of 139
3.6.2 Alternative 1A – Alternative Routing through New Hanover County

Alternative 1A evaluates the water system improvements assuming all water supply is from the
current Pender County surface WTP. This alternative differs from Alternative 1 with the routing
of proposed pipelines. Instead of paralleling the 24-inch transmission main from the WTP, a new
transmission main is routed from the WTP through portions of New Hanover County to the Scotts
Hill area. This alternative supplies the Hampstead booster area directly from the WTP HSPS and
eliminates upgrades to the existing Highway 210 booster PS. Recommended improvements are
shown in Figure 3-10 and described in the following paragraphs.

Similar to Alternative 1, the existing WTP will need to be upgraded to at least 5 mgd to meet near-
term demands and then 10 mgd to meet long-term demands.
Additional HSPS capacity will also be needed. For Alternative 1A, it is recommended that
separate high service pumps be dedicated to the Main pressure zone, transmitting flow through
the existing 24-inch diameter transmission main on Highway 421 and to the Hampstead booster
area via the new transmission main through portions of New Hanover County. Based on the
proposed phasing of the transmission improvements, additional high service pumping capacity to
each zone is recommended in Table 3-9. The Main pressure zone pumps should be controlled
based on water levels in the Rocky Point elevated storage tank. The Hampstead booster area
pumps should be controlled based on water levels in the Hampstead tank. The total HSPS
pumping capacity is greater in Alternative 1A (12.4 mgd) versus Alternative 1 (10 mgd) since the
storage in the Main pressure zone does not supplement peak hour demands and additional
pumping from clearwell is needed for peak hours.
Table 3-9. Alternative 1A HSPS Improvements

Pump to Pressure Zone Planning Period Firm Pumping Capacity (GPM) TDH (ft)
Main Near-Term 2,100 (1) 175 (1)
Main Long-Term 4,300 220
Hampstead Near-Term 2,100 230
Hampstead Long-Term 4,300 230
1) Provided by existing high service pump; no upgrades needed

The alternate pipeline route in Alternative 1A eliminates the need for upgrades to the Highway
210 booster PS since the Hampstead booster area is supplied directly from the WTP through a
new 30-inch diameter transmission main.
It is recommended that the existing ground storage tank and booster pumps remain in service to
provide redundancy in supply to the eastern portions of the service area from the existing
transmission mains along Highway 210. The pumps could be used as-needed to operate similar
to the current set-up (boosting from the storage tank). It is also recommended that a bypass be
constructed to allow water from the new transmission main to supply back to the Main pressure
zone for redundancy in case of emergency.
3-25
Page 52 of 139
Legend

T
3
B (16-inch)
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
Page 53 of 139
G (24-inch)
H (30-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
B (1 Additional T
U
6 '') 0.7 MG Hwy 210 Tank
)
C (20'' T
U
T
U Ú
"
Rocky
T
U
Point
Tank Hampstead Ú
"
Tank
'')
T
U
6
(1
F
'')
4
(2
G
U Additional 0.3
T
3
Q MG (Scotts
Hill Tank)
H (30
'')
Figure 3-10: Alternative 1A Recommended Improvements

´
Miles

Alternative 1A includes a new transmission pipeline from the WTP to Scotts Hill area via a
southern route through New Hanover County (segment H). The pipeline route would mostly
follow state rights-of-way, parallel with Interstate 140. This would eliminate proposed parallel
pipelines along Highway 421 and the portions of Highway 210 (eliminate segments A, D, and E)
and reduce the size of proposed segments B and C to 16-inch and 20-inch diameter, respectively.
The size of segment G is increased to 24-inch diameter and the length increased to extend to the
end of the existing 12-inch diameter main at Scotts Hill. The recommended pipeline
improvements are listed in Table 3-10. The overall pipeline length of Alternative 1A is
approximately 5 miles less than Alternative 1.
Table 3-10. Alternative 1A Transmission Pipeline Improvements

New pipeline along Montague Rd from Hwy 421 to Hwy 210 and
B along Hwy 210 to Little Kelly Rd; parallel to existing 20-inch 16 31,100
transmission main
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Rd to Hwy 117;
C 20 27,700
New pipeline along Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to Hampstead Tank;
F 16 17,100
New pipeline along Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New Scotts Hill
G 24 13,800
WSD Tank; parallel to existing 12-inch transmission main
New pipeline along Hwy 421 & Interstate 140 from WTP to Scotts
H 30 91,600
Hill
The phasing and need for each project are as follows:
 New pipe segment H and parallel pipe segment G are needed in the near-term to convey
water from the WTP to the Hampstead booster area and fill the Hampstead tank.
 Parallel pipe segment C is needed in the near-term to convey water to the Rocky Point
elevated tank since the existing 12-inch diameter pipe has inadequate capacity.
 Parallel pipe segment B is needed in the long-term to increase capacity and decrease
headloss between the Malpass tank and Rocky Point tank, allowing both tanks to function
effectively and turnover during MDD (see Figure A2-6 in Appendix A).
New storage facilities recommended for Alternative 1A are the same as those presented for
Alternative 1 in Section 3.6.1.
3-27
Page 54 of 139
Alternative 1A Summary and Phasing

tank levels for Alternative 1A improvements are presented in Appendix A. With Alternative 1A
storage.
Table 3-11 presents a summary of the recommended phasing for the Alternative 1A
improvements. Costs are presented in Section 4.
Table 3-11. Alternative 1A Phasing of Improvements

Near -Term (2025) Improvements
Pipeline Segments C, G, H shown in Table 3-10
Storage None
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 6.0 mgd (3.0 for Main PZ; 3.0 for Hampstead and
Pump Station
Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas)
Pipeline Segments B and F shown in Table 3-10
Storage
 >300,000 gallons
On Hwy 17 near Pender Fire Station 18/EMS in Scotts Hill
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 12.4 mgd (6.2 for Main PZ; 6.2 for Hampstead and
Pump Station
Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas)
Note: See Figure 3-10 for a map showing the locations of Alternative 1A upgrades.
3-28
Page 55 of 139
3.6.3 Alternative 1B – Alternative Routing from WTP to Highway 210

Alternative 1B evaluates the water system improvements assuming all water supply is from the
current Pender County surface WTP. This alternative differs from Alternative 1 with the routing
of proposed pipelines. Instead of paralleling the 24-inch diameter transmission main from the
WTP, a new transmission main is routed from the WTP via Cowpen Landing Road, new
easements, and Clarks Landing Loop Road to Highway 210 at Little Kelly Road. This route
improves system redundancy since it differs from the existing 24-inch diameter transmission
main routing. Recommended improvements are shown in Figure 3-11 and described in the
following paragraphs.

Alternative 1B improvements to the WTP and HSPS are the same as those presented for

The new booster PS recommended at Highway 210 for Alternative 1B is the same as the
recommendation presented for Alternative 1 in Section 3.6.1.

Alternative 1A includes a new transmission pipeline from the WTP to Highway 210 at Little Kelly
Road. This alternative avoids the parallel pipeline along Highway 210 between Highway 421 and
Little Kelly Road (segment B) and decreases the length of segment A from the WTP. The
recommended pipeline improvements are listed in Table 3-12. The overall pipeline length of
Alternative 1B is approximately 6 miles less than Alternative 1.
Table 3-12. Alternative 1B Transmission Pipeline Improvements

New pipeline from the WTP to Hwy 210 along Cowpen Landing
A 36 41,700
Rd, new easements, Clarks Landing Loop Rd
C 36 27,700
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from Hwy 117 to 210 Booster PS;
D 24 32,700
New pipeline along Hwy 210 from 210 Booster PS to Hwy 17;
E 24 40,300
F 16 17,100
G 8 13,800
Note: See Figure 3-11 for a map showing the locations of piping upgrades.
3-29
Page 56 of 139
Legend

3
T
Ú
A (36-inch)
C (36-inch)
Page 57 of 139
D (24-inch)
E (24-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
'') T
U
24
D(
'')
C (36 T
U
T
U Ú
Ú
"
[
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
E(
24
Ú
"
'')
Hampstead Tank
T
U
')
36'
'')
A(
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3
Figure 3-11: Alternative 1B Recommended Improvements

´
Miles
 Pipe segments A and C are needed in the near-term to convey water to the Rocky Point
elevated tank. These improvements increase capacity and decrease headloss between the
Malpass tank and Rocky Point tank, allowing both tanks to function effectively and turnover
during MDD (see Figure A3-6 in Appendix A).
 Parallel pipe segments D and E are needed in the near-term to provide adequate capacity
for pumping water from the Main pressure zone to the Hampstead booster area.
storage tank.
New storage facilities recommended for Alternative 1B are the same as those presented for
Alternative 1B Summary and Phasing

tank levels for Alternative 1B improvements are presented in Appendix A. With Alternative 1B
storage.
Table 3-13 presents a summary of the recommended phasing for the Alternative 1B
3.6.4 Alternative 2 – New RO Groundwater WTP in the Hampstead area

Alternative 2 evaluates the water system improvements assuming a new RO WTP supplied from
groundwater wells is located in the Hampstead area in the eastern portion of the service area.
The new RO WTP will generally supply the Hampstead and Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas
while the existing surface WTP will generally supply the Main pressure zone. Locating a second
water source near the eastern areas of demand growth significantly decreases the length of
transmission main improvements necessary to meet future demands. Recommended
improvements are shown in Figure 3-12 and described in the following paragraphs.
3-31
Page 58 of 139
Table 3-13. Alternative 1B Phasing of Improvements

Pipeline Segments A, C, D, E shown in Table 3-12
Storage None
New Hwy 210 PS
 Build station for full capacity
Pump Station  Install 2 smaller pumps (50 hp each)
 Install pump bases/piping for future pumps
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 6.5 mgd
Pipeline Segments F and G shown in Table 3-12
Storage
 >300,000 gallons
Add pumps to increase New Hwy 210 PS capacity to 5 mgd
Pump Station
Add pumps to increase HSPS capacity to 10 mgd
Note: See Figure 3-11 for a map showing the locations of Alternative 1B upgrades.
3-32
Page 59 of 139
Legend

3
3
Q New RO WTP
T
B (16-inch)
Page 60 of 139
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
T
U
B( Rocky Point Tank
16 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (20 T
U
T
U Ú
"
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
Hampstead Tank
3
Q
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3

Water Supply from New RO WTP
´
Miles

The existing WTP will need to be upgraded to at least 5 mgd to meet long-term demands in the
Main pressure zone. The existing WTP has been designed and built to facilitate an increase in
capacity to 6 mgd. Upgrading to this capacity will require additional pumps and other
miscellaneous equipment. The existing high service pumps are adequate for near-term.
However, additional high service pumping capacity will be needed to provide firm pumping
capacity of 4,300 gpm at a total dynamic head (TDH) of 220 feet for long-term. The pumping
capacity exceeds the treatment capacity since the HSPS will supplement peak hour demands from
storage in the clearwell. The pumps should be controlled based on levels in the Rocky Point
elevated storage tank.
A new RO WTP is recommended in the vicinity of the Hampstead tank. The RO WTP would have
an initial capacity of 3 mgd in the near-term and expanded to a minimum of 5 mgd to meet long-
term demands. Additional discussion of the preliminary groundwater investigation and RO
treatment system are included in Section 4.

For Alternative 2, no improvements are needed for the existing Highway 210 booster PS. In
general, the existing WTP will supply the Main pressure zone and the new RO WTP will supply
the Hampstead and Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas, so the need for water transfer at Highway
210 will be minimal.
It is recommended that the existing ground storage tank and booster pumps remain in service to
provide redundancy in supply to the eastern portions of the service area from the existing WTP.
The booster PS should be operated regularly (at least once weekly) to maintain for emergencies.
It is also recommended that a bypass be constructed to allow water from the new RO WTP to
supply back to the Main pressure zone for redundancy and peaking supply.

