NC0088366_Engineering Alternatives_20100122

MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Lower Little. River NPDES Discharge
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES Permit Application
Upgrade Discharge from 5. mgd to 15 mgd
January 22, 2010
Submitted
to
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building; 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
Mr. Steve Ward
Harnett County Dept. of Public Utilities
308 W Duncan Street
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
[e-mail] .
Prepared
by
Brian Sexton, P.E. -
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
147-A Dublin Square Road
Asheboro, NC 27203
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
336-629-3931
336-629-3932
bsexton©marziano-mcgougan.com
Building innovation.

�m
Marziano &
McGougan, P.A.
1300 Second Avenue
Suite 211
Conway, SC 29526
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
consulting engineers
January 22, 2010
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building; 961 Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
-.D:iNV 278-2:0
RE: South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permit Application to Upgrade Discharge from 5 mgd to 15 mgd
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
M&M Project No.: 26015
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find the following information submitted for the above referenced project:
• A check in the amount of $1030
• Three (3) copies of the application EPA Form-2A
• Three (3) copies of EAA with supporting documents, including the following:
o Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI issued:10-27-09)
o ATOfor the South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd (issued 12-4-2009)
Harnett County is in the process of constructing upgrades to the e South Harnett Regional
WWTP to serve Fort Bragg and the Town of Spring Lake. This NPDES permit application
requests an increase from the current NPDES Discharge permit of 5 mgd to the new 15 mgd
capacity of the WWTP. All wastewater will be discharged to the Lower Little River (existing
discharge location 001) in Harnett County. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Fort
Bragg will be decommissioned as a result of this project. In the future, it is anticipated that the
existing wastewater treatment facility at Spring Lake will be decommissioned as a result of this
project. A SEPA environmental assessment was prepared on behalf of Harnett County and
received a Finding of No Significant Impact on 10-27-09 (SCH 10-E-4300-0113). A copy of the
FONSI is included in the EAA, Appendix A.
An ATC was issued for the proposed.WWTP expansion on 12-4-09 (ATC 088366-A02, see EAA,
Appendix A). The expansion of the WWTP will include the following items: construction of two
5 mgd Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration, System (ICEAS) trains, including piping,
decanting, fine bubble diffusion and blowers, construction of two 5 mgd traveling bridge tertiary
filters including backwash pumping, piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules
which would allow up to a peak flow of 42.5 mgd with one bank of UV modules but of service.
Modifications tothe existinghandling system include the installation of a bioset sludge
pasteurization system and all necessary site work piping and electrical. The existing headworks
and cascade aeration discharge system are adequate for the 15 mgd flow rate peaking at 42.5 mgd.

NPDES Unit
January 22, 2010
Page 2
If you have any questions. about this EAA or application, please . feel free to contact Joseph
McGougan, P.E.. or myself at our Conway, South Carolina office.
rely,
Brian
Project Man
Marziano &
McGougan, P.A.
1300 Second Avenue
Suite 2ll
Conway, SC 29526
— Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis
January 2010
Harnett County Public Utilities
South Harnett Regional WWTP
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES PERMIT - UPGRADE FROM'S MGD TO 15 MGD
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Speculative NPDES Limits 1
3.0 Harnett County Residential Population Projections 2
3.1 BRAG Commission Report — Regional Population Projections 3
3.2 Wastewater Flow Projections 5
4.0 Alternatives Analysis 7
4.1 Connect to Existing WWTP 7
4.1.1 Alternative #1.1 - Maintain Connections with FortBragg and Spring Lake WWTPs 7
4.1.2 Alternative #1.2 - Connect to Cross Creek WWTP (Fayetteville.PWC) 8
4.2 Alternative #2 - Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd.of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River) 9
4.2.1 Land Requirements 10
4.2.2 Effluent Transfer System and Spray Fields 11
4.3 Alternative #3 - Reclaimed Water Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Reuse
Effluent to Potential Users (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge 'to Lower Little River) 11
4.4 Alternative #4 - DirectDischarge to Surface Waters - Expand the South Harnett Regional
WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd 12
4.5 Alternative #5 - Combination of Alternatives 13
5.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative & Present Worth. Analysis 13
6.0 Conclusions 15
TOC-1 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Report Tables
Table 1: Speculative. Limits for South Harnett Regional WWTP 1
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Harnett County Population 2
Table 3 — ServiceArea Population Projections 4
Table 4 - 20-Year Flow Projections for Expanded Sewer Service Area 6
Table 5: Summary of Alternatives. 7
Table 6 — Taxonomic Description of Soils Located Within the Potential Spray Application Area....10
Table 7 — Feasibility Matrix for Alternative Selection 14
Table 8 — Summary of Present Worth Analysis 14
Appendices
Appendix A — Supporting Information
• FONSI from NCDENR-DWQ (SCH File# 10-E-4300-0113, DWQ #14096, NCDENR
#1495); South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd; October 27, 2009 • Authorization to Construct (ATC No, 088366-A02); 15.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTP;-December 4, 2009
• Speculative: Limits for 15.0 mgd Discharge into the Lower Little River; Apri124, 2008
• NPDES Permit for the 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional WWTP; December 1, 2006
Appendix B - Project Maps
• Project Service Area Overlay on Water Supply Watersheds
• Project Service Area Overlay on Zoning Map (Harnett &, Cumberland)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (1. of 2)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map ,(2-of 2)
• 2006 Aerial Photography: WWTP Components and Location
• Detailed, Site Plan for Proposed WWTP Upgrade (existing and proposed structures)
Appendix C - Present Worth Analysis .
• . Alternative #2 - Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Lower Little River)
• Alternative #4 - Land Application Alternative - Purnp .10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower Little River)
Appendix D - Sewer Flow & Population Projections
• Table D.1 20-Year Sewer Flow Projections
• Table D.2 — 20-Year County Population Projection Methodologies
• Chart D.3 — Graphical Comparison of 20-Year Population. Projection Methodologies
• Table D.4 — 20-Year Service Area Population Projections
TOC-2 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Harnett County Public Utilities
South Harnett Regional WWTP
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES PERMIT - UPGRADE FROM 5 MGD TO 15 MGD
. 1.0 Introduction
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is being prepared as required by the NCDENR-
NPDES Unit because an expansion is proposed to the existing 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTP facility in the amount of 10.0 mgd. The final treatment capacity arid NPDES discharge
capacity of the facility will be 15.0 mgd. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Fort Bragg will
be decommissioned as a result of this project. In the future, the existing treatment facility at Spring
Lake will be decommissioned and the Town will connect to the South Harnett Regional WWTP.