The recommended pipeline improvements for Alternative 2 identified in Table 3-14 represent
parallel pipeline sizes. Existing pipelines are to remain in operation. The overall pipeline length
of Alternative 2 is approximately 22 miles less than Alternative 1.
Table 3-14. Alternative 2 Transmission Pipeline Improvements
Description
Segment[1] (In.) (Ft.)
New pipeline along Montague Rd from Hwy 421 to Hwy 210 and
B along Hwy 210 to Little Kelly Rd; parallel to existing 20-inch 16 31,100
transmission main
C 20 27,700
F 16 17,100
G 8 13,800
3-34
Page 61 of 139
 Parallel pipe segment C is needed in the near-term to convey water to the Rocky Point
elevated tank since the existing 12-inch diameter main has inadequate capacity.
 Parallel pipe segment B is needed in the long-term to increase capacity and decrease
headloss between the Malpass tank and Rocky Point tank, allowing both tanks to function
effectively and turnover during MDD (see Figure A4-6 in Appendix A).
 Parallel pipe segment F is needed in the long-term to convey water from the new RO WTP
south toward demands at Highway 210. This includes delivering up to 1.0 mgd from
Highway 17 near Transfer Station Road to Topsail Beach during MDD.
storage tank.
New storage facilities recommended for Alternative 2 are the same as those presented for
Alternative 2 Summary and Phasing

tank levels for Alternative 2 improvements are presented in Appendix A. With Alternative 2
storage.
Water age in the eastern portion of the system is decreased in the future, even with the addition
of large transmission mains in near-term.
Table 3-15 presents a summary of the recommended phasing for the Alternative 2
3.6.5 Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Area Evaluation

The high water elevation of the Topsail tank (215 feet) is approximately 20 feet higher than the
Hampstead tank (194.5 feet). Currently, the Sloop Point booster PS pumps to fill the Topsail tank.
However, the Hampstead tank on the suction side of the booster pump station drains when filling
the Topsail tank. This creates operational difficulties in maintaining both tank water levels
during peak demands on the existing system and also leads to higher water age since water is
being transferred from one tank to another.
3-35
Page 62 of 139
Table 3-15. Alternative 2 Phasing of Improvements

Pipeline Segment C (shown in Table 3-14)
Storage None
Pump Station None
WTP New RO WTP near Hampstead tank with initial treatment capacity of 3 mgd
Pipeline Segments B, F, G shown in Table 3-14
Storage
 >300,000 gallons
Add pumps at existing WTP to increase HSPS capacity to 6.2 mgd
Pump Station
Add pumps at new RO WTP to increase capacity to 6.2 mgd
Increase treatment capacity of existing WTP to 6 mgd
WTP
Increase treatment capacity of new RO WTP to minimum 5 mgd
1) See Figure 3-12 for a map showing the locations of Alternative 1 upgrades.
3-36
Page 63 of 139
The elevations in this area were evaluated to determine if modifications could be made to the
tanks to operate both zones without booster pumping. As shown in Figure 3-13, some areas in
the Sloop Point/Topsail booster area have elevation as high as 70 feet. If the Sloop Point/Topsail
booster area were to operate at an HGLE of 194.5 feet (same as the Hampstead booster area),
customers at elevations above 60 feet would experience pressures less than 50 psi during typical
operations. Additionally, the Topsail tank would need to be abandoned since the tank would not
fill at its current elevation.
Alternatively, the Hampstead booster area could be increased to operate at an HGLE of 215 feet.
This would impact the size of the booster and/or high service pumps needed to supply this zone.
The Hampstead tank would also need to be raised to a high water elevation of 215 feet or
abandoned in lieu of a new elevated tank.
As transmission improvements are implemented to convey more water to the eastern portion of
the service area, model results predict that operations between the Hampstead tank and Topsail
tank will improve. Since changes to the booster areas would require modification and/or
construction of new tanks and pumps, removing the Sloop Point booster PS is not recommended
at this time. However, PCU could consider constructing a larger proposed Scotts Hill elevated
tank at an HGLE of 215 feet to replace the Hampstead tank and operate the entire eastern service
area at an HGLE of 215 feet to eliminate the Sloop Point booster PS.
3.7 Conclusions
CDM Smith conducted hydraulic model analyses to evaluate the adequacy of the existing water
distribution and transmission system to meet existing and projected MDD. Based on the results
of the modeling analyses, the existing water transmission mains from the WTP to the eastern
portion of the system along Highway 17 are inadequate to meet existing MDD while maintaining
storage tank levels and adequate customer delivery pressures.
In addition, significant growth is projected for the PCU service area. By the near-term (2025), the
water demand within PCU’s water and sewer districts is anticipated to double. By the long-term
(2040), the water demand within PCU’s water and sewer districts is projected to be
approximately 4 times the existing demand, with an additional 1.0 mgd projected as bulk water
sales to the Town of Topsail Beach. To support this growth, particularly in the eastern portions of
the system, additional transmission mains, pumping, storage facilities, and water supply are
needed. Since future demands were modeled by scaling existing demand nodes, the location of
growth should be adjusted in the model as development is planned.
The primary difference in the improvement alternatives evaluated in this study is the source of
future water supply for the eastern portions of the service area. Alternative 1 expands and
reinforces the water transmission from the existing WTP with approximately 39 miles of new
transmission mains (Alternatives 1A and 1B present slightly shorter routes). Alternative 2
reduces the length of transmission mains to 17 miles but requires construction and maintenance
of a new groundwater RO WTP in the Hampstead area. Section 4 discusses the costs, advantages
and disadvantages of these alternatives.
3-37
Page 64 of 139
Page 65 of 139
Topsail Tank
Sloop Point
T
U / Topsail
Booster Area
Legend
Water Pipe Diameter
" Sloop Point Sloop Point /
Ú Booster PS 6-inch and smaller
Topsail Booster Area
Elevation
8
60 - 72 feet
10
50 - 60 feet
12
40 - 50 feet
16
Hampstead 30 - 40 feet
Tank 20
20 - 30 feet
24
T
U Unknown
10 - 20 feet
0 - 10 feet
Ú
" Pump Station
Tank
T
U
Figure 3-13: Elevations in the Sloop Point/Topsail Booster Area
´
0 1.5 3
1 inch = 1 mile
Section 4
Alternatives Evaluation
4.1 General
Table 4-1 lists the alternatives that were evaluated based on the hydraulic model simulations
discussed in Section 3. These alternatives were evaluated further in this section based on
planning-level capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, advantages/disadvantages,
and economic and non-economic criteria. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that
any new reverse osmosis water treatment plant (RO WTP), whether privately-owned or PCU-
owned, would be located on a common site. Hence, transmission, storage, and pumping
requirements identified for Alternative 2 are identical for Alternative 2A.
Table 4-1. Alternatives

Water Supply
Existing New
Alternative Surface Hampstead
No. WTP RO WTP Description
Pipeline improvements follow the existing alignments from the
1  X
WTP to Highway 17
New alignment would be installed running south from the WTP
1A  X
parallel to I-140 and connecting in Scotts Hill
For the pipeline segment on Highway 421, a new alignment
1B  X would be installed running due north and connecting
approximately in the Long Creek area near Little Kelly Road
2  PCU-owned Construct new groundwater RO WTP in Hampstead area;
evaluate the pros/cons of having a private water company
Privately- design, permit, construct and operate a new groundwater RO
2A  WTP in the Hampstead area versus having PCU design, permit,
owned
construct and operate the same system
This section also discusses the feasibility and impact of installing groundwater wells in the
eastern service area to feed the RO WTP and the feasibility of installing interconnections with the
Town of Topsail Beach for up to 1 million gallons per day (mgd) and Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority (CFPUA) for up to 0.2 mgd.
4.1.1 Cost Estimating

The American Association of Cost Estimators (AACE) recommends four levels of accuracy for
construction cost estimating. The level of cost estimation is dependent upon the stage and scope
of the project. The four major categories are listed in Table 4-2.
4-1
Page 66 of 139
Section 4  Alternatives Evaluation
Table 4-2. Level of Cost Categories

Category Level Accuracy
Category 1 – Conceptual Estimate +50% to -30%
Category 2 – Study Estimate +30% to -20%
Category 3 – Preliminary Estimate +20% to -10%
Category 4 – Detailed Estimate +15% to -5%
The accuracy of construction estimates should increase as the project moves through the process
from conceptual to detailed design and eventually to project bidding and actual construction. It
can be expected that conceptual and study-level estimates would have a wide range of accuracy
relative to the actual construction cost because not all the design features and details that would
impact the final cost have been addressed. The construction cost estimates prepared for this
report are at the “Conceptual Estimate” level (Category 1).
Cost estimates for the water supply, transmission, storage, and pumping improvements were
prepared using previous estimates for similar projects, historical data from comparable work,
and estimating guides and equipment costs. Factors such as competitive market conditions, actual
site conditions, and implementation schedule cannot be quantified at the current level of detail
but can significantly impact the project cost.
4.1.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions and Exclusions

4.1.2.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Methodology
The following items are included in each cost estimate unless otherwise noted:
 Labor, Materials and Equipment

 Subcontractors
 Mobilization and Demobilization
 Sales Tax
 Freight
 Contractor Overhead and Profit
 All estimates have a 30 percent standard contingency added to all labor, material and
equipment costs
 An assumed inflation rate based on the Southeast Consumer Price Index of 2.4 percent per
year was used for 2025 costs and 2040 costs
 Costs are presented in 2019 dollars, except total construction costs which are presented in
the year of the start of construction (either 2023 or 2035)
 Prices based on 40-hour work weeks; no overtime
 No handling/disposal of contaminated soils
 Engineering, administrative construction management fees
4-2
Page 67 of 139
 Land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and permitting costs are not included
The following assumptions are used to develop the water transmission improvements cost
opinions:
 All pipes are sized for 2040 maximum day demands (MDDs).
 Improvements on existing pipeline routes are assumed to be installed parallel to the
existing pipe, i.e. the existing pipe will remain in service.
 All pipe segments are assumed to be within roadway rights-of-way with alignments
between edge of pavement and right of way. Open cut construction is assumed with a
minimum of 3 feet of cover except where trenchless crossings are anticipated. Costs include
all pipeline appurtenances and minor pavement repairs along the pipe trench, where
applicable.
 Water main pipes are assumed to be polyvinyl chloride (PVC) installed by open cut
methods. Major road and water crossings are assumed to be high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) installed by directional drilling methods
 No rock excavation is required
 Minimal shoring and dewatering requirements
Projecting costs into the future is speculative, as inflation rates for energy prices, building
materials, and construction labor fluctuate constantly. Care should be taken during future
updates to index costs for each year based on the inflation rate experienced over the update year.
4.1.2.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology

Annual O&M costs for 2021 through 2040 were developed for each alternative for the following
components:
 Production of water at the existing surface water treatment plant (including high service
pumping)
 Transmission of water by booster pumping at the 210 Pump Station
 Production of water from a new groundwater treatment plant using RO located in the
eastern service area (including well-field pumping, finished water pumping, and
concentrate disposal).
Annual costs were developed for operating labor, power, chemicals, and maintenance categories
of costs. The following O&M cost elements and unit costs (in 2019 dollars) were included in the
development of Operating Costs, Life Cycle Costs and Financial Costs.
 O&M Labor Cost - Direct costs based on current fiscal year average hourly labor rates.
Burdened operations labor costs were used, but indirect labor was not included. Labor =
$40/hr.
4-3
Page 68 of 139
 O&M Materials Expenses – Materials directly used in the normal course of operating and
maintaining the new facilities constructed as part of the alternative. Replacement
membrane elements = $600/element; Cartridge filter replacement elements = $5/element.
 Energy Costs – Purchased power is presented as separate line items. Unit costs were
multiplied by annual quantity estimates to derive total annual energy costs. Unit cost for
electrical power = $0.10/kW-hr.
 Chemical Costs – Direct expenses for various chemicals used in the normal course of project
operations. Unit costs were multiplied by annual quantity estimates to derive total annual
chemical costs. Chemical unit costs used on the analysis include:
 Scale inhibitor (for RO) = $3/lb
 Emulsified lime (for RO) = $0.06/lb
 Carbon dioxide (for RO) = $0.10/lb
 Sodium hypochlorite = $0.10/lb
 Pender County Surface Water Treatment Plant – The cost to produce water (including
residuals handling and high service pumping) at Pender County Water Treatment Plant was
assumed to be $1.25/ 1000 gallons.
4.1.2.3 20-year Net Present Value Methodology

For comparison of alternatives, the 20-year net present value of capital costs and annual costs
was prepared. For the comparison, the 20-year net present value represented the sum off costs
incurred between years 2021 and 2040.
Inflation
Unit costs were inflated at a rate of 2.4 percent annually, matching the average inflation of the
southeast Consumer Price Index over the past 30 years (1990 – 2019). Capital costs were inflated
at 2.4 percent per year to the estimated mid-point of construction.
Present Worth Discount

An annual present worth discount rate of 5 percent was used to compare costs. The value of each
cost was discounted to 2019 dollars for comparison.
4.1.3 WTP Upgrades

Alternatives 1, 1A and 1B include upgrades to the existing WTP which include the following:
Upgrade WTP to 6 MGD

 Add new pumps to the HSPS
 New GAC vessel and associated facilities
 Miscellaneous improvements to chemical systems
Upgrade WTP from 6 MGD to 10 MGD
 Expand and add more pumps to the HSPS
4-4
Page 69 of 139
 New rapid mix chambers

 New flocculation basins
 New sedimentation basins
 New filters
 Expansion of equalization basins
 New site piping
 New chemical storage space
 New chemical feed equipment
 New chemical building
 New generators
 New clearwells (2 MG total)
 Expansion of administration facilities
 Expansion of septic system
 Site civil improvements (Grading, drainage, access roads, fencing)
 New GAC facilities
 New raw water piping
 SCADA/Telemetry/Instrumentation upgrades
 New electrical feeds/transformers
The lists above are an estimate based on a preliminary evaluation. A more thorough evaluation
and analysis would be required before finalizing recommended improvements to the existing
WTP.
4.2 Alternative Analysis

For the following alternatives analysis, the Scotts Hill elevated storage tank and associated
pipeline segment G were moved to the near-term. Although the storage volume was not shown to
be needed until after 2025 based on the hydraulic analysis presented in Section 3, the County
anticipates that the tank will be necessary to provide fire flow to a proposed development that
may be built prior to 2025. Therefore, the County is planning to construct the tank in the near-
term.
4.2.1 Alternative 1: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only;
Transmission Along Hwy. 210 Routing
4.2.1.1 Conceptual Cost Estimates
This alternative evaluates the necessary water system improvements within the County if a new
RO WTP is not constructed within the eastern service area. Pipeline routes follow existing
alignments. Because of the substantial distance between the existing WTP and the eastern
service area, combined with the large amount of growth expected, significant pipeline, storage
4-5
Page 70 of 139
and pump station improvements are necessary. Pipeline, storage, pump station and WTP
improvements are all required as part of this alternative. The proposed improvements for
Alternative 1 are identified on Figure 4-1, and the specific proposed improvements to the
Highway 210 Water Booster Pump Station are identified on Figure 4-2. The conceptual cost
estimates for the recommended improvements are listed in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Alternative 1 Conceptual Cost Estimate

Improvement Diameter Length Cost
Type Location Description (inches) (feet) ($)
Montague Rd. from Highway 421 to Highway
Segment B 30 31,100 $13,700,000
210 and Highway 210 to Little Kelly Road
Segment C Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Road to Hwy 117 36 27,700 $15,600,000
Transmission Segment D Hwy 210 from Hwy 117 to Hwy 210 PS 24 32,700 $16,800,000
Segment E Hwy 210 from Hwy 210 PS to Hwy 17 24 40,300 $13,700,000
Segment G Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New Scotts Hill Tank 8 13,800 $2,000,000
New 0.3 EST on Hwy 17 near Pender Fire
Storage New Scotts Hill $1,500,000
Station 18/EMS in Scotts Hill
New Hwy 210  Install 2 smaller pumps (2,300 gpm @ 50
$3,600,000
Pumping PS feet TDH, 40 hp each)
 Install pump bases/piping for future pumps
HSPS Increase HSPS capacity to 6.5 mgd $500,000
WTP Existing WTP Increase treatment capacity from 2 to 6 mgd $1,300,000
Cost (2019 Dollars) $68,700,000
Inflation (2.4%/year through 2023) $6,800,000
TOTAL COSTS (2025 Dollars) $75,500,000
Segment A Hwy 421 from WTP to Montague Road 36 43,200 $26,600,000
Transmission
Segment F Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to Hampstead Tank 16 17,100 $4,100,000
New Rocky New 0.7 MG EST near existing Rocky Point
Storage $2,700,000
Point Tank
New Hwy 210 Add large pumps to Hwy 210 PS (3,400 gpm at
$300,000
Pumping PS 100 ft TDH, 70 hp each)
HSPS Increase HSPS capacity to 10 mgd $3,000,000
WTP Existing WTP Increase treatment capacity from 6 to 10 mgd $27,000,000
Cost (2019 Dollars) $63,700,000
Inflation (Approx. 2.4% per year through 2035) $29,400,000
Fee to Brunswick Co. for raw water pipeline upgrades $5,000,000
Engineering/Admin/Construction Mgmt. Fees (Approx. 15%) $25,300,000
Alternative 1 Planning-Level Capital Cost (2025 and 2040) $198,900,000

Annual O&M Cost Estimate (Year 2025) $1,550,000
4-6
Page 71 of 139
Legend

3
T
Ú
A (36-inch)
B (30-inch)
Page 72 of 139
C (36-inch)
D (24-inch)
Malpass Tank E (24-inch)
F (16-inch)
T
U G (8-inch)
Topsail Tank
'') T
U
24
D(
B( Rocky Point Tank
30 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (36 T
U
T
U Ú
Ú
"
[
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
E(
24
Ú
"
'')
Hampstead Tank
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
A(
36'
')
'')
(8
G
T
U
3

´
Miles
Ex. 12" DIP Water Line, Feed
From Rocky Point Tank
Demolish or Continue Using
Existing 200,000 Gal
Ground Storage Tank
Page 73 of 139
Proposed 24" Parallel Water

Transmission Main
Generator
Surge Protection
24" Suction and

Discharge dddd
V
U 210
New Boosster Pump
Station. 3,400 GPM
24" BFV at 70' TDH
Ex. 12"
Gate Valve Ex. Hwy 210 Pump
Station. Demolish or
Legend .
& Continue Using
Proposed Improvement Existing Water Pipe Diameter
Generator 6-inch and smaller è
Æ
Pump Station Expansion 8
Ex. 10" Suction and
Surge Protection 10 dddd
Discharge Pipes
Existing Pipe 12
Proposed Pipe 16
20
è
Æ Existing Valve
24
.
& Proposed Valve
Unknown
Figure 4-2: HWY 210 Water Booster Pump

Station Recommended Improvements
´
Feet
0 25 50 100 150 Pender County Utilities
1 inch = 50 feet
4.2.1.2 Trenchless Installation

Table 4-4 identifies expected trenchless crossings; however, the actual number, lengths and
trenchless technology cannot be finalized until a thorough alignment analysis is performed
during design. Trenchless costs are included in overall pipeline costs as shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-4. Alternative 1: Expected Trenchless Crossings
Jack and Length1

Pipe Segment Bore HDD (feet.) Obstacle
A 1 300 Mill Creek
A 1 300 Juniper Branch
A 1 300 Creek north of Juniper Branch
A 1 300 Mill Run
B 1 300 Long Creek
B 1 300 Guffords Branch
B 1 500 Riley’s Creek
D 1 500 Hwy 117
D 1 2,000 I-40
D 1 1,500 Cape Fear River
D 1 300 Merrick’s Creek
E 1 300 Harrison’s Creek
1) Trenchless lengths are included within overall pipe lengths shown in Table 4-3.
Segments C, F and G are not expected to have trenchless installations.
4.2.1.3 Alternative 1: Pros and Cons

Table 4-5 lists the pros and cons of Alternative 1 in comparison to Alternatives 1A, 1B and 2.
Table 4-5. Pros and Cons of Alternative 1

Pros Cons
No new easements or alignments. Pipeline
Most capital costs of 4 Alternatives (1, 1A, 1B, 2)
alignments follow existing rights-of-way
Least amount of permitting Requires expansion of WTP beyond 6 mgd capacity
No new additional PCU staff required Longer schedule than Alternatives 1A and 1B.
No redundancy in pipeline alignments. More
Lower O&M costs than Alternative 2 vulnerable to pipeline failure. Failure at one spot (e.g.
Culvert washout) could shutdown entire system.
4-9
Page 74 of 139
4.2.2 Alternative 1A: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only;
Alternative Transmission Routing through New Hanover County
4.2.2.1 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Alternative 1A evaluates the necessary water system improvements if a new RO WTP is not
constructed within the eastern service area but with an alternative pipeline route to Alternative
1. Some pipeline routes follow existing alignments; a new alignment would be installed from the
WTP, south, and ultimately to Scotts Hill. The pipeline route would leave the WTP, run south
along Highway 421 to Industrial Area Bond Road where it follows a northeast alignment to the
Northeast Cape Fear River. From here, a trenchless installation would take the pipeline east
under the river and connect to Rockhill Road where it runs easterly to Castle Hayne Road.
Approximately ¼ mile south on Castle Hayne, the pipeline turns east on Old Mill Road to Blue
Clay Road. On Blue Clay, the pipeline runs north to Sidbury Road where it follows Sidbury to the
east and terminating in Scotts Hill on Highway 17. This would eliminate proposed pipeline
segments A, D and E, reduce proposed segments B and C to 16- and 20-inch diameter,
respectively, increase segment G to a 24-inch diameter and eliminate the Highway 210 pump
station improvements. The proposed improvements for Alternative 1A are identified on Figure
4-3. The conceptual cost estimates for the recommended improvements are listed in Table 4-7.

during design.
Table 4-6. Alternative 1A: Expected Trenchless Crossings

Length1
Pipe Segment Jack and Bore HDD Obstacle
(feet)
B 1 300 Long Creek
B 1 500 Riley’s Creek
H 1 2,000 NE Cape Fear River
H 3 450 total 3 canal crossings on Blue Clay Rd.
H 1 500 Blue Clay Rd. at Hwy 117
H 1 600 Sidbury Rd. at I-40
H 1 200 Sidbury Rd. at creek east of I-40
H 1 200 Sidbury Rd. at Island creek
H 1 200 Sidbury Rd. at creek NW of Hwy 17
4-10
Page 75 of 139
Legend

T
3
B (16-inch)
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
Page 76 of 139
G (24-inch)
H (30-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
B (1 Additional T
U
6 '') 0.7 MG Hwy 210 Tank
)
C (20'' T
U
T
U Ú
"
Rocky
T
U
Point
Tank Hampstead Ú
"
Tank
'')
T
U
6
(1
F
'')
4
(2
G
U Additional 0.3
T
3
Q MG (Scotts
Hill Tank)
H (30
'')
Figure 4-3: Alternative 1A Recommended Improvements

´
Miles
Table 4-7. Alternative 1A Conceptual Cost Estimate

Improvement Diameter Length Conceptual Cost
Type Location Description (inches) (feet) Estimate
Hwy 210 from Little Kelly
Segment C 20 27,700 $8,500,000
Road to Hwy 117
Transmission Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New
Segment G 24 13,800 $5,800,000
Scotts Hill Tank
Segment H Hwy 421 to Scotts Hill 30 91,600 $45,500,000
New 0.3 EST on Hwy 17 near
New Scotts
Storage Pender Fire Station 18/EMS in $1,500,000
Hill
Scotts Hill
Increase HSPS capacity to 6
Pumping HSPS $500,000
mgd
Existing Increase treatment capacity
WTP $1,300,000
WTP from 2 to 6 mgd
Cost (2019 Dollars) $63,100,000
Montague Rd. from Hwy 421
Segment B to Hwy 210 and Hwy 210 to 16 31,100
Transmission Little Kelly Road $9,100,000
Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to
Segment F 16 17,100
Hampstead Tank $4,100,000
New Rocky New 0.7 MG EST near existing
Storage
Point Rocky Point Tank $2,700,000
Increase HSPS capacity to 12.4
Pumping HSPS
mgd $3,000,000
WTP
WTP from 6 to 10 mgd $27,000,000
Cost (2019 Dollars) $45,900,000

Alternative 1A Planning-Level Capital Cost (2025 and 2040) $162,000,000
4-12
Page 77 of 139
4.2.2.3 Alternative 1A: Pros and Cons

Table 4-8 lists the pros and cons of Alternative 1A in comparison to those of Alternatives 1, 1B
and 2.
Table 4-8. Pros and Cons of Alternative 1A

Pros Cons
Least expensive of Alternatives 1 and 1B More permitting requirements than Alternative 1 and
1B
Less piping than Alternative 1
Reduces pipe sizes of some segments from May require easements
Alternative 1
No new additional PCU staff required Long HDD (2,000’) of NE Cape Fear River
Lower O&M costs than Alternative 2 Requires expansion of WTP beyond 6 MGD capacity
Improves redundancy and ability to supply the Longer schedule than Alternatives 1 and 1B
eastern service area.
Would require pipeline route through New Hanover
County and CFPUA territory
No interconnections between WTP and Scotts Hill
4.2.3 Alternative 1B: Surface Water Supply from Pender County WTP Only;
Alternative Transmission Routing from Hwy. 421 to Hwy. 210
Alternative 1B evaluates the necessary water system improvements if a new RO WTP is not
constructed within the eastern service area and some pipeline routes follow existing alignments
and a new pipeline alignment installed from the WTP, north on Highway 421 and connecting to
Highway 210. This would eliminate pipeline segment B and shorten segment A. The proposed
improvements for Alternative 1B are identified on Figure 4-4. The conceptual cost estimates for
the recommended improvements are listed in Table 4-9.

during design.
4-13
Page 78 of 139
Legend

3
T
Ú
A (36-inch)
C (36-inch)
Page 79 of 139
D (24-inch)
E (24-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
'') T
U
24
D(
'')
C (36 T
U
T
U Ú
Ú
"
[
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
E(
24
Ú
"
'')
Hampstead Tank
T
U
')
36'
'')
A(
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3
Figure 4-4: Alternative 1B Recommended Improvements

´
Miles
Table 4-9. Alternative 1B Conceptual Cost Estimate

Segment
Hwy 421 from WTP to Montague Rd 36 41,700 $32,300,000
A1
Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Rd to Hwy
Segment C 20 27,700 $8,500,000
117
Transmission Hwy. 210 from Hwy 117 to Hwy 210
Segment D 24 32,700 $16,800,000
PS
Segment E Hwy 210 from Hwy 210 PS to Hwy 17 24 40,300 $13,700,000
Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New Scotts
Segment G 8 13,800 $2,000,000
Hill Tank
New New 0.3 EST on Hwy 17 near Pender
Storage $1,500,000
Scotts Hill Fire Station 18/EMS in Scotts Hill
 Install 2 smaller pumps (2,300
Hwy 210
gpm @ 50 feet TDH, 40 hp each) $3,600,000
Pumping PS
 Install pump bases/piping for
future pumps
HSPS Increase HSPS capacity to 6.5 mgd $500,000
Existing Increase treatment capacity from 2
WTP $1,300,000
WTP to 6 mgd
Cost (2019 Dollars) $80,200,000
Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to Hampstead
Transmission Segment F 16 17,100
Tank $4,100,000
New Rocky New 0.7 MG EST near existing Rocky
Storage
Point Point Tank. $2,700,000
Add large pumps to Hwy 210 PS
New Hwy
(3,400 gpm at 100 ft TDH, 70 hp
Pumping 210 PS
each) $300,000
HSPS Increase HSPS capacity to 10 mgd $3,000,000
Existing Increase treatment capacity from 6
WTP
WTP to 10 mgd $27,000,000
Cost (2019 Dollars) $37,100,000
Alternative 1B Planning-Level Capital Cost (2025 and 2040) $168,800,000
1) Modified pipeline route in comparison to Segment A of Alternative 1.
4-15
Page 80 of 139
Table 4-10. Alternative 1B: Expected Trenchless Crossings