2.0 Speculative NPDES Limits
None of the criteria listed in Item 1 of the EAA guidelines precludes the proposed increase to a 15.0
mgd discharge from being considered by the NPDES Unit. The existing 5.0 mgd South Harnett
Regional WWTP currently operates under NPDES Permit Number NC0088366 and discharges into
the Lower Little River. For the proposed expansion to 15.0 mgd, speculative limits were requested
and obtained on April 24th, 2008 for this increased discharge at the same location as the existing 5.0
mgd NPDES permit. A copy of the 15.0 mgd speculative limits letter and the current 5.0 mgd
NPDES permit are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1: Speculative Limits for South Harnett Regional WWTP
Lower Little River
Parameter
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow (mgd)
15.0
BOD, 5-day, 20° C
(April 1— Oct. 31) ,
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(Nov. 1— March 31)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
NH3 as N
(April 1 — Oct. 31)- '.
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N
(Nov. 1— March 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
Minimum 5 0 mg/L
pH
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100
ml
400/100
ml
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µg/L
1
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities -.South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
3.0 Harnett County Residential Population Projections
Marziano & McGougan, P.A. has performed a detailed examination of the historic population data
for Harnett County. Using the population records from the 1970 through the 2000 U.S. Census,
future population projection models have been, developed in an effort to give Harnett County
officials multiple growth scenarios that will suit the County's future infrastructure planning needs.
These population projection methods are as follows: published .data available from the North
Carolina Office of StatePlanning (NCOSPL), linear regression (straight line) model using 1970
through 2000 historic population data, and 2nd order polynomial (parabolic) model using 1970
through 2000 historic population data.
From these three projection models, linear regression projects the lowest population for Harnett
County in. the year 2029 (135,846 persons), NCOSPL published data projects the next greatest
population in the year 2029 (156,986 persons), and the 2nd order polynomial model projects the
highest population in the, year 2029 (180,118 persons). The following Table 2 summarizes these
population' projection findings. Graphical representations of these modeling techniques, as well as a
chart comparison of the total population projection models, can be found in Appendix D.
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Harnett County Population
Linear Regression
Published NCOSPL Data
2nd Order Polynomial
Year •
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
% Growth
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
% Growth
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
% Growth
1970
49,667
-
-
49,667
-
49,667
-
-
1980
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
1990
67,833
8,263
13.87%
67,833
8,263
13.87%
67,833
8,263
13.87%
2000
91,584
23,751
35.01%
91,584
23,751
35.01%
91,584
23,751
35.01%
2007
106,506
14,922
16.29%
106,506
14,922
16.29%
106,506
14,922
16.29%
2009
105,132
-1,374
-1.29%
110,943
4,437
4.17%
112,412
- 5,906
5.55%
2014
112,811.
7,679
7.30%
122,000
11,057 -
9.97%
127,060
14,648
13.03%
2019
120,489
7,679
6.81%
133,504
11,504
9.43%
143,227.
16,167
12.72%
2024
128,168
7,679
6.37%
145,223
11,719
8.78%
160,913
17,686
12.35%
2029
135,846
7,678
5.99%
156,986
.11,763
8.10%
180,118
19,205
11.94%
% Total
Growth
-
30,714
29.21%
-
46,043
41.50%
- '
67,706
60.23%
For the purposes of this report, the 2nd Order Polynomial model is the best model to project the
future populations and wastewater flows in the South Harnett Regional WWTP sewer service area.
The service area is predominantly located within Harnett County and the 2nd Order Polynomial
model provides the high -range projections that take into account localized growth and economic
stimulation factors driven by Fort Bragg's expansion.
!To
2 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
3.1 BRAC Commission Report — Regional Population Projections
For populations at the Fort Bragg and Pope AFB installations, the most reliable document
with regard to the future population growth of military personnel (both on -base and off -
base) is the BRAC Commission Report. Fort Bragg's expansion is expected tobring many
soldiers, as well as civilian jobs and relocations in direct support of the military operations, to
the surrounding; region. Total on -base and off -base growth from BRAC is expected to
increase the Cumberland County population by 17,249 persons and the Harnett County
population by 7,936 persons through the year 2013. This is'a total expected growth of 25,185
persons (on -base and off -base); the majority of these new residents will have access to public
sewer service via the South Harnett Regional WWTP.
The BRAC Commission Report predicts that approximately 9,000 soldiers will be
transferred to on -base housing at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB by 2013. The remaining 16,000
persons will be located off -base in areas that are likely to be served by the South Harnett
Regional WWTP. Furthermore, the BRAC Commission's report estimates that the total
increase in population due to BRAC will be approximately 40,000 persons by 2013 for the
eleven -county region surrounding Fort Bragg and Pope AFB.
The regional service area of the South Harnett Regional WWTP has been subdivided into
five (5) distinct regions based on the existing sewer infrastructure in place and the region's
demographics: South Central Phase 1, Carolina Lakes/Hwy 87 corridor, Northern Training
Area (NTA), Fort Bragg/Pope A.E B, and the Town of Spring Lake.
Although the BRAC Commission Report ends its population projection analysis in the year
2013, a 20-year analysis is; required, for this EAA.Therefore, M&M builds on the
information in the BRAC report and combines it with the projected population for Harnett
County as a whole to determine the future sewer service area populations in the region. The
following Table 3 provides the estimated sewer service population for each of -these five (5)
distinct regions.
3 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis
January 2010
Table 3 - Service Area Population Projections
Year
South Central
Phase 1 •
Carolina
Lakes & Hwy.
87 Corridor
Northern
TrainingArea
Fort Bragg &
Pope AFB
Installation
Town of Spring
•Lake
Total Service
Population
2009 .
14,000
5,000
5,055
76,000 _
8,273
108,328
2010
' . 14,652 .
"
5,151
5,207,
'
76,450
.• 8,522
109,982
2011
15,335.
5,301
5,360
76;900 _
8,771
111,667
2012
16,049,
5,452
5,512
77,350
' 9,020
113,383
2013
1'6,797 '
5,602 ,
5,664
77,800
9;270
115,133
2014 .
17,580.:•
5,753
5,816
78,250
9,519
116,918
2015 ' '
18,399 "
5,903
5,969
78,700 '. ,
9,768
118,738.
2016
. 19;256
.
6,054
6,121
79,150
• 10,017
120,598
2017 •.
20,153
6,205
'
6,273
. 79,600
` 10,266
122,497
2018
21,092 • ..
.. 6,355•
6,425
80,050
' ` 10,515
,124,437
2019 '
22,074..
.
6,506
6,578
.80,500 '
- 10,764
126,422
2020 "
23,103
'
6,656
6,730
80,950
11,014
128,452
2021
24,179
6,807
6,882
81,400
. 11,263
130,531.
2022
25,305 •
6,957
7,034
, .
81,850
. 11,512..
132,659
2023
26,484 ' '
7,108
7,187
82,300. '
,.11,761,
134,840
2024
27,718 _
:
7,259 "
7,339
82,70
. 12,010
. 137,076
2025' . ;
29,010
7,409 =
7,491
- 83,200
12,259
139,369
2026
' 30,361'':
7,560
'
7,643
83,650 •.
12,508 '
•
' 141,722
2027
31,776 . '"
7,710'
'
7,796
84,100
12,758
'
144,139
2028
• 33,256
'
7,861
7,948
84,550
13,007-
146,621
202'9
34,805
.