Length1
Pipe Segment Jack and Bore HDD (Ft.) Obstacle
A 1 5,500 NE Cape Fear River
D 1 500 Hwy 117
D 1 2,000 I-40
D 1 1,500 NE Cape Fear River
D 1 300 Merrick’s Creek
E 1 300 Harrison’s Creek
4.2.3.3 Alternative 1B: Pros and Cons

Table 4-11 lists the pros and cons of Alternative 1B in comparison to those of Alternatives 1, 1A
and 2.
Table 4-11. Pros and Cons of Alternative 1B

Pros Cons
Less expensive than Alternative 1 More permitting requirements than Alternative 1
Less permitting/NCDOT coordination than Alternative 1A More expensive than Alternatives 1A and 2
Least amount of piping in comparison to Alternatives 1 and 1A Will require easements
No new additional PCU staff required Long HDD (5,500 feet) of NE Cape Fear River
Lower O&M costs than Alternative 2 Requires expansion of WTP beyond 6-mgd capacity
Improves operation of Malpass Tank and Rocky Point Tank.
Eliminates pipeline segment B
Quicker schedule than Alternatives 1 and 1A.
4.2.4 Alternative 2: New PCU-Owned Reverse Osmosis (RO) Groundwater WTP

Alternative 2 evaluates the necessary water system improvements if a new RO WTP is
constructed within the eastern service area. A discussion of the groundwater availability and
quality for the RO WTP and conceptual design follows, along with the conceptual cost estimates
and pros and cons of the alternative.
4-16
Page 81 of 139
4.2.4.1 Groundwater Availability and Feasibility

4.2.4.1.1 Description of Evaluation
A desktop analysis of groundwater availability and quality was conducted to evaluate the
feasibility of installing a series of wells to augment Pender County water supply in the eastern
service area. The evaluation focused on the area around the unincorporated community of
Hampstead and the southern portion of the Holly Shelter Game Land near US Highway 17.
Hampstead and the Holly Shelter Game Lands are shown on Figure 4-5. The 15 county-owned
properties in this area are also shown on Figure 4-5. These properties, depending on existing use,
available space, and surrounding land uses, may be candidates for water supply well
construction; however, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the County would need
to purchase additional property to develop a centralized wellfield capable of supporting a RO
WTP that can produce up to 6 mgd of finished water.
4.2.4.1.2 Review of Available Data

The desktop evaluation was supported by information found in hydrogeologic studies of the area
and from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Groundwater Management Branch databases. Information from the NCDEQ
databases includes geophysical logs; hydrogeologic cross sections; aquifer characteristics; well
data including depth, yield and water quality; and groundwater levels. Table 4-12 provides a
summary of the well data obtained for the Hampstead-area wells identified in Figure 4-6.
4.2.4.1.3 Hydrogeology
Pender County is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province within the Tidewater region. Land
surface altitudes in the Tidewater region range from sea level to 10 feet above mean sea level
(Winner and Coble, 1989). The Tidewater region is relatively flat and contains swampy areas. The
Coastal Plain aquifers in this area contain alternating units of sand, clay, silt, limestone, and
sandstone, which thicken towards the east (McSwain et al., 2014).
The hydrogeology of the Hampstead area of Pender County consists of a series of aquifers,
including the surficial, Castle Hayne, Peedee, Black Creek, Upper Cape Fear, and Lower Cape Fear
aquifers, and corresponding confining units overlying Cambrian age basement rocks. The Castle
Hayne aquifer is separated from the surficial aquifer by the Castle Hayne confining unit. The
Peedee confining unit and aquifer underlie the Castle Hayne aquifer. The Castle Hayne and
Peedee confining units are made up of silt, clay, and sandy clay. The Castle Hayne aquifer is
comprised of highly permeable limestone and the Peedee aquifer is comprised of sandstone
(McSwain et al., 2014).
4-17
Page 82 of 139
Holly Shelter
Game Lands
£
¤ 17
Page 83 of 139
11
15
12
13
6 8 14
4 9
10
Topsail 5
7
£
17
¤ Parcel Label
Parcel Identification
Acres
Number
1 3282-29-4762-0000 0.57
2
2 3283-83-2003-0000 40.53
3 3292-19-1804-0000 0.97
4 3293-77-4609-0000 26.81
5 3293-86-1860-0000 2.14
V
U
210 3 6 3293-87-2994-0000 27.38
1 7 3293-87-3230-0000 7.17
8 3293-88-6360-0000 41.43
9 4203-17-8616-0000 19.50
10 4203-67-2174-0000
V
U50 0.50
Legend 11 4204-73-3307-0000 0.45
Hampstead
Game Lands 12 4204-81-4932-0000 17.91
13 4213-19-2302-0000 30.95
Parcel Boundary
14 4213-18-2238-0000 1.35
County-Owned Property 15 4214-12-5195-0000 0.25
Parcels and Game Lands Figure 4-5: Hampstead and Holly Shelter
from NCONEMAP, 2018. Game Lands Area and
´
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
County-Owned Properties
1 inch = 1 mile Pender County Utilities
Table 4-12. Hampstead Area Water Supply Well Summary

Install Well Depth Well Yield
Well Code Aquifer Date (feet bgs) (gpm)
Belvedere Country Club - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/1/2004 90 30
Carolina Water Service, Inc. - Olde Point Well #1 Castle Hayne -- -- --
Castle Bay - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/11/2002 236 150
Castle Bay - Well #2 Castle Hayne 1/11/2002 226 70
Castle Bay Corp. Castle Bay Golf Course - Well 1 Castle Hayne -- -- --
Cedar on the Green - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/6/1999 100 160
Coastal Fitness Center Castle Hayne 1/8/2003 95 10
CVS Pharmacy #7046 - Hampstead - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/7/2009 82 100
DWR Topsail Station - BB 28J4 Castle Hayne 1/9/1983 160 100
Hampstead Station Shopping Ctr - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/5/1993 120 180
Port City Java - Hampstead - Well #1 Castle Hayne 1/2/2006 90 40
Sidbury's MHP - Well #2 Castle Hayne 1/6/1977 95 114
Spring Branch Junction Bus - Well #1 Castle Hayne 10/1/1999 110 150
Topsail Senior Center - Well #2 Castle Hayne 11/1/2004 100 25
USGS 342135077404501 PE-117 NR Castle Hayne -- 90 --
USGS 342142077430701 PE-094 MAS 12 Castle Hayne -- 90 --
USGS 342359077404104 PE-107 Castle Hayne -- 160 --
USGS 342435077365401 PE-099 MAS 12B NR Castle Hayne -- 90 --
Vintage Associates LLC - Well #2 Castle Hayne 6/5/2010 100 60
Belvedere Plantation - Well #1 Peedee 10/1/1979 288 500
Castle Bay S/D - Well #1 Peedee 11/1/2002 226 70
Castle Bay S/D - Well #2 Peedee 11/1/2002 236 150
DWR Topsail Station - BB 28J2 Peedee 8/30/1983 493 10
NC Oil and Gas Lea No. 1 - BB 28N Peedee -- -- --
Olde Point S/D - Well #2A Peedee 5/1/1982 230 200
South Topsail Elem. School - Well #1 Peedee 8/1/1998 220 100
Belvedere Plantation - Well #2 Castle Hayne/Peedee 10/1/1979 200 500
Hampstead Pines - Well #1 Castle Hayne/Peedee 1/1/2005 198 130
Hampstead Pines - Well #2 Castle Hayne/Peedee 1/1/2005 198 180
Lea's Waterfront MHP - Well #1 Castle Hayne/Peedee 1/6/1977 200 210
Olde Point S/D - Well #1 Castle Hayne/Peedee 1/5/1982 200 150
Topsail Greens - Well #1 Castle Hayne/Peedee 12/1/1985 265 300
Topsail Greens - Well #2 Castle Hayne/Peedee 12/1/1985 265 300
Notes:
1) Data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (DWR) - Groundwater Management
Branch Databases or the United States.
2) bgs – Below Ground Surface
3) AMSL- Above Mean Sea Level
4) gpm – Gallons Per Minute
5) (--) – No data available
6) Wells located in the Castle Hayne/Peedee aquifers are screened across both aquifers
4-19
Page 84 of 139
Legend
Topsail Senior
Well Location Center - Well #2 =
&
=
& Castle Hayne Aquifer
=
& Peedee Aquifer Holly Shelter Coastal
Game Lands Fitness
=
& Castle Hayne/Peedee Aquifer Center
£ 17
County-Owned Property ¤
Page 85 of 139
=
&
Game Lands
DWR Topsail Topsail
Station - =
& Greens -
Well #1 PE-099 MAS
BB 28J2
Castle 12B NR
Castle Bay Corp. Castle Bay S/D - =
& =
&
Castle Bay Golf Bay S/D - Well #2 Topsail
Course - Well 1 Well #1 Greens - =
&
Belvedere Well #2
=
&
PE-107 =
& Plantation
Castle Bay PE-112 NR
- Well #2
- Well #2 &
=
=
&=&
&= &
=
=
&
Cedar on DWR Topsail
Castle Bay Station - BB 28J4
- Well #1 the Green
- Well #1 17
=
& Belvedere
Topsail
£
¤ Country Club
=
& Carolina Water - Well #1
Spring Branch Junction & Service, Inc. -
South Topsail Bus - Well #1
= =
&
Olde Point Well #1
Elem. School
- Well #1 PE-123 NR Olde &
=
Point S/D Olde Point S/D
=
& Hampstead - Well #1 - Well #2A
=
&
NC Oil and Pines -
Gas Lea No. Vintage Well #2 Hampstead Belvedere
1 - BB 28N Associates Pines - Plantation
LLC - Well #2 =
& = Well #1
& - Well #1
V
U
210 &
= =
&
CVS Pharmacy Hampstead
#7046 - Hampstead Station Shopping
- Well #1 Ctr - Well #1
PE-116 NR V
U50
&
=
1. Well locations obtained from the North Carolina Department
&
=
PE-094 MAS 12 =
& Hampstead PE-117 NR of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources -
Groundwater Management Branch Databases or the United
=
&
=
& Port City Java
- Hampstead Sidbury's =
& =
& States Geological Survey National Water Information System
- Well #1 MHP - Lea's Waterfront for USA: Site Inventory
Well #2 =
& MHP - Well #1 2. Wells located in the Castle Hayne/Peedee are screened
£
¤17 across both aquifers
V
U
1559
Parcels and Game Lands Figure 4-6: Existing Water Supply Wells
´
from NCONEMAP, 2018. Miles Pender County Utilities
0 0.5 1 2
1 inch = 1 mile
Hydrogeologic cross-sections across Hampstead and the Holly Shelter Game Lands were created
from the DWR Groundwater Management Branch database (See Appendix B). The hydrogeologic
cross sections show the thickness of the aquifers and confining units, and the estimated location
of the saltwater interface (250 mg/L chloride concentration). Cross-section locations with
borehole locations are shown on Figure 4-7. The Castle Hayne aquifer is approximately 100- to
125-feet thick in the Hampstead area and the Peedee aquifer is approximately 250 to 350-feet
thick, as shown on Figures 4-8 and 4-9. The Castle Hayne confining unit and aquifer, as well as
the Peedee confining unit, thicken slightly from west to east. The Peedee aquifer generally
remains the same thickness throughout. From the Hampstead area to the Holly Shelter Game
Lands in the north, the thickness of the aquifers and the confining units generally remains the
same. The Castle Hayne and the uppermost part of the Peedee aquifer is freshwater, as shown by
the saltwater interfaces on Figures 4-8 and 4-9. The saltwater interface through the Peedee
aquifer becomes deeper to the north, away from the coast.
In the Peedee aquifer, groundwater generally flows from west to east, as shown in Figure 4-10.
In the Castle Hayne aquifer, groundwater flows from northwest to southeast, as shown in the
potentiometric surface map provided in Figure 4-11.
4.2.4.1.4 Groundwater Quality

Water quality data from eight of Hampstead-area wells screened across the Castle Hayne and/or
Peedee aquifers were obtained from the DWR Groundwater Management Branch Database and
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS). The
available water quality analyses and results are provided in Tables 4-13, 4-14 and 4-15.
All USGS wells (well names beginning with “PE”) and the DWR’s Topsail Station – BB 28J4 well
are screened across the Castle Hayne aquifer. DWR’s Topsail Station BB 28J2 well is screened in
the lower portion of the Peedee aquifer, below the saltwater interface. Chloride concentrations in
the lower Peedee aquifer have ranged from 300 to 1,535 mg/L.
Hampstead-area public water systems that withdraw from the Castle Hayne and/or upper Peedee
aquifers, including Hampstead Pines, Castle Bay, Olde Point, Belvedere Plantation, and Topsail
Greens, use pressure sand filtration, greensand filtration/permanganate, or sequestration for iron
removal; ion exchange for inorganics removal and/or softening; orthophosphate for corrosion
control; and hypochlorination for disinfection.
4-21
Page 86 of 139
B'
"
Holly Shelter
Game Lands
£
¤17
DWR Topsail
Station -
BB 28J2
&
=
=
&
DWR Topsail
Station -
BB 28J4
Topsail
17
£
¤
V
U
1574
V
U210
A'
A
" NC Oil and
"
= Gas Lea No.
&
1 - BB 28N
Legend Hampstead
A A1 Cross Section Line

Borehole Location
=
& B
"
Game Lands V
U50
Tr
o ut
£17
Parcel Boundary ¤
t S
Parcels and Game Lands

from NCONEMAP, 2018. Figure 4-7: Hydrogeologic Cross
´ 0
Page 87 of1 139
0.5
inch = 1 mile
1 2
Miles Section Locations
West East
Ground Surface
Castle Hayne
Confining Unit
Castle Hayne Aquifer
Peedee
Confining Unit
Page 88 of 139
Saltwater Interface
Peedee Aquifer
Black Creek
Confining Unit
Black Creek Aquifer

Upper Cape Fear
Confining Unit
Upper Cape Fear Aquifer
Lower Cape Fear

Confining Unit
Lower Cape Fear Aquifer
Basement
Cross section was generated from the North Carolina

Department of Environmental Quality – Division of Water
Resources – Groundwater Data Map Interface
Figure 4-8: Hydrogeologic Cross Section A to A’

South North
Ground Surface
Castle Hayne
Confining Unit
Castle Hayne Aquifer
Peedee
Page 89 of 139
Confining Unit
Peedee Aquifer
Saltwater Interface
Black Creek
Confining Unit
Black Creek Aquifer
Upper Cape Fear

Confining Unit
Upper Cape Fear Aquifer
Lower Cape Fear

Confining Unit
Lower Cape Fear Aquifer
Basement
Cross section was generated from the North Carolina

Department of Environmental Quality – Division of Water
Figure 4-9: Hydrogeologic Cross Section B to B’

Page 90 of 139
Hampstead Legend
Peedee Aquifer (fresh extent)
Peedee Aquifer (transition zone)
Peedee Aquifer (salt extent)

3.15
Well Location
(groundwater in feet above mean sea level)
Potentiometric Contour
Contour Interval = 10 feet
Notes:
1. Image and contours were generated from
the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality – Division of Water
2. Groundwater levels were measured in 2018
´
Figure 4-10:
Figure Castle
4-10: Hayne
Peedee Potentiometric
Aquifer PotentiometricSurface
SurfaceMap
Map
0 3 6 12 18
1 inch = 6 miles
Page 91 of 139
´
Miles
Figure 4-11: Castle Hayne Aquifer
0 1 2 Potentiometric Surface Map
1 inch = 1 mile Pender County Utilities
Table 4-13. Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – Field Parameters

Dissolved
Specific oxygen
Temp. Conductivity (DO) pH
(degrees
Well Code Aquifer Sample Date Celsius) (µS/cm) (mg/L) (S.U.)
DWR Well Code
10/12/1999 -- 3,720 -- --
Castle Hayne
9/21/2010 -- 3,560 -- 12.34
Topsail Station - BB 28J4 9/12/2012 -- 373 -- 8.63
9/3/2015 -- 3,914 -- 12.44
9/7/2017 -- 3,066 -- 12.13
8/6/1998 -- 5,980 -- --
10/12/1999 -- 1,248 -- --
9/10/2004 -- 3,102 -- --
Peedee
9/25/2007 -- 1,273 -- 8.31
Topsail Station - BB 28J2
9/21/2010 -- 4,565 -- 9.30
9/12/2012 -- 4,410 -- 8.77
9/3/2015 -- 5,250 -- 9.26
9/7/2017 -- 4,895 -- 9.29
USGS Well Site Number USGS Well Site Name
342142077430701 PE-094 MAS 12 9/11/2002 21.9 308 0.1 7.5
9/10/2013 18.7 475 0.2 7.0
342300077425401 PE-123 NR 9/10/2013 -- -- 0.3 --
9/10/2013 -- -- 0.2 --
Castle Hayne
8/30/2012 21.7 756 0.1 7.1

8/21/2013 22.0 863 0.1 7.3
342135077404501 PE-117 NR
8/21/2013 -- -- 0.3 --
8/21/2013 -- -- 0.2 --
342200077412901 PE-116 NR 8/30/2012 18.7 413 0.1 6.9
342359077404104 PE-107 6/16/2009 18.6 3,700 6.8 11.7
342423077365201 PE-112 NR 8/30/2012 19.6 283 0.1 7.4
Notes:
1. Data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (DWR) - Groundwater
Management Branch Databases of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System for USA: Site Inventory
2. µS/cm – Microsiemens per centimeter
3. mg/L – Milligrams per liter
4. S.U. – Standard units
5. (--) – Not measured
4-27
Page 92 of 139
Table 4-14. Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – General Chemistry

Alkalinity Organic Carbon Carbon Dioxide Bicarbonate Methane Ammonia Nitrate Total Nitrogen Argon Bromide Calcium Sodium Potassium Chloride Salinity Sulfate Fluoride
Well Code Aquifer Sample Date
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ng/L mg/L mg/L
Page 93 of 139
DWR Well Code

11/14/96 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 -- -- --
10/12/99 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 2.0 -- --
9/21/10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- < 33 1.9 -- --
Topsail Station - BB 28J4 Castle Hayne
9/12/12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- < 28 0.2 -- --
9/3/15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- < 31 2.1 -- --
9/7/17 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- < 31 1.6 -- --
11/14/96 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,500 -- -- --
8/6/98 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,535 3.3 -- --
10/12/99 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 300 0.6 -- --
9/10/04 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 908 1.6 -- --
Topsail Station - BB 28J2 Peedee 9/25/07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 906 0.6 -- --
9/21/10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,414 2.4 -- --
9/12/12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,153 2.4 -- --
9/3/15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,218 2.8 -- --
9/7/17 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,090 2.6 -- --
USGS Well
USGS Well Site #
Site Name
PE-094
342142077430701 9/11/02 136 4.7 7.7 166 -- 0.29 -- -- -- -- 57.7 6.04 0.68 10 -- 0.46 E 0.10
MAS 12
9/10/13 227 3.44 47 277 -- 0.172 -- 0.19 -- 0.072 92.4 8.57 1.33 12 -- < 0.09 0.07
342300077425401 PE-123 NR 9/10/13 -- -- 28.6 -- 2.35 -- -- -- 0.681 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
9/10/13 -- -- 27.7 -- 2.18 -- -- -- 0.672 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
8/30/12 181 -- 31 220 -- -- -- -- -- 0.398 81.2 72.9 1.1 117 -- 19.4 --
Castle Hayne 8/21/13 187 1.97 17 228 0.23 0.092 0.003 0.13 0.674 0.502 74.5 86 1.14 137 -- 22.9 0.13
342135077404501 PE-117 NR
8/21/13 -- -- 11.6 -- 0.233 -- -- -- 0.676 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
8/21/13 -- -- 10.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
342200077412901 PE-116 NR 8/30/12 196 -- 48 239 -- -- -- -- -- 0.043 78.9 9.08 0.91 15.4 -- 1.74 --
6/16/09 790 -- -- -- -- 0.146 E 0.004 -- -- -- 346 3.68 0.93 12.2 -- 5.34 < 0.08
342359077404104 PE-107
9/5/12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.041 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
342423077365201 PE-112 NR 8/30/12 66 -- 4.7 80 -- -- -- -- -- 0.087 46.3 7.76 0.88 15.6 -- 42.1 --
Notes:
1. Data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (DWR) - Groundwater Management Branch Databases of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System for USA: Site Inventory
2. ng/L – Nanograms per liter
4. E – The concentration is estimated
5. (--) – Not analyzed
4-28
Table 4-15. Hampstead Area Groundwater Quality – Metals

USGS Well Site Number USGS Well Site Name Aquifer Sample Date Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead
Units (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
Page 94 of 139
342142077430701 PE-094 MAS 12 9/11/2002 < 0.050 1.4 < 0.2 22.7 < 0.060 18 < 0.040 < 0.8 0.112 E 0.1 1210 E 0.051
342300077425401 PE-123 NR 9/10/2013 0.16 6.7 0.05 13.6 < 0.006 24 0.729 0.51 0.1 41.9 591 1.28
8/30/2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,800 --
342135077404501 PE-117 NR
Castle Hayne 8/21/2013 < 0.027 < 2.2 0.06 19.3 < 0.006 19 < 0.016 < 0.07 0.076 < 0.80 3,210 < 0.025
342200077412901 PE-116 NR 8/30/2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 481 --
342359077404104 PE-107 6/16/2009 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- E 3.5 --
342423077365201 PE-112 NR 8/30/2012 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 294 --
USGS Well Site Number USGS Well Site Name Aquifer Sample Date Lithium Manganese Magnesium Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zinc
Units (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
342142077430701 PE-094 MAS 12 9/11/2002 1.48 20.4 1.73 < 0.200 2.28 < 0.3 < 1.00 119 0.298 2.3 1.4
342300077425401 PE-123 NR 9/10/2013 3.66 42 2.68 0.17 16.3 < 0.03 0.016 159 < 0.010 0.15 53.6
8/30/2012 -- -- 6.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
342135077404501 PE-117 NR
Castle Hayne 8/21/2013 2.94 75.2 6.95 0.155 0.97 < 0.03 < 0.005 166 < 0.010 0.15 18.1
342200077412901 PE-116 NR 8/30/2012 -- -- 2.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
342359077404104 PE-107 6/16/2009 -- < 0.60 < 0.036 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
342423077365201 PE-112 NR 8/30/2012 -- -- 2.65 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Notes:
1. Data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (DWR) - Groundwater Management Branch Databases of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System for USA: Site Inventory
2. µg/L – Micrograms per liter
4. E – The concentration is estimated
5. (--) – Not analyzed
4-29
Based on a review of available groundwater information and investigations in the eastern service
area, it is anticipated the quality of groundwater associated with a withdrawal of 5 mgd or more
will require treatment to remove contaminants such as chlorides and hardness. A new RO WTP is
an option to provide the required treatment.
4.2.4.1.5 Expected Well Yields

Well yields in the Hampstead area range from 10 to 180 gpm in the Castle Hayne aquifer. In the
Peedee aquifer, well yields range from 10 to 500 gpm. Well yields for wells screened across both
aquifers range from 130 to 500 gpm. Well yields are listed in Table 4-12 and shown on Figure 4-
12. Well yields listed in Table 4-12 are assumed to be based on well driller observations during
well construction.
4.2.4.1.6 Wellfield Assumptions

To meet near-term (2020) peak system demands, PCU has been investigating the installation of
several wells in the Castle Hayne and/or upper Peedee aquifers in the Hampstead area that could
provide a combined 1 mgd yield. Based on existing well yields and groundwater quality, it is
reasonable to expect that two wells screened across the Castle Hayne and/or upper Peedee
aquifers would have combined yield of 700 gpm (1 mgd) and require only minimal treatment
(e.g., iron removal and disinfection).
To meet the long-term water supply needs due to growth in the eastern Pender service area, a RO
WTP producing up to 6 mgd of finished water was evaluated as an option. To support a 6-mgd RO
WTP, approximately 15 wells would be necessary assuming an average daily yield of 350 gpm per
well. For conceptual planning purposes, two Castle Hayne aquifer wells providing approximately
10 percent of the total 6 mgd were assumed. These wells would not require treatment by RO.
Thirteen wells would be screened across the entire Peedee aquifer and require treatment by RO
to remove salt and other dissolves solids.
Because of the number of wells required, it is assumed that the County would need to purchase
property in the Hampstead area to develop a centralized or distributed wellfield. Assuming a
minimum well spacing of approximately 1,000 feet, between 200 and 350 acres of land would be
necessary for a centralized wellfield.
Figure 4-13 provides a conceptual representation of a wellfield with 15 wells, piping, and a RO
WTP site located on approximately 215 acres of undeveloped property immediately west of the
Holly Shelter Game Lands and north of the Topsail Middle School. Note that this is only a
conceptual representation. No evaluation of the suitability of this particular property for a
wellfield and RO WTP was performed, other than to account for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposed Hampstead Bypass (Transportation Improvement Project R-
3300B) which includes right-of-way at the southern portion of the property.
An alternative site was also identified just west of SR 210 and north of US 17, as shown in Figure
4-14. Approximately 275 acres would be needed for 15-well wellfield and a RO WTP at this
location. Additional studies would be necessary to further determine the suitability of these or
other properties for a centralized wellfield. Alternatively, a distributed wellfield could be
developed on several non-adjacent properties. Wells distributed across multiple, non-adjacent
properties would require a larger capital investment in pumping and conveyance infrastructure.
4-30
Page 95 of 139
Legend 25
County-Owned Property =
&
Game Lands
Aquifer Holly Shelter
Game Lands
=
& Castle Hayne Aquifer
10 £ 17
=
& Peedee Aquifer ¤
Page 96 of 139
=
&
=
& Castle Hayne/Peedee Aquifer
Location of well and reported 300
well yield, in gallons per minute =
& 300
= <100
= 100 - 199
=
&
500
= 200 - 299 70
10
= 300 - 399 70 &&