8,011
•
8,100
' 85,000
' ' 13,256
149,172
Difference
20,805
3,011
3,045
' 9,000 r'
", 4,983
40,844
% Growth
148.6%''".. .
•
60.2%:
60.2%
.
11.8%'
'-' 60.2%
37.7%
Between 2013 and 2029, additional migration into the region is expected at above -average
rates due to the.scale of the BRAC expansion and the economic stability .offered because of
the military presence. This translates . to a relatively high overall growth rate in the South
Central Phase 1 service area (148.6%) for the 20-year planning period. Over an extended
planning period of 20 years, M&M estimates that approximately 40,844 persons willrelocate
to the counties of Cumberland and Harnett due to the proximity to base and the existing
• :public utility infrastructure. ,
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
'Asheboro, NC = Conway, SC

J
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
3.2 Wastewater Flow Projections
When projecting future flows to existing wastewater treatment facilities (i.e. Fort Bragg
WWTP, Spring Lake WWTP), these facilities have existing flow profiles that should be used
as Year-1 data for projection to Year-20 data. Year 2009 is used as the base year of flow
because the historic flow records are in place to substantiate •the existing sewer flows
entering the existing Fort Bragg and Spring Lake WWTPs.
Several precedents exist where NCDENR has approved the permitting and construction of a
new WWTP that consolidates multiple discharges into a single, upgraded facility. Depending
upon the current capacity of the partner's respective WWTP discharges, the new facility_ is
sized to "roll-over" the existing NPDES permits into the capacity of .the new facility.
Therefore, it is anticipated that Fort Bragg will contribute the capacity of its current 8.0 mgd
NPDES facility as part of the 10 mgd upgrade to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. In the
future, it is anticipated that Spring Lake will contribute the capacity of its current 1.5 mgd
NPDES facility as part: of the 10 mgd upgrade to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. No
additional wastewater treatment capacity is anticipated for either of these entities at this time.
The following bullets summarize the procedures used to estimate future flow projections for
the different types of entities tributary to this project:
• South Central Phase 1 is projected to grow at, 70 gpdpc residential + 15 gpdpc
commercial
• Carolina Lakes and Hwy. 87 corridor are both tributary to the Carolina Lakes
WWTP and the flows from these service areas will reach the maximum 'treatment
capacity of this facility (0:8 mgd) in year 2029
• NTA is projected to reach the contract maximum between Harnett County and the
federal government (0.9 mgd) in Year 2029
• Fort Bragg/Pope AFB . will reach the maximum flow permitted for the facility's
existing NPDES discharge (8.0 mgd) in Year 2029
• Spring ' Lake will reach the maximum flow permitted for the facility's existing
NPDES discharge (1.5 mgd) in Year 2029
• Daily I&I estimates are maintained at 10% of total flow over the life of the analysis
Table `4 summarizes the flow _projections for the sewer service area. Additional supporting
information can be found in Appendix D.
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis
January 2010
Table 4 - 20-Year Flow Projections for Expanded 'Sewer Service Area
Year
South Central
Phase 1
Carolina '
Lakei, 8i Hwy.
87 Corridor'Installation
(ADF)
- '
o/1 rthetn
Training AreaDaily
. (ADF)
.
Fort Bragg &
:
Pope_ AFB:
(ADF) ,
.
' •
Town of Spring
Lake (ADF)
' ' • ' .
Estimated
I&I
Flows (ADF),,
'
Total Average
Daily Sewer
Flow
2009
980;000
.' 500,000
250;000
.5,000,000
750,000
748,000 .
., 8,228,000
2019
1,025,656
515,000
,. 282,500
5,150,000
' 787,500 .,
' 776066
8;536,722
2011
1,073;440
530;000
315,000.
5;300,000
825,000
.804,344 .
8,847,784
:2012
1,123,449 '
, .545-,000.'
347,500
5,4.50;000
862,500
- .832,845. "
: 9,161,294
2013
1,175,789
560,000 .
380,000
5,600,000
900,000
861,579
. 9,477,368
2014
' 1,230,566
575,000
412,500
5,750;000
- 937,500
890,557.. ,
9,796,123.
2015
. 1,287,896 :
, 590,000
445,000
5,900,000
. 975,000
919,790
10,117,686
2016
1,347,897
' 605,000
477,500
'6,05000
1,012,500
.949,290
10,442,187
2017
1,410,693
620,000
510,000
6,200,000
1,050,000
,. 979,069
10,7.69,762'
2018
1,476,414
635,000
542,500
6,350,000. s
1,087,500
1,009,141
11,100,556
2019
;. 1,545,198
650,000
575,000
' 6,500,000
1,1-25,000
- 1,639,520
11;434,718--
2020
1,617,186
665,000
607,500
6,65000
1,162,500
1,070,219
. 11,772;404
2021
1,692,527
680,000
640;000
6,800,000
1;200,000.
1,101,253
• 12;113,780
2022
1;771,379
.695,000
672;500 ,
6;950,000 .
1,237,500 .
1,132,638
12,459,017
2023
1,853,904 .
, 710,000
705,000 .
7,100,000
1,275,000 .
1,164,390
• 12,808,295 ,
2024
1,940,274
725;000
737,500
7,250,000
1;312,500 .
1,196,527
13,161;892
2025
2,030,668
740,000
770,000 ,
7,400,000
1,350,000
1,229;067- :
' 13,519,735
2026
2,125,273
'755,000
802,500
7,550,00.0
1;387,500 -
, 11,262,027
' 13,882,300 '
2027
2,224,285
770,000
835,000
7,700,000.
1,425,060 ,
1,295,429
:14;249,714
2028
2,327,911.:
785,000
867,500
7,850,000
1,462,500
11329.;291 '
14,622,202
' 2029
. 2,436,364
,800,900 ,
. 900,000
:8,000,000 '
1,500,000"
' 1,363,636
. 15;000,000 ,
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
4.0 Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis has been prepared in accordance with the Engineering Alternatives Analysis,
as published by NCDENR-DWQ for the NPDES permit application process. The selected
alternative is critical in determining the most environmentally -friendly and cost-effective alternative
for future infrastructure planning. The following Table 5 sumrnari7es the alternatives considered for
this project.
Table 5: Summary of Alternatives
Alternative #
Description
Project Viability?
1.1
Upgrade existing Fort Bragg and Spring,
Lake WWTPs
Not Tech Feasible
1 2
Connect to Cross Creek WWTP
(Fayetteville PWC)
Not Tech Feasible
2
Land application of 10 mgd
Cost Prohibitive
3
Reclaimed water application of 10 mgd
Not Tech Feasible
4
Increase NPDES discharge by 10 mgd
Preferred Alternative
5
Combination of alternatives
Not Tech Feasible
4.1 Connect to Existing WWTP
There are two scenarios available under this alternative: Alternative #1.1 considers the
scenario where the two existing facilities at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake are kept operational
through the planning period. Harnett County would maintain the collection systemdischarge
to the. headworks of these facilities, essentially keeping the existing connections to two
existing facilities up and running.