==
=
&
&
=
150
=
&
&
=
=
& 100 30
400 - 499
= 150 160
£
¤ 17
=
&
Topsail 500
= >499 &
=
150
100
150 &
&
=&
= &
=
= 200
=
&
180
60
=
& &
= 130
V
U
210 =
&
100 V
U50
&
=
40 = 180
& Hampstead
114 1. Well locations and yield information obtained from the North
=
&
=
& Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Division of
Water Resources - Groundwater Management Branch Databases
2. Wells located in the Castle Hayne/Peedee are screened
17
& 210
= across both aquifers
V
U
1559
£
¤
Parcels and Game Lands Figure 4-12: Water Supply Well Yields
from NCONEMAP, 2018.
´
0 0.5 1 2
1 inch = 1 mile
Legend
Road
215 acre eastern !
!
Holly
!
! Well portion of existing, Shelter Game
privately owned !
RO Plant
!
Lands
#
Water Line property
Hampstead Bypass
!
!
Proposed Right of Way !
!
Page
Game Lands
Si 97 of 139
!
!
rW
alt
er
Ct
!
! !
!
Wells !
!
!
!
(15 total)
#
!
Highlan
!
!
d s Dr
!
!
!
!
Ca
iso
n
Dr
!
!
RO Plant !
!
#
le
st r
Ca y D
M
Ba
oo C
W
re t
ind Hampstead Bypass

he
so
a
r
Proposed
d
Ct
Right of Way
Tr
an
sf
er
17
£
¤
St
17
at
-
io
US
n
Rd
Blu
Annand
Ests ebird
Vi MH
sta P
Ln
a
iah
le Ter
ar
M Cv
´
Feet Site 1
1 in = 1,000 ft
Legend V
U
210
Road NC
Berry
Hoo
-21
Well 0W
ver R
!
!
P
atch R
RO Plant
RO Plant Ln
d
Water Line
PIN V
U 210
rn
s
3282-68-9314-000 Bu
Pe
#
(36 acres)
a
Potential Wellfield Property
nu
Ln
tR
y
Page 98 of 139
ns
d
Pa
#
!
Co Rd
!
lle
ge
!
! !
!
Lea Dr
EXT
Wells !
! Fa
cto
(15 Total) Rd r y
!
!
#
!
!
!
275 acre portion of
!
Dan
two privately owned Ow
en
D r
properties
#
!
! !
!
17
£
¤
PIN
!
!
7
-1
3282-15-9252-000
US
Hea
(239 of 1,261 acres)
d wa
#
!
! !
!
De
ters
r
tD
er
fie
nu
Dr
ld
ka
!
!
berry
Dr
uc
Blue
Ch
Ln
!
!
r
rD
!
Gr ire
!
Wa ss
nt
Hu
W
Ce
a
y
gh
SE
es
Washin d
Cre
Rd
Acres R
C ekv
en iew
t er Dr
gton
D
r
´
Feet Site 2
1 in = 1,000 ft
Although the County owns several properties in the Hampstead area that could be considered for
locating wellheads and/or a new RO WTP, most of these properties are already used for other
purposes.
4.2.4.2 RO WTP Conceptual Design

Alternative 2 assumes that PCU chooses to design, permit, construct, operate, and maintain their
own RO WTP to provide potable water to the eastern service area. Figures 4-15, 4-16 and 4-17
present a conceptual design for a RO treatment process that could be implemented. The
estimated recovery rate of the RO membranes is 80 to 85 percent, i.e. it will require
approximately 6 mgd of groundwater to produce 5 mgd of permeate (treated water). For this
analysis, groundwater is assumed to be supplied from a series of wellheads located near the
proposed new RO WTP.
Figures 4-15 is a typical process flow diagram for an RO water treatment plant. Figure 4-16
shows renderings of typical RO skid configurations. The skids shown have a permeate capacity of
1.5 mgd. This skid size can be assembled and prewired at a shop and delivered as a single unit to
Pender County for installation. To meet the near-term water demand of 3 mgd, a minimum of
two skids would be required. Long-term water demands (5 mgd) will require a minimum of four
RO skids. The skids, cartridge filters, feed pumps, and cleaning systems would be housed inside
an RO Building. A typical configuration of an building with the RO skids is shown in Figure 4-17.
The RO WTP processes are expected to include:
 Groundwater wellfield with conveyance to the WTP

 Pretreatment using chemicals (acid or antiscalant)
 Pretreatment using cartridge filters
 RO feed pumping with multi-stage centrifugal pumps
 RO skids
 RO bypass and blending controls
 Permeate collection piping
 Chemicals for dosing alkalinity and hardness (remineralization)
 Aeration towers for dissolved gases (sulfides) removal
 Disinfection using sodium hypochlorite
 Chemicals for corrosion inhibitor
 Permeate storage tank for flushing
 Clean-in-place system including solution tanks, recirculation pump, cartridge filter, and
heating system
4-34
Page 99 of 139
Page 100 of 139
© 2012
4-15
Figure No. 4-14
Pender County RO Water Treatment Plant
Propsed Process Flow Diagram
Proposed
Page 101 of 139
© 2012
Figure No. 4-16

4-15
Typical Reverse Osmosis Unit with Sample and Control Panels
Horizontal Skid Layout
Page 102 of 139
© 2012
Courtesy of Biwater Inc
4-17
4-16
Figure No. 2-16
Typical Reverse Osmosis Facility Layout
 Ground storage tank for chlorine contact and clearwell

 High service pumping
 Concentrate discharge pump station
 Concentrate discharge pipeline
A new concentrate discharge pipeline would be required to take RO reject water from the RO
WTP most likely to the Intracoastal Waterway. Permitting of this concentrate disposal is
expected to take a minimum of one year for approval after all required studies have been
performed. Based on CDM Smith’s recent experience in Brunswick County, the State will require
a bathymetric survey of the outfall location, study of tidal impacts, determination of highwater
elevations and a dispersion study. The dispersion study will result in the preliminary design of a
diffuser system which will be included in the submittal package to the State.
In addition to an NPDES permit, depending on the outfall location, a Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) permit and 404/401 permit could be required.
Implementation timeline for a RO WTP owned by PCU is expected to take 4-5 years. This includes
up to 1 year for project planning and pilot testing, 1 year for environmental permitting (including
NPDES permitting for concentrate discharge), up to 1 additional year for design and bidding, and
2 years for construction.

The proposed improvements for Alternative 2 are identified on Figure 4-18. The conceptual cost
estimates for the recommended improvements are listed in Table 4-17. With the RO WTP as a
new source of drinking water in the eastern service area, the demands from the existing WTP are
drastically reduced, thus significantly reducing the quantity and size of pipelines needed.

during design.
Table 4-16. Alternative 2: Expected Trenchless Crossings

Length1
Pipe Segment Jack and Bore HDD (Ft.) Obstacle
B 1 300 Long Creek
B 1 1 500 Riley’s Creek
4-38
Page 103 of 139
Legend

3
3
Q New RO WTP
T
B (16-inch)
Page 104 of 139
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
T
U
B( Rocky Point Tank
16 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (20 T
U
T
U Ú
"
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
Hampstead Tank
3
Q
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3

Water Supply from New RO WTP
´
Miles
Table 4-17. Alternative 2: Conceptual Cost Estimate

Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Road
Segment C 20 27,700 $8,500,000
to Hwy 117
Transmission
Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to New
Segment G 8 13,800 $2,000,000
Scotts Hill
New Scotts
Storage Pender Fire Station 18/EMS in $1,500,000
Hill
Scotts Hill
Install a new RO WTP in
New RO
WTP Hampstead area with initial $44,200,000
WTP
capacity of 3 mgd
Cost (2019 Dollars) $56,200,000
Montague Road from Hwy 421
Segment B to Highway 210 and Hwy 210 16 31,100 $9,100,000
Transmission to Little Kelly Rd
Segment F 16 17,100 $4,100,000
Hampstead Tank
New Rocky New 0.7 MG EST near existing
Storage $2,700,000
Point Rocky Point Tank
Add pumps to increase HSPS
capacity to 6.5 mgd
$1,300,000
WTP from 2 to 6 mgd
WTP
New RO
Increase RO WTP to 5 mgd $10,000,000
WTP
Cost (2019 Dollars) $27,700,000
One Time Fee to Brunswick Co. for Raw Water Pipeline Upgrades $5,000,000

4-40
Page 105 of 139
4.2.4.5 Alternative 2: Pros and Cons

Table 4-18 lists the pros and cons of Alternative 2 in comparison to those of Alternatives 1, 1A
and 1B.
Table 4-18. Pros and Cons of Alternative 2

Pros Cons
Least capital cost of the 4 options (Alternatives 1, 1A, 1B and 2) Higher O&M costs than 1, 1a,
1b
Least amount of piping of the options Must hire and train staff to
operate wellheads and RO
system
Eliminates most piping and pump station upgrades More permitting requirements
than other 3 alternatives
Eliminates need to expand existing WTP beyond 6 mgd Must receive NPDES permit for
concentrate disposal.
Provides a redundant, second source of water for the eastern service area Longest schedule of any of the
that can feed the rest of the system if needed. (Existing Hwy 210 pipeline options.
limits amount of flow delivered)
Provides water supply close to demand thus reducing water age in the May require purchasing land
system
4.2.5 Alternative 2A: New Privately-Owned RO Groundwater WTP

Alternative 2A evaluates PCU’s option to utilize a third party, privately-owned utility to supply
water in the eastern service area of the County. For the analysis, it is assumed the third party
would design, permit, construct, operate, and maintain a new RO WTP at the same location
assumed for Alternative 2. Hence, transmission, storage, and pumping requirements for
Alternative 2A would be identical to the recommended improvements for Alternative 2. The
private utility would also maintain a short transmission line and would wholesale treated water
to Pender County.
PCU has spoken with a private water company that provides water and wastewater services in
four southeastern states, including North Carolina. The company operates three wastewater
treatment systems for communities in Pender County and Onslow County. They have provided
Pender County a proposal to provide approximately 1 mgd of potable water from an RO plant to a
portion of the eastern service area with an assumed 0.2 mgd going to the Town of Topsail Beach.
The private water company would provide design, permitting, construction, operation, and
maintenance of a new 1-mgd RO WTP including concentrate disposal and wellhead construction
located in the Hampstead area. The treated water would be sold at a bulk rate of $5.95/1000
gallons to PCU who in turn would provide distribution to customers in the service area. The
private water company has stated they can have a plant online by spring 2021.
NOTE: In accordance with PCU’s direction, CDM Smith has made the assumption that the private
water provider can provide a RO WTP of 3 mgd initially and 5 mgd ultimate design by 2040 and the
rate of $5.95/1,000 gallons will be the initial rate and only adjusted for inflation. CDM Smith has
also assumed that PCU would fund the cost of the concentrate disposal pipeline with this option.
This has not been confirmed with the private water company as of the date of this report.
4-41
Page 106 of 139

The proposed improvements for Alternative 2A are the same as Alternative 2 and identified on
Figure 4-18. The conceptual cost estimates for the recommended improvements are listed in
Table 4-19. Pricing for this option only includes the distribution system upgrades required of
PCU to incorporate a RO WTP funded by the private utility.
Table 4-19. Alternative 2A Conceptual Cost Estimate

Hwy 210 from Little Kelly Rd
Segment C 20 27,700 $8,500,000
to Hwy 117
Segment G Hwy 17 from Hwy 210 to 8 13,800 $2,000,000
Transmission
Conc. Concentrate Pipeline from
6 52,800 $3,900,000
Pipeline RO WTP to outfall
New Scotts
Storage Pender Fire Station 18/EMS $1,500,000
Hill
in Scotts Hill
Cost (2019 Dollars) $15,900,000
Montague Rd from Hwy 421
Segment B to Highway 210 and Hwy 210 16 31,100 $9,100,000
Transmission to Little Kelly Rd
Segment F 16 17,100 $4,100,000
Hampstead Tank
New Rocky New 0.7 MG EST near
Storage $2,700,000
Point existing Rocky Point Tank
Add pumps to increase HSPS
capacity to 6.5 mgd
WTP $1,300,000
WTP from 2 to 6 mgd
Cost (2019 Dollars) $17,700,000
One Time Fee to Brunswick Co. for Raw Water Pipeline Upgrades $5,000,000