Alternative #1.2 considers the scenario where the two 'existing facilities at Fort Bragg and
Spring Lake are decommissioned and the wastewater from these entities is pumped to the
nearest existing facility which can accept a flow volume of 10 mgd. The nearest facility with
this volume of treatment capacity is the Cross Creek WWTP operated by Fayetteville PWC,
located approximately 17.8 miles to the south through highly urbanized areas of downtown
Fayetteville.
4.1.1 Alternative #1.1 - Maintain Connections with Fort Bragg and Spring
Lake WWTPs
The first scenario (Alternative #1.1) would require the wastewater generated in the
region to be treated at the existing facilities of Fort -,Bragg and Spring Lake.
Maintaining operations at these existing facilities would require a significant capital
investment in aging and dilapidated facilities to upgrade the treatment technology to
tertiary capabilities. This is necessary for an equal comparison to the South Harnett
7 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett.County Public Utilities —South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Regional WWTP which provides tertiary treatment. Upgrades and modernization of
these facilities would be required to achieve a cost effective means of treating 10
mgd of wastewater to tertiary levels over the mid-term and long-term. Fort Bragg
and Spring Lake have recognized that the useful life of their respective facilities will
be reached in the neat' term and that no additional upgrades are warranted to
enhance treatment or to increase capacity at these locations.
The location of the new South Harnett Regional WWTP is a strategic regional
location .that can easily and logically provide improved tertiary treatment to the
wastewater flows generated by Fort Bragg and Spring Lake in the near term.
Therefore, DoD has entered into a long term agreement with Harnett County as the
superior alternative to fixing components at an antiquated facility and Spring Lake
has executed a letter of intent that states the Town's desire to connect to the South
Harnett Regional WWTP to address its future wastewater treatment needs.
Without: further improvements and modifications to the Fort Bragg and Spring Lake
WWTP treatment process, these facilities will continue to treat at secondary limits
indefinitely. Until the treatment capacity of the existing Fort Bragg and Spring Lake
WWTP approaches the 80%-90% rule, it is unlikely that enhanced tertiary treatment
will be implemented at either of these facilities and the Lower Little River could
continue to experience water quality impairments related to the continued operation
of these facilities.
Due ,to the precedence of the BRAC commissions report, the existing agreement
between Fort Bragg and Harnett County, the aged and dilapidated condition of
multiple components at each of the facilities, and the negative environmental
consequences that would result from continued operation of the Fort Bragg and
Spring Lake WWTPs, keeping these facilities operational is not a long-term ,viable
solution. This alternative is considered "not technologically feasible."
4.1.2 Alternative #1.2 - Connect to Cross Creek WWTP (Fayetteville PWC)
Alternative #1.2 considers the scenario where the two existing facilities at Fort Bragg
and Spring Lake are decommissioned and thewastewater from these entities is:
pumped to the Cross Creek WWTP operated by Fayetteville PWC. The Cross Creek
WWTP, owned and operated by ,Fayetteville PWC, has a current treatment capacity
of 25 mgd. This facility currently receives an average daily flow of approximately 11
mgd. However, this facility does not have an additional 10 mgd of treatment capacity
that has not been allocated for use within the Fayetteville city limits or other
commitments to the existing PWC customer base. From this standpoint, this
alternative is considered "not technologically feasible."
Although the costs of increasing: the treatment capacity by 10 mgdwould be similar
for the South Harnett Regional WWTP and Cross Creek WWTP, there is a
significantly higher cost for constructing a significantly longer sewer transmission
system , toreach the Cross Creek WWTP. A new forcemain would need to be
installed between the South Harnett Regional PS Site and: the Cross Creek WWTP
8
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
through the highly urbanized areas of Spring Lake and Fayetteville along major
highway corridors.
There are approximately 2.4 miles of proposed 30" 0 forcemain between the South
Harnett Regional PS Site and the South Harnett Regional WWTP site with an
elevation range of less than 20 feet. There are approximately 17.8 miles of proposed
36" 0 pipeline between the South Harnett Regional PS Site and the Cross Creek
WWTP site in Fayetteville with an elevation range of 100 feet.
The longer forcemain to Cross Creek WWTP would have to be larger in diameter to
accommodate the additional 'friction head encountered over longer pumping
distances. The topography changes dramatically along the potential forcemain route,
when compared to the extremely flat route between South Harnett PS and South
Harnett WWTP, which increases the static head the pumps must overcome each
time they are powered on to transfer sewer flows. Energy costs to transfer the flows
over a greater distance and varying topography make this alternative more expensive
initially and over the planning period. Additionally, significantly longer detention
times increase the production of hydrogen sulfide gases and chemical costs to abate
this process. It is evident that a connection to the Cross Creek WWTP is cost
prohibitive and designing a sewage transfer system that is more efficient along this
route is not technologically feasible. In addition to being considered "not
technologically feasible," this alternative is considered "cost prohibitive" in
all variables of the treatment cost equation.
4.2 Alternative #2 - Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to
Adjacent Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
The following narrative discusses the feasibility of the land application disposal of 10.0 mgd
of treated wastewater effluent. This alternative includes the expansion to a 15.0 mgd
treatment facility; however, the new 10.0 mgd treatment trains will not have a tertiary
treatment process because the 10.0 mgd flow will be treated to secondary levels and pumped
to a nearby (hypothetical) land application area for disposal. The 5.0 mgd facility will
continue to discharge to the Lower Little River as permitted by the NPDES unit. Please
refer to Appendix B for a diagram of this alternative.
A recent analysis of soils in southern Harnett and northern Cumberland Countyindicated
that the predominant soil types located along the northern and southern banks of the Lower
Little River can be summarized in Table 6. Based upon the information contained within the
Harnett and Cumberland County published soil surveys, the hydraulic conductivity of the
soil types in southern Harnett and northern Cumberland County limits both the viability of
spray application fields and the maximum application rate for wastewater.
9 Marziano.& McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
J
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis
anuary 2010
Table 6 — Taxonomic Description of Soils Located Within the
Potential Spray Application Area
Soil Name
Taxonomic Classification
Alpin (AnB)
Thermic, coated Typic quartzipsamments
Altavista (AaA; AtA)
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive
Blaney (BaB)
Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Arenic Hapludults
Gilead (GdB)
Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Aquic Hapludults
Portsmouth (Ps)
Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy -skeletal, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
Umbraquults
Roanoke (Ro)
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
State (StA) •
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults
Wagram (WaB)
Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kandiudults
It is the engineer's opinion, through more than 30 years' of experience working with water
and wastewater utilities in Harnett County, Cumberland County, and throughout the Coastal.
Plain and Sandhills region of North Carolina, that this alternative is cost prohibitive for the
following reasons:
• Extremely large volume of wastewater being considered (10 mgd)
• Impracticality and cost of acquiring a huge land application site, estimated to be
7,000 acres
• Intensive land use modification/rezoning for a public project of this scale
• Limited investigative access or land disturbance permission from current property
owners if a future land application site is the intent of the investigation
4.2.1 Land Requirements
In this analysis, the engineer's opinion that the maximum application rate that could
be conservatively permitted in this region is approximately, 0.5 inches per week for
the land adjacent to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. In order to acquire an
adequately sized tract of land for 10.0 mgd of wastewater effluent application,
approximately 5,156 acres are required for spray areas at an irrigation rate of 0.5
inches per week. Purchasing an additional 25% of. the minimum spray application
area is required in order to account for buffers, wetlands, open space, and setback
requirements. This brings the total spray field requirements to 6,875 acres.
A storage lagoon must be constructed for 40-days of storage during extended wet
periods and emergencies (30-day minimum and an estimated 10-day water balance
requirement). Therefore, the actual size of the 'storage lagoon is approximately 400
million gallons covering 125 acres.
10 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
It is estimated that a total land acquisition of approximately 7,000 acres will be
required for development of a permissible spray irrigation system. Available parcels
of land this size are difficult to locate in southern Harnett County or northern
Cumberland County. For the purposes of this report, a large area of forested land
located immediately north and west of the WWTP site is used to develop cost
estimates for this alternative. However, only 1,500 acres of continuous land is
unoccupied and available for the construction of a spray irrigation system. For the
purposes of this report, it is assumed that additional lands adjacent to this vacant
property can be acquired in sufficient acreage to build the spray irrigation system for
10.0 mgd application. A 2006 tax valuation of the 1,500 acre parcel was
approximately $2.0 million.
4.2.2 Effluent Transfer System and Spray Fields
After the expansion of the existing South Harnett Regional WWTP, a new .transfer
pump station must be constructed to pump 10.0 mgd of wastewater (treated to the
secondary level at the expanded treatment facility) to the storage lagoon and spray
field site. This will require the installation of approximately 2,500 feet of
transmission forcernain, associated site piping, additional SCADA capabilities, and
other incidentals. The development of the spray irrigation fields will require the
construction of an irrigation pump station capable of spraying specific zones with
effluent from the 'storage lagoon,and irrigation lines throughout the 5,156-acre
portion of the forested tract.
While the merits of land application are extensive, future expansion of a land
application facility is dependent on large, undeveloped tracts ,of land being available.
With the difficulty of finding large undeveloped tracts, the South Harnett Regional
WWTP would not be economically feasible due to the large space requirements for a
relatively small amount of treatment capacity. Therefore, a land application system
for the. service area is not viewed as a feasible alternative. This alternative is
considered "cost prohibitive."
4.3 Alternative #3 - Reclaimed Water Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of
Reuse Effluent to Potential Users (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower
Little River)
The following narrative discusses the feasibility of the reclaimed water disposal of 10.0 mgd
of treated wastewater effluent onto areas approved for use of this water. This alternative
includes the expansion of the South Harnett Regional WWTP to a 15.0 mgd treatment
facility. All of the flow treated at this expanded facility will be treated to tertiary levels.
Currently, no wet industries have been identified that can use this volume of water on a daily
basis. In the future, if an opportunity arises to divert some of the flow to a wet industry
(that is currently proposed for discharge into the Lower Little River), this avenue can be
explored further at that time.. Unless a wet industry is able to utilize 10.0 mgd of reclaimed
quality effluent, the reclaimed water must be land applied to customers willing to accept this
water, such as turf grass farms, tree farms, golf courses,and reclaimed community projects.
m
11 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
The cost to distribute reclaimed water to individual customers in the region would not be
feasible. This disposal alternative is not viable because the management and control of the
reclaimed disposal system would be spread across the many residents and users that would
have to continually utilize water at a rate of 10 mgd indefinitely, regardless of need, weather
conditions, or aesthetics. Due to the fact that no viable users have been identified for a long-
term commitment to utili7e reclaimed water, this alternative is •considered "not
technologically feasible."
4.4 Alternative #4 - Direct Discharge to Surface Waters - Expand the South
Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd .
This alternative includes all new construction to increase the South Harnett Regional WWTP
treatment capacity from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd. The expansion of the South Harnett Regional
WWTP will include the following items: construction of two 5 mgd Intermittent Cycle
Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) trains, including piping, decanting, fine bubble diffusion
and blowers, construction of two 5 mgd traveling bridge tertiary filters including backwash
pumping, piping, installation of additional W disinfection modules which would allow up to
a peak flow of 42.5 mgd with one bank of W modules out of service. Modifications to the
existing handling system include the installation of a bioset sludge pastenri7ation system and
all necessary site work piping and electrical. The existing headworks and cascade aeration
discharge system are adequate for the 15 mgd flow rate peaking at 42.5 mgd.
Additional new construction is required to install the sewer transmission system from Fort
Bragg and Spring Lake WWTPs to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. The pipeline
corridor begins at the Fort Bragg WWTP and terminates at the South Harnett Regional
WWTP. The following summarizes the work to be completed in this phase of the project.
• 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWTP
• 13,817' of 30" forcemain between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP ,.and the
existing Spring Lake WWTP site
• 18,089' of 42" gravity sewer interceptor parallel to and along the Lower Little
River between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett
Regional Sewer Pump Station site
• 10 mgd Pump Station Expansion @ South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near
Shady Grove Road and NC-210)
• 12,236' of 30" forcemain• from South Regional PS to South Regional WWTP
(parallels existing 24"• FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
The proposed project is the regionalization of multiple facilities because the project
consolidates the two existing NPDES discharges from Spring Lake and Fort Bragg into the
South Harnett Regional WWTP. The consolidation of two secondary treatment facilities into
a single tertiary treatment facility located downstream of these two plants is a vast
improvement from the current treatment scenario. Additionally, this is the most cost
effective and environmentally sound project for water quality improvements in the Lower
Little River. The preferred alternative is to increase the total NPDES discharge into
the Lower Little River from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd.
12 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
4.5 Alternative #5 Combination of Alternatives
In the analysis for this project, the combination of more than one of the various alternatives
that considered to be "not technologically feasible" or "cost -prohibitive" does not produce a
better alterative than the direct discharge of wastewater to the Lower Little River.
• Alternative #1.1 - If the existing facilities at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake were to
remain operational, then consideration should be given to the optimization of these
facilities; however, the agreements in place to decommission these secondary.
treatment facilities is a better solution from an environmental and cost standpoint.
• Alternative #1.2 Cross Creek WWTP in Fayetteville is a municipal .facility that is
highly unlikely to have an interest in serving rural customers in another county at a
higher rate per user. Additionally, Harnett County ,intends for the South Harnett
Regional WWTP to serve as the sole treatment source for the southern half of the
County over the long-term.
• Alternative #2 - The large amount of land required to implement the land
application alternativeprecludes this alternative from serious consideration. The
County is not likely to, secure such a large amount of undeveloped land in proximity
to the proposed customer base.