4-42
Page 107 of 139
4.2.5.2 Pros and Cons

Table 4-20 lists pros and cons of Alternative 2A (Privately-owned RO WTP) versus Alternative 2
(PCU-Owned RO WTP)
Table 4-20. Pros and Cons of Alternative 2A (Privately-Owned RO WTP) Versus Alternative 2 (PCU-Owned
RO WTP)
Pros Cons
The Private utility finances the PCU is responsible for water quality but won’t have control over the supply
design, permitting, and and treatment of water. Compliance with distribution regulations such as
construction of the the Stage 2 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Lead and
infrastructure. Reduces PCU’s Copper Rule will reside with PCU; however, treatment that may be required
capital outlay. to stay in compliance would occur at the WTP and not be provided by PCU.
PCU does not have to hire Water provided must meet State and Federal drinking water standards. PCU
additional staff to operate and may have additional water quality standards that would need to be
maintain the RO WTP. negotiated.
The current proposal from a private water company is for a 1-mgd RO WTP.
The near-term and long-term demands in the eastern service area are
projected to exceed this demand. It is assumed a larger treatment plant can
be provided, but no proposal has been received and therefore, extrapolation
in this report may not be appropriate or accurate.
The Private utility contacted does not currently operate any drinking water
systems in NC. Also, a review of installations did not indicate they have
experience with any RO membrane plants. Limited information is available to
determine qualifications to deliver the project. Their proposed timeline of 18
months would be challenging in NC.
The contract terms for purchase of water are unknown, but these may
require guaranteed minimum purchase. This would require PCU to purchase
and pay for water even though it may not be necessary to meet customer
demands. This is a particularly important consideration during low demand
seasons when the existing surface water treatment plant can meet the
demands of PCU customers. Cost recovery and profit for private utility will be
through purchase guarantees and adjustments to the bulk rate (price per
1000 gallons) for water sold.
4-43
Page 108 of 139
4.3 Interconnections
4.3.1 Town of Topsail Beach
the Town to PCU. This interconnection will allow PCU to increase its revenue while also receiving
an emergency backup.
4.3.2 Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA)

A technical memorandum titled “SHWSD – CFPUA Interconnect Feasibility Analysis” was prepared
by Highfill in August, 2018 analyzing a potential interconnection with CFPUA. The location would
be along Highway 17 in the Scotts Hill area. CFPUA has not indicated whether they are willing to
provide the interconnection. It is believed that during peak hour demands, both PCU and CFPUA
will have their water systems pushed to the limit, therefore an interconnection may only be
beneficial during pipe rupture or other catastrophic event. Also, due to hydraulic grade line
differences between PCU and CFPUA (PCU HGL is higher than CFPUA’s), the Highfill reports
recommends installing a booster pump station that will be owned, operated and maintained by
PCU to help match the HGL’s.
PCU has recently indicated a desire to construct emergency wells in the Hampstead area to
temporarily relieve some of the excessive water system demands for the eastern service area.
The construction of these wells combined with the new improvements presented in this report
make the need for an interconnection with CFPUA less urgent; however, having a backup water
source between agencies is always a good idea without the new booster pump station. With the
construction of the wells and improvements presented here, a new booster pump station would
be a large expense and would mostly sit idle.
The memorandum also evaluated and recommended a new elevated tank in the Scott’s Hill area.
CDM Smith has performed hydraulic modeling and confirmed that a new elevated tank in the
Scott’s Hill would be beneficial and is therefore recommended and included in the alternatives
presented above.
4-44
Page 109 of 139
Section 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary of Evaluation Results
5.1.1 Water Demand Projections
The Pender County population is anticipated to increase substantially for the near-term and long-
term planning periods, with most of the growth projected in the rapidly expanding eastern
service area. The existing maximum day demand (MDD) of 2.16 million gallons per day (mgd) is
projected to increase to 4.92 mgd by 2025 and 9.94 mgd by 2040. The projections include MDD
bulk sales to Topsail Beach of 0.60 and 1.00 mgd by 2025 and 2040, respectively.
5.1.2 Water Supply and Treatment Needs

The existing surface water treatment plant (WTP) has a permitted capacity of 2 mgd and is
inadequate to meet the projected MDD; however, PCU is able to operate the plant at 4 mgd and is
planning to work with the State to obtain an updated permit to reflect this in 2020. To meet the
projected demands, two primary water supply and treatment options were identified:
 Expansion of the existing surface WTP with raw water obtained from the Cape Fear River
 Construction and implementation of a new groundwater reverse osmosis (RO) WTP in the
Hampstead area
5.1.2.1 Existing Surface WTP

The existing WTP has a permitted capacity of 2 mgd; however, the plant was configured and
designed to facilitate expansion to 6 mgd. A physical plant expansion would be required to
increase the capacity to 10 mgd. Approximately 10 million dollars would also have to be paid to
Brunswick County for PCU’s share of the expansion of the raw water pipeline.
5.1.2.2 New RO WTP

Based on the desktop evaluation of groundwater availability and quality in the eastern service
area, it was estimated that 15 wells would be required to support a 5-mgd RO WTP, assuming an
average daily yield of 350 gallons per minute (gpm) per well. For conceptual planning purposes,
two Castle Hayne aquifer wells providing approximately 10 percent of the total 6 mgd were
assumed. These wells would not require treatment by RO since they would be pumping fresh
water. This water will be used to bypass the RO system and blend with permeate to improve
alkalinity and reduce the need for corrosion inhibitors. Thirteen wells would be screened across
the entire Peedee aquifer and require treatment by RO to remove salt and other dissolved solids.
The RO WTP would have an estimated recovery rate of 85 percent, i.e. approximately 6 mgd
would be required from the wellfield to provide the finished water capacity of 5 mgd. Because of
the number of wells required, it is assumed that the County would need to purchase property in
the Hampstead area to develop a centralized or distributed wellfield.
5-1
Page 110 of 139
Section 5  Conclusions and Recommendations
A new concentrate discharge pipeline would be required to take RO reject water from the RO
WTP most likely to the Intracoastal Waterway. Permitting of this concentrate disposal is expected
to take a minimum of one year for approval after all required studies have been performed.
Implementation timeline for a RO WTP owned by PCU is expected to take 4 to 5 years. This
includes up to 1 year for project planning and pilot testing, 1 year for environmental permitting
(including NPDES permitting for concentrate discharge), up to 1 additional year for design and
bidding, and 2 years for construction.
An option for a privately-owned and operated RO WTP was also considered. The private water
company would design, permit, construct, operate, and maintain the new RO WTP. For
comparative purposes, it was assumed that the privately-owned plant would be at the same
location as the PCU-owned plant.
5.1.3 Infrastructure Needs

Pipeline alternatives were evaluated for the water supply options. The pipeline, pumping, storage
requirements and treatment upgrades necessary for each alternative based on the hydraulic
modeling results and the conceptual cost estimates are presented in Table 5-1. All the
alternatives require the same storage improvements. However, there are significant differences
between infrastructure improvements needed, particularly transmission and pumping
requirements, with and without a new RO WTP.
5.2 Evaluation Matrix

5.2.1 General
The alternatives presented in Section 4 and in Table 5-1 were evaluated based on a number of
factors to help determine the most feasible alternative that meets PCU’s needs. To help decide on
a recommendation, an evaluation matrix was used which included a list of “Issues or Constraints”
along with “Issue Weighting Factor”. The weighting factors for each issue/constraint were given
a number between 1-10 with 1 being least important and 10 being most important. Next, each
alternative was given a score between 1-10 with how well it did with each issue/constraint with
1 being least favorable to PCU and 10 being most favorable. The value for weighting factors was
multiplied by the score giving a weighted average for each issue. The summation of all weighted
averages is the score of the alternative. The highest score is the selected alternative.
CDM Smith estimated the value of each issue/constraint based on discussions with PCU staff.
Scores for each of the alternatives were estimated based on their relative comparison to one
another. See Table 5-2 for evaluation results.
5.3 Recommendations
5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 2: New PCU-Owned RO WTP and Associated Infrastructure
Needs
A new RO WTP in the Hampstead Area, owned and operated by PCU is recommended with the
following infrastructure improvements:
 New minimum 5-mgd RO WTP in Hampstead area with initial capacity of 3 mgd.
5-2
Page 111 of 139
Table 5-1. Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2 Alternative 2A1
Length Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost Diameter Conceptual Cost
Page 112 of 139
Improvement Type Description (feet) (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate (inches) Estimate
Segment A 43,200 36 $26,600,000
Segment A* 41,700 36 $32,300,000
Segment B 31,100 30 $13,700,000 16 $9,100,000 16 $9,100,000 16 $9,100,000
Segment C 27,700 36 $15,600,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000 20 $8,500,000
Segment D 32,700 24 $16,800,000 24 $16,800,000
Transmission
Segment E 40,300 24 $13,700,000 24 $13,700,000
Segment F 17,100 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000 16 $4,100,000
Segment G 13,800 8 $2,000,000 24 $5,800,000 8 $2,000,000 8 $2,000,000 8 $2,000,000
Segment H 91,600 30 $45,500,000
Concentrate Discharge 52,800 $3,900,000
New Rocky Point EST (0.7
MG) $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000
Storage
New Scotts Hill EST (0.3
MG) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
New Hwy. 210 Booster PS
Phase 1 $3,60,000 $3,600,000
Phase 2 $300,000 $300,000
Pumping
HSPS
Increase to 6.5 mgd $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Increase to 12.4 mgd $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Existing WTP
2 to 6 mgd $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
6 to 10 mgd $27,000,000 $27,000,000 $27,000,000
WTP
New RO WTP
Initial 3 mgd $44,200,000 $3,900,000
3 to 6 mgd $10,000,000 $0
Fee to Brunswick Co. for Raw water pipeline upgrades $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Engineering/Admin/Construction Mgmt. Fees (Approx. 15%) $25,300,000 $20,400,000 $21,400,000 $15,300,000 $6,500,000
Total Conceptual Cost Estimate $198,900,000 $162,000,000 $168,800,000 $122,600,000 $54,900,000
20-Year Net Present Worth (O&M + Capital), 2019 dollars $151,000,000 $129,000,000 $143,000,000 $109,000,000 $100,000,000
1 It is assumed the county would be responsible for the concentrate pipeline installation with the privately funded RO WTP.
5-3
Table 5-2. Evaluation Matrix of Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2 Alternative 2A
ISSUE
Page 113 of 139
WEIGHTING Importance Weighted Importance Weighted Importance Weighted Importance Weighted Importance Weighted
ISSUE OR CONSTRAINT FACTOR Rating Average Rating Average Rating Average Rating Average Rating Average
COST: Capital costs 8 1.8 14.4 2.7 21.6 2.5 20 4 32 10 80

COST: O&M costs 9 9 81 10 90 9 81 9 81 3.4 30.6
COST: Net Present Worth 10 6 60 7.8 78 6.5 65 9.4 94 10 100
SITE: Purchase land 3 10 30 10 30 10 30 0 0 4 12
OPERATIONS: Control of water quality 10 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100 4 40
OPERATIONS: Water Supply Redundancy 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 80 10 80
OPERATIONS: Staffing requirements 4 5 20 6 24 5 20 6 24 10 40
SCHEDULE: Completion date 5 8 40 8 40 8 40 8 40 10 50
CONSTRUCTION: Trenchless Requirements 3 3 9 5 15 1 3 10 30 10 30
CONSTRUCTION: Expand ex. WTP from 6-10 mgd 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 70 10 70
CONSTRUCTION: Eliminate Hwy. 210 PS 5 0 0 10 50 0 0 10 50 10 50
CONSTRUCTION: New RO WTP required 7 10 70 10 70 10 70 0 0 0 0
EASEMENTS: Temporary Easements 2 10 20 5 10 5 10 10 20 10 20
EASEMENTS: Permanent Easements 3 10 30 5 15 5 15 10 30 10 30
ENVIRONMENTAL: Riparian/Wetlands impacts 3 10 30 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15
PERMITTING: Section 404/401 3 10 30 5 15 5 15 8 24 8 24
PERMITTING: NPDES 5 10 50 10 50 10 50 0 0 0 0
PERMITTING: CAMA 3 10 30 10 30 10 30 5 15 5 15
PERMITTING: Planning Dept. 2 10 20 10 20 10 20 5 10 5 10
PERMITTING: Work in New Hanover County 4 10 40 0 0 10 40 10 40 10 40
OVERALL RISK 3 10 30 7 21 8 24 5 15 4 12
OVERALL RELIABILITY 3 6 18 8 24 7 21 10 30 9 27
SUBTOTALS 110 722 719 669 800 776
As shown in the results above, the preferred alternative is Alternative 2. The table also shows that Alternative 2A is a viable option and with the slight modification of any of the weighting factors, could have received the highest score.
Importance Rating: 1 = least important, 10 = most important
5-4
 RO WTP will be fed by up to 15 new groundwater wells

 Concentrate pipeline disposal to the Intracoastal Waterway
 Existing WTP improvements to increase capacity to 6 mgd
 Additional pumps at the surface WTP high service pump station to increase capacity to 6
mgd
 Approximately 89,700 feet of transmission main ranging in diameter from 8 to 20 inches
installed parallel to existing piping
 New elevated storage tanks at Rocky Point (0.7 million gallons (MG)) and Scotts Hill (0.3
MG)
See Figure 5-1 for the limits of improvements. Figure 5-2 illustrates the phasing of additional
water supplies to meet the projected demands for the eastern service area (including Hampstead
and Sloop Point/Topsail booster areas), Main pressure zone, and total system. The following
water supply improvements are recommended based on the projected water demand curve:
 By 2020, update the existing surface water WTP permitted capacity to 4.0 mgd to improve
supply to the Main pressure zone; add at least 0.5 mgd capacity from temporary wells
installed in the eastern service area.
 By 2021, increase capacity from temporary wells installed in the eastern service area to at
least 1.0 mgd.
 By 2024, increase capacity from temporary wells installed in the eastern service area to at
least 1.2 mgd.
 By 2025, construct new RO WTP in the eastern service area with initial capacity of 3.0
mgd. It is assumed that wholesale of water to Topsail Beach will not begin until the new
RO WTP is in operation.
 By 2031, expand the existing surface water WTP to a capacity of 6.0 mgd to provide
additional water supply to both the Main pressure zone and eastern service area (via the
existing NC 210 booster pump station).
 By 2035, expand the RO WTP in the eastern service area to a capacity of 5.0 mgd to meet
entire demand of the eastern service area (transfer from the Main pressure zone is not
required once RO WTP is upgraded to 5.0 mgd).
Table 5-3 gives a preliminary schedule for improvements based on the projected demands
assuming linear growth between 2019, 2025, and 2040. This schedule should be adjusted based
on actual growth trends as additional development information becomes available. A more
detailed schedule for implementation of the new RO WTP is given in Figure 5-3.
5-5
Page 114 of 139
Legend