• Alternative #3 - No wet industries have been identified that can use 10 mgd of
reclaimed water on a daily basis. Additionally, the cost to distribute reclaimed water
to individual customers in the region would not be feasible. This disposal alternative
is not viable because the management and control of the reclaimed disposal system
would be spread across the many residents and users that would have to continually
utilize water at a rate of 10 mgd indefinitely, regardless of need, weather conditions,
or aesthetics. In the future, if an opportunity arises to divert some of the .flow to a
wet industry (that, is currently proposed for discharge into the Lower Little River),
this avenue can be explored further at that time. Unless a wet industry is able to
utilize 10.0 mgd of reclaimed quality effluent, the reclaimed water must be land
applied to customers willing to accept this water, such as turf grass farms, tree farms,
golf courses, and reclaimed community projects.
• Alternative #4 - The upgrade of the existing South Harnett Regional WWTP is the
preferred alternative from a cost and environmental standpoint.
5.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative & Present Worth Analysis
A matrix chart is presented below in Table 7 that lists important considerations in selecting the most
advantageous wastewater treatment and disposal method. A point system is used in the matrix that
indicates the alternative that would create the least impact on Harnett County resources: political,
social, and economic. A score of 1 is considered the least adverse impact among the alternatives and
a score of 5 is considered the greatest adverse impact among the alternatives.
ri
• 13 Marziario & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis
January 2010
Table 7 — Feasibility Matrix for Alternative Selection
Consideration
Alternative #1.1
&#1.2
Alternative #2
Alternative #3
Alternative #4
Alternative #5
Connect to Ex.
WWTP
Land
Application
Reclaimed Use'
NPDES
Discharge
Combination
of Alternatives
Capital Cost
3
5
4
1
3
Permitting Time
1
5
4
2
3
System Compatibility
2
5
3.
1
4
Environmental Impacts
2
5
1
'3
4
Training Required
2
5
3
1
4.
Political/Social
2.
4
5
1
3
Meets County Goals
2
5
3
1
4
O&M Cost
2
5
4
1
3
Longevity of Action
4
3
5
1
2
TOTAL
20
42 .
32 .
12
30
Using a federal discount rate of 4.875% over the 20-year planning period, the preferred alternative is
calculated to. be the most economical project to serve the needs of the region. Table 8 summari7es
the Present Worth Analysis. Please refer to the Present Worth Analysis in Appendix C for more
detailed calculations for each alternative.
Table 8 - Summary of Present Worth 'Analysis
Rank
Alternative
Present
Worth of
Initial
Capital Cost
Present
Worth of
Annual O&M
Present
Worth of
Replacement
Costs
Present Worth
of Salvage
Value
Total (Net)
Present
Worth
1.1
Upgrade existing Fort Bragg and
Spring Lake WWTPs
Not Technologically Feasible
1 2
Connect to Cross Creek WWTP
(Fayetteville PWC)
Not Technologically Feasible
2
Land application of 10 mgd
$75,126,330
$18,832,536
$782,800
-$19,312,357
$75,429,309
3
Reclaimed water application of
10 mgd
Not Technologically Feasible
4
Increase NPDES discharge to
15 mgd *PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE*
$29,185,330
$18,209,728
$161,530
-$4,683;048
$42,873,540
5
Combination of alternatives
Not Technologically Feasible
14
Marziano &'McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

HarnettCounty Public Utilities South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010.
6.0 Conclusions
As can be seen in Table 7, the lowest scoring alternative by a wide margin is Alternative #4: increase
the existing NPDES discharge to 15 mgd. This means that Alternative #4 scores the least adverse
impacts when considering the critical points related to this scope of project. Preferred Alternative
#4 is to construct expansions to the existing 5.0 mgd tertiary WWTP to achieve a total treatment
capacity of 15.0 mgd at the tertiary level.
Another advantage is that Alternative #4 is that it is the lowest -cost technologically feasible
alternative with respect to both annual O&M expenditures and initial- capital investment..
Additionally, the design's ability to merge with the existing plant operations provides an advantage
to the operational efficiency of the treatment plant as a whole unit. Harnett County believes that the
site of the existing 5 mgd WWTP is the best suited location for' additional wastewater treatment
structures to be built in; order to effectively treat 15 mgd of wastewater and discharge to the Lower
Little River. The 5.0 mgd facility has been shown to improve water quality in the Lower Little River
by eliminating the Coopers Ranch WWTP discharge at Jumping Run Creek, as part of the County's
original master plan to consolidate discharges in Anderson Creek and the Lower Little River basin.
It is the opinion of Harnett County and the engineer that the consolidation of the two secondary
treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake into the South Harnett Regional WWTP
employing tertiary treatment will result in substantially improved water quality in the Lower Little
River for the cheapestcapital cost. The South Harnett. Regional WWTP will employ advanced
wastewater treatment through the biological removal of nitrogen and phosphorus before entering
the Lower Little River.
15 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County. Public Utilities.- South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting = Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
APPENDIX A
Supporting Information
• FONSI from NCDENR-DWQ (SCH File# 10-E-4300-0113, DWQ #14096, NCDENR
#1495); South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd; October 27, 2009
• Authorization to Construct (ATC No, 088366-A02); 15.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTP; December 4, 2009
• Speculative Limits for 15.0 mgd Discharge into the Lower Little River; Apri124, 2008
• NPDES Permit for the 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional'WWTP; December 1, 2006
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
AVA
thENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
October 27, 2009
Brian Sexton, P.E.
MARZIANO & McGOUGAN, P.A.
1300 Second Avenue, Suite 211
Conway, SC 29526
SUBJECT: Harnett and Cumberland Counties
Expansion of South Harnett WWTP and Regionalization with Ft. Bragg and Spring Lake
DWQ#14096, DENR#1495
Dear Mr. Sexton:, - . _
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On October 27, 2009, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina. Environmental Policy Act review on the above
project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It is now acceptable to proceed with your permit
applications through the Division of Water Quality for the proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental
Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONSI)
Ecc: Larry Horton — CWMTF
Belinda Henson — FRO
Dan Blaisdell — CG&L
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N, Salisbury St Raleigh, Ncirih Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1.877-623.674E
Internet www.ncwaterquarity.org
An Equal Opportunity lAfilmalveAo6on Employer
One
orthCarolina
Naturally.

Toth .Carona
Department; of A mm i strat on.
:B;everly-Eaves Perdue; Gov'eriior
Qcfcjber•27,2t,,109
Brtt.Co'bb; "Secretary
mt.; 'HAP fiafi ttallingg
NCDENKVrater• Quality►.
• 161.7'Mai1 Service Center
Ralei6;:NC•27699-16t7
Re: SCH F ile # 10: E-4300=011.3; EA/ . SI; Hai' iett:.&linty" Public thinks Esp:ausion off.
South > ai-ri►ettytTWTP.and Leg. onahzation with I+'t. Bragg,anc S.pxi??.; Lake
. Dear Ms -:Stallings:, . • • • •`
.-
The aliave:referenced 6nvirOwnentai inpact_ nfgrmation has: eeii reu .e*.edtlirougli.lhe State
•Cleatinglicpse tinder the :provisions of •tlie: of t :G•arolina-Eriviroflmental Foiiej±° Act.. ,
No comments were made by any state/•1pcal:a;;e ides iri the:cotitse:of this Tevicui-(pleasegee attaa le i3:
Therefore, tto further environmental review•actiori on your part is requiredfor the Compliance witl?`ll?e
Act:
Best regards.
Sincerely,
U
Valerie W. McMillan, Director
State Environmental ReviewClearinghouse
cc: Region M
Mailing telephoe 019807-2415 - LocatioadddreS;
1301ilSev!c Center Fc19)733-9571 116'WestJonesStree
Raleighy,g,27699-1301 - Siae:Cnrer151-01-00' 5eigh, orth•Caroliaa
e-mail valerieay,mcnriilan@daa ncgo i -
An Eqpt apporhaii§agirmaiitie Acllon•Employer

*C:ODN'Tt:. IlkkRETT.
-NORTH. CAR.QTaINX CLElatt IOW) tE.
:g11Aggg45:PW
. INaika0ViEttlAttitrAti
SO2:: WRSZEWAT411:: TREATMENT
EgiCTZITIEV
•
MS '.REN.Eg GLEDIiILL-EARLZT
eddEOTAgc.0
DEPT oF 'QDLTURAL "RESOUriCk$
01%Tt •HISTDRTC: PgESEP.VATIO14 :OVEI•ot
MS.. 417 - ARD$13.1E$ JR/TP.111G.
RiLEIG NC 6**7.ifii‘..ig;n
REyitf ,
• .401 •
- 15V OF EMEttS$NGY atirigEMAsW
btft LILITVTE .EFMRS •
DEPT OF .C1114T,C1RA.L RESOURCES
DEPT " DP TRANSPORTATION,
MI p OARQI4Nii, COG. -
PRO#CT INTONATION .
T1P,E: State-Envir9nmehtla At
.
w$61.•-o143-o-ty• ..•
Environmental Assesemeiltaindliiti of No Significalit lraphbt
MSC; Hafodtt. 'County Public- .T.ItiItittA Efcpatialt# of SOuth HAillett WWTP and •
reO.Orializaticin with Ft Bragg; aid iSpring .Like - 61Wsitdri o WWTP from 5 :NG.D to
15 MGD, decommission exfksti:ng;..1:09 water treamerit facilities at Spring 1;k& and
Ft. Bragg; insta11at1bt if neW• 'Wet te 'water collection l.k4n-rliPtIa.te including.
punip station andselierIiiid
Th0 0ttached project has been s3.115knith'ect to the 11. C.. Hta:te Clearinghouse or
intergrivernmerital review.' Please 'neVigTer ad sublOt year F0.sppriqeby the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Sertiee Center, Raleigh NC 27691.1-1301.
,If additiOnal review time is. nee44,. 1ea contact this 04ticp. at 3:91:0).S01-242.5..
EIBIEUVIE1
S.EP 3 3: 2009
PTATE• NUBER:
bX .iltdtVgifii: a-2/20.09.
40P1dE 1342445E::4 1A0470.09:
. VIEW IN610210'
EE: „ox,031A.-
5 de,
. •
AS A RESULT OF IS REVIEWTHE: ;TOLLOffpG IS btmiTmar 1;115 dotamENt 0 COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: DATE:
.41tidter LibteAM/ "
(Cr
br. <0.. _-..
CO:
..."1
' r''-'1.
.t1 1, :q
VA
•k
c.
SEP 2 4. 20.6

AfixT'li BARNETT
.V000 MOTI. TA, 4E•nLED-Idt•Oliar:0
DEPIWIWZgT• 'Or•MtiggttiaTt011
:1611074t• BEVW
WASEATMT ### w**: 16-E43a0011.3
EntILIMB BATE.BOCEIY4Eq ItkaglOg
OP.* t,EficitSEi :10 /21.-126,61
440460E-ti.: .ipoeizotra
la. MELVi. MCGEE
•.aLF-41?..01QbEE COOttizNpekoti
pZiiR tEGISLATIVE AFFETR_S.: '
TaPifPN-Cift 41.15G- V8c:4' 1.6°1
.B.ALEIGH NC. ' • , r-,1
.tt"iptcl totSTRIBVTION • :.-r,
cpqp.- DIV. OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2 'Ws - Cti ..
...z
DENR:.LEGIBLATIVE AFFAIRS -. '•!•1•
...• WfI
1).E.ViT DE milautqkt ritSOURS . -.'t7,,Ai "f. •\./
mIgc240-14,1A COG
DEPT OE TRIANBBORTAT±00 . ,••
z34:0,1bT NFORmATION•
ARBLItANT; NtriER, fIn'ter Otialit!
TY:BE: Stki Erivlibniental.rol.idy Act
Environniental Xed*essiTieiifl;Fir;cffng -•ot 'No- Sifialit Inact
•DEBOr Harnett County Et.414c 13t4tiet Expansion; of South Harnet TfitTI' and
iegidnaltiati-on With E', Bragg and -Wring' Lake - .e.kgatfion. •..of Y.414TB. 'fp= 5..M13! to
15 NGI), deoontittaleii: existingwaste rkt:px: treartent "facilitiO• at. Spring 'Lee and
Ft. Bregg, installation of ii'dif 'wadte' Rater .colle:ction:infraitriatuea including
pump stationand saver lines
he att:actied project has 'been. gubitii:tted ti.:ii the N. C. State' Cleariinglionte fo.r
in-tergov.erpmental review. please rdw and su:billit your response by the above
indicated *date to 13.61. Nigh rvibe Center, Raleigh Nt '27B69-3.5b1..
if. addi!tional review time is needed, please contact this office at' Pi8b.7-2145..
NO COMMENT 0 it-OMMENTB,ATTACBED
/4-"ItM',C •
• .
9cr 2009
At A RESULT OF THIS-REVI THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED
: -
SIGNED BY:
•
DATEi

ribt‘TH switiE.-F4r.WildiabyssE:
AglIANgtz :.:41):14010M201
aliTaikGOVARia atEi#SE. •Ft
BOB: Wg5TtrOnER: TRBATMElet
CffjITtES
QiiWTW.50.135A P-OPWDPAT-94. -
00”: atildffNet MAN- AbRANT.
FL.00PP14)-1.13: EXATANT PROGRAM
MSC'..#
RALEIGH lig: •
REVIZer DISTRIBUTION'
- DIiZ or* EMERGENU fJANAGEMENT
PFAIRS
DEPT OF GULiUBAI BESOURCSS
DEFT O:T/34,1:aP:01Vill:fDt*.
MID CAROLINA: C.PG
PROJECT INFOXIALT-,I.03
1'4.41t. tdpilaTi WtbENR, Water Qiiality,
Tits.: State. FOironmental 'Policy A#-.
•'.•'"e. •
i01
spga woxfpgR:
'DATE 'REoEriZi5:i 05./.22/20:09,
AGZNCY.44(§tOtfith• 1:0M.J:g.O;OP:
Iti.A#40.0
NCEIVED
.S.EP 24 2009
P4(011211FAVia: :
• .' .