3
3
Q New RO WTP
T
B (16-inch)
Page 115 of 139
C (20-inch)
F (16-inch)
G (8-inch)
Malpass Tank
T
U
Topsail Tank
T
U
B( Rocky Point Tank
16 Hwy 210 Tank
'') '')
C (20 T
U
T
U Ú
"
Additional 0.7 MG T
U
Hampstead Tank
3
Q
T
U
'')
6
(1
F
'')
(8
G
T
U
3
Figure 5-1: Recommended Alternative

(Alternative 2)
´
Miles
Total Water System
Expand RO WTP
12.0
to 5.0 mgd
Expand Surface WTP

10.0 to 6.0 mgd
Water Demand/Supply (mgd)
New RO WTP
Temp Wells (3.0 mgd)
(1.0 mgd)
8.0
Surface WTP
Temp Wells
to 4.0 mgd;
(1.2 mgd)
6.0 Temp Wells
(0.5 mgd)
4.0
2.0
Max Day Water Demand
Water Supply
0.0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Eastern Service Area

6.0
Expand RO WTP
to 5.0 mgd
5.0 Expand Surface WTP
to 6.0 mgd
New RO WTP
(3.0 mgd)
4.0
Temp Wells Temp Wells

3.0 (1.0 mgd) (1.2 mgd)
Temp Wells
2.0 (0.5 mgd)
1.0
Water Supply
0.0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Main Service Area

7.0
Expand RO WTP
to 5.0 mgd
6.0 Expand Surface WTP
to 6.0 mgd
5.0
New RO WTP
(3.0 mgd)
Surface WTP
4.0 to 4.0 mgd
3.0
2.0
1.0
Water Supply
0.0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Figure 5-2
Page 116 of 139 Water Demand and Supply by Service Area
Figure 5-3. Alternative 2: Schedule for new 5 MGD RO WTP
ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Mode Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1
1
2 NOTICE TO PROCEED 1 day Wed 4/15/20 Wed 4/15/20
3 RO WTP Site Analysis 45 days Thu 4/16/20 Wed 6/17/20 2
Page 117 of 139
4 Concentrate Disposal Site Analysis 45 days Thu 4/16/20 Wed 6/17/20 2

5 RO Pilot Study, Hydrogeology, Prelim. Eng. 150 days Thu 6/18/20 Wed 1/13/21 3
6 Design: 3 packages (RO WTP, Wellfield, Concentrate 290 days Thu 1/14/21 Wed 2/23/22 5
outfall)
7 NPDES Permit Process 360 days Thu 6/18/20 Wed 11/3/21 4
8 Bidding, Funding Final Approvals, Award 80 days Thu 2/24/22 Wed 6/15/22 6
9 Construction: 3 packages (RO WTP, Wellfield, 650 days Thu 6/16/22 Wed 12/11/24 8
Concentrate Pipeline)
Task External Tasks Manual Task Finish-only Manual Progress

Split External Milestone Duration-only Deadline
Project: msproj11
Date: Wed 12/11/19 Milestone Inactive Task Manual Summary Rollup Critical
Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Critical Split
Project Summary Inactive Summary Start-only Progress
Page 1
Section 5 • Conclusions and Recommendations
Table 5-3. Project Schedule for Recommended Improvements

Recommended Start Recommended
Project Year Completion Year
Obtain Permit modification for Surface WTP to operate
2020 2020
at 4-MGD
Groundwater Supply Wells 2019 2020
New RO WTP (3.0 mgd) (1) 2020 2024
Segment C 2020/2021 2024
Segment G 2024 2027
New Scotts Hill Elevated Storage Tank 2024 2027
Expand Existing Surface WTP (6.0 mgd) 2030 2031
Existing HSPS Improvements 2030 2031
Segment B 2031 2033
New Rocky Point Elevated Storage Tank 2032 2033
Segment F 2033 2035
Expand RO WTP (5.0 mgd) 2033 2035
1) See Figure 5-3 for a more detailed schedule.
A summary of the associated conceptual cost estimate for the improvements necessary to meet
near-term (2025) and long-term (2040) needs of the system is presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Alternative 2 Conceptual Cost by Phase1

Improvement Type Near-Term (2025) Long-Term (2040) TOTAL (2025-2040)
Transmission $10,500,000 $13,200,000 $23,700,000
Storage $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $4,200,000
Pumping $500,000 $500,000
Ex. WTP $1,300,000 $1,300,000
New RO WTP $44,200,000 $10,000,000 $54,200,000
Adjust for Inflation $5,600,000 $12,800,000 $18,400,000
Payment to Brunswick Co. $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Eng./Admin./CM Fees (Approx. 20%) $9,300,000 $6,000,000 $15,300,000
Total $71,100,000 $51,500,000 $122,600,000
1) For a more detailed breakdown, refer to Table 4-17 in chapter 4.
As shown in Table ES-2, Alternative 2 capital costs and present worth are lower than alternatives
1, 1a, 1b but higher than alternative 2A. However, alternative 2 has better O&M costs and the
County would be able to recover costs in an estimated 16 to 20-year time period after the new RO
WTP is put into operation (Estimated recovery year of 2041-2045).
The additional water source would improve reliability and redundancy of PCU’s water system
and allow the ability to feed the system with one water source out of service.
5-9
Page 118 of 139
Although upfront costs are substantial, this alternative provides PCU full control of water quality,
production and distribution and eliminates additional stakeholder coordination when making
decisions. This option also allows better rate structure control.
5.3.2 Interconnections
5.3.2.1 Town of Topsail Beach
the Town. Once improvements are made, this interconnection will allow PCU to increase revenue
while also receiving an emergency backup, therefore CDM Smith recommends moving forward
with this project.
5.3.2.2 CFPUA
Prior to this study, a technical memorandum titled “SHWSD – CFPUA Interconnect Feasibility
Analysis” was prepared by Highfill in August, 2018 analyzing a potential interconnection with
CFPUA to supply water during high usage demand periods. The report recommended moving
forward with the interconnection and installing a pump station to account for hydraulic grade
line differences between CFPUA and PCU.
The new improvements recommended make the need for an interconnection with CFPUA less
urgent; however, having a backup water source between agencies can be mutually beneficial.
CDM Smith has reviewed the Highfill report analyzing this interconnection and believe PCU
should move forward with the interconnection; however, PCU should re-consider whether the
pump station is necessary or not.
5.3.3 Fee to Brunswick County

PCU currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Brunswick County and
LCFWASA regarding capacity and cost allocation for the new raw water pipeline being
constructed by LCFWASA. The pipeline is being installed to support regional growth; increasing
the overall capacity in the region to 41 mgd.
Under the terms of the MOU, PCU has the option to purchase from Brunswick County an
additional 5 mgd safe yield from the new pipeline. PCU must decide by July 1, 2028 whether to
make this purchase or the 5 mgd capacity is forfeited and will be claimed by Brunswick County.
PCU’s portion of construction is 12.195% as shown in the MOU and with current construction and
engineering costs of slightly over $40,000,000, PCU’s portion would be approximately
$5,000,000. CDM Smith recommends PCU plan to purchase this additional 5 mgd capacity by July
1, 2028.
5-10
Page 119 of 139
Appendix A
Modeling
Page 120 of 139

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 121 of 139

Appendix A1. Alternative 1 Model Results with Recommended Improvements
Figure A1-1. Alternative 1 Minimum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Figure A1-2. Alternative 1 Maximum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 122 of 139

Figure A1-3. Alternative 1 Water Age with Recommended Improvements (2025 ADD)
Figure A1-4. Alternative 1 Available Fire Flow with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 123 of 139

Figure A1-5. Alternative 1 Model-Simulated Tank Levels with Improvements (2040 ADD)
Figure A1-6. Alternative 1 Model-Simulated Tanks Levels with Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 124 of 139

Appendix A2. Alternative A1 Model Results with Recommended Improvements
Figure A2-1. Alternative 1A Minimum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 125 of 139

Figure A2-2. Alternative 1A Maximum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Figure A2-3. Alternative 1A Water Age with Recommended Improvements (2025 ADD)
Page 126 of 139

Figure A2-4. Alternative 1A Available Fire Flow with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Figure A2-5. Alternative 1A Model-Simulated Tank Levels with Improvements (2040 ADD)
Page 127 of 139

Figure A2-6. Alternative 1A Model-Simulated Tanks Levels with Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 128 of 139

Appendix A3. Alternative 1B Model Results with Recommended Improvements
Figure A3-1. Alternative 1B Minimum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Figure A3-2. Alternative 1B Maximum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 129 of 139

Figure A3-3. Alternative 1B Water Age with Recommended Improvements (2025 ADD)
Figure A3-4. Alternative 1B Available Fire Flow with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 130 of 139

Figure A3-5. Alternative 1B Model-Simulated Tank Levels with Improvements (2040 ADD)
Figure A3-6. Alternative 1B Model-Simulated Tanks Levels with Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 131 of 139

Appendix A4. Alternative 2 Model Results with Recommended Improvements
Figure A4-1. Alternative 2 Minimum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Figure A4-2. Alternative 2 Maximum Pressures with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 132 of 139

Figure A4-3. Alternative 2 Water Age with Recommended Improvements (2025 ADD)
Figure A4-4. Alternative 2 Available Fire Flow with Recommended Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 133 of 139

Figure A4-5. Alternative 2 Model-Simulated Tank Levels with Improvements (2040 ADD)
Figure A4-6. Alternative 2 Model-Simulated Tanks Levels with Improvements (2040 MDD)
Page 134 of 139

Appendix B
DWR Topsail Station Chlorides

Page 135 of 139
Page 136 of 139
Page 137 of 139
Page 138 of 139
Page 139 of 139

CDM Smith Study - Eastern Pender Water System Improvements

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CDM Smith Study - Eastern Pender Water System Improvements

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FINAL REPORT

Eastern Pender Service Area Water System Improvements

Section 2 – Existing System Description

Section 3 – Hydraulic Modeling

Section 3 – Hydraulic Modeling (continued)

Section 4 – Alternatives Evaluation

Section 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations

Figure 1-1 Water and Sewer Districts

Figure 2-1 Existing Water System

Figure 3-1 Modeled Existing Water System

List of Figures (continued)

Figure 5-1 Recommended Alternative (Alternative 2)

Table 2-1 Existing Storage Tanks

Table 3-1 Projected Water Demands by District

Table 4-1 Alternatives

List of Tables (continued)

Table 5-1 Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives

 Review of existing data

ES.2 Hydraulic Modeling

 Existing (2019) conditions

Table ES-1. Projected Water Demands by District

ES.3 Alternatives Evaluation

 Install a new 300,000-gallon EST in Scotts Hill

 ALTERNATIVE 2A: New Privately-Owned RO Groundwater WTP

Table ES-2 summarizes the 5 alternatives and provides conceptual costs.

Table ES-2. Conceptual Cost Estimate Summary for all Alternatives

Table ES-3. Alternative 2 Conceptual Cost by Phase*

Q Pender Co WTP Upgrade to 5 MGD

Figure ES-1: Recommended Alternative

ind Hampstead Bypass

Table ES-4. Project Schedule for Recommended Improvements

ES.4.1 Interconnection Recommendations

Town of Topsail Beach

ES.4.2 Fee to Brunswick County

Moores Creek 210

Figure 1-1: Water and Sewer Districts

1.2 Project Purpose

 Review of existing data

2.1.1 Study Area

2.2 Existing Distribution System

Figure 2-1: Existing Water System

2.2.1 Water Treatment Plant

2.2.2 Storage Tanks

Table 2-1. Existing Storage Tanks

2.2.3 Pump Stations

High Service Pump Station

Wallace Booster Pump Station (PS)

St. Helena Booster PS

2.2.4 Transmission Mains

3.1 Water Demand Projections

3.1.2 Near-Term and Long-Term Water Demand Projections

 Near-Term – based on the IBT demand projections for 2025

 Long-Term – based on the IBT demand projections for 2040

Table 3-1. Projected Water Demands by District

3.2 Model Development and Calibration

3.2.1 Existing Hydraulic Model

Malpass Tank Main

Figure 3-1: Modeled Existing Water System

Malpass Tank Main

Figure 3-2: Topography of Water Service Area

3.2.2 Model Updates

3.2.3 Demand Allocation

Table 3-3. Allocated Demands by Pressure Zone

3.2.4 Model Calibration