' Assessment /Finettigy p.1:4O gignifidant .Impe.gt
tESC: }ant dounyith1ic Uti1ti&S t4ana6n df*-Stiuth Harnett' •WWTP: And
rpgAzigiiotion 'with 'Ft. Bragg: analSpring ta)te. - enp.anOon oil/WT,P from.5 14Gli
to
15 MGD, ifedonkfietion eicistint, ta:Stewate treament facilities . Spring Lake, end
Et: trasir inst'auatioh oneiri ild.Ete 'Water' Ocilleetidn' iliftetttactCre indicant
P11113..P s jior and sew,er .13,nes:
The attaChed pidjett. has been subinitted go- the: IT, State Clearinghouse. tOr
intergovernMental tetriew. Elease keltiAW h-niri1±it yOur respOnse by the above..
indicated date .ta 1301 Mail Se-rvice Dentet; *Raleith. NC .27699-1301.
If additiorial.'rkVie,w time. is needed, plea!se. Antatt this office at (9JA)..14.0-24-25,
• •
AS .A RESULT .:OFTEITS REVIEW THE FOLLQW.I.WG IS :MED.: • NO coilok.
SIGNED l&r:

: hAgNEIT •
itZgOt4 204,VA: :OTATE t.-LEARENGEMITSV
• /00=00 .4154ttiow2i4po'
Igil?tgq0NTIERNIelErNTAL TWIN' .
: "togoiAsTEwriTER • Taumeign 344-.440:0.-aa
'otonairms .DAVE -13ZCEIVEEri
•25.1416;Y* tiggPAVE:r. itYPIP.009' •
•-ile/TEW 00#61'. 00000
•PilEAAINGROPARMPR.D_INATQA:
1.15EPT'tit TliAN804A.TION. . • .
:§igatEya-DX -PL; - MSC 4i.554
SISEtGEI NC
akvti. IOTA:nit:TT-fox
- IV. Rt. EflpRGO.C? iMANZWZMENT
DEER LEGISLATIVE...AFFAIRS
'DEFT .CtYgit.:k. RESOURCES
-PERT OF TRANSR,CatTliaTON''
"i:tOITEA
APPL1C/INT:- tieptkg, Plater u1ity...
TYRE : State . En:ot4Ohi*ntaq, oB.cy t• •
'Enolronnientil AS:seasmeitt1Pinclinggf No, Signitroalit
i9?
•.:
.. 1.;
*Mar
DESC: Harrfatt-. County Iltittias•Expansion of .doiitti kaitiefit =IP :and
regiOnalitatidri with Ft.. Bragg. an5i.Spring. Lake. - -e5paP4•3i0P of ti,i0P from 5. MGLi! to
15 MG1fit deCointibdita ,existing WaSte. water treament fat1,ties at Spring Lake :and:
Ft. Bragg k instaaRt.t9p.: neuiLwaste water' collection. •infirettrlidtbeel fircluditig
puinp atatiOn and sewer iines-,
The attached • project has been SubMitted to the N. C. Stat.#eigaringhopsa for
intergoyernmental revieW. Please review and Submit .your • reap91,401, b the above
indl_cateci date. to npi 144:11. erfuice Center, Raleigh' NC. 27699:111).1., • . •
If additiOrial •rb,alew time iS ndeded-, p1as contact this 904.-cw
AS A RESULT Or -REVIEDI THE FOLLOWING- IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:.
01*Oit 0OolikA TS ATTACHED..
DATE:-

FINDING, OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ANDENVIRON1VIENTAL ASSESSMENT
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILIITKS - SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEATER 1TEATMENT
PLANT EXPANSION TO 15 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY CAPACITY AND
REGIONALIZATION WITH FORT BRAGG AND SPRING LAKE
Pursuant to the requireitents of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. §,113A-1, Ot sq.);
an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared by Hainett County PubliC Utilities for the -proposed
• wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion from 5 million gallon per day (MGD) to 15 MGD to provide
a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve the existing service areafor the ,South Regional WWTP, the
Town of Spring Lake, and FOrt Bragg. The existing wastewater treatmentfacilities at Spring Lake and Fort
Bragg will be deconnnissioned, thereby eliminating their discharges. New wastewater collection
infrastructure necessary to transmit flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the proposed regional WWTP
•will include: an 8 MGD Pump Station at Fort BraggWWTP; 14,500 linear feet (Lf.) of 30-inch forcemain
between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the existing Spring Lake WWTP site; replacement of the influent
pump station at the Spring Lake WWTP and pipeline construction to head of gravity sewer interceptor (1.5
MGD capacity); 19,00011 of 42-inch gravity sewer interceptor Parallel to and along the Lower Little River
-.: between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett Regional Sewer Pump Station site; a
10 MGD pUnip station expansion at the South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
• NO-210); and 16,00011 of 30- to 36-inch forcemain from the South Regional Pump Station to the South. : •
Regional WWTedenstrUction at the WWTP to allow for the 10 MGD treatment capacity expansion wilT
include: two 5 MGD Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System trains, including piping, decanting, fine
bubble diffusion and blowers; two 5 MGD traveling bridge tertiary filters, including backwash pumping,
piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules; and modifications to the existing sludge handling
system which include the installation of a bioset sludge pasteurization system, including all necessary site
work piping and electrical conversions. •
• Three alternatives were considered for wastewater treatment 1) no action;-,2) optimization of existing
WWTP facilities; and 3) expansion ofthe South Regional WWTP from 5 to 15 MGD. Option 3 was chosen
• for wastewater treatment. Three effluent disposal alternatives were considered: 1) discharge 15 MGD to the
Lower Little River,2 discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and land apply 10 MGD at a spray field
• site; and 3) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and pump 10 MGD to reuse customers. Option 1
was chosen for effluent disposal.
Direct impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and
design: Noise levels willtemporarily increase in the immediate vicinity of construction locations. Nuisance
noise levels, which currently are not detectable from the existing South Regional WWTP, are not expected to
increase or change adversely when the new expansion comes on-line. Any noise levels at the Fort Bragg
• WWTP and Spring Lake WWTP sites will cease when they are taken offline, and operation of the pumping
• stations to convey flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the regional WWTP shOiild not create excessive
disturbance., Approximately 2.2 acres of farmland soils in Cumberland County and approximately 0.5 acres
farmland soils in Harnett County will be impacted as a result of the gravity pipeline construction.
Topography and soils will be directly impacted by grading activities; however, these impacts will be short
term direct 'impacts and will not result in pernianent impacts to thetopographY or soil. Therefore, this project
will not impact local flood elevations. While immediate local air quality at the construction sites will be
degraded by stirred dust and emissions from machinery, the upgraded:WWTP and wastewater transmiSsion
• infrastructute are not anticipated to produce significantly negatively impact air quality: However, the South
Regional WWIP' s existing air permit will be reviewed and updated to include additional generators per final
design requirements. While some lowering of the water table during pipeline trench dewatering and
• installation operations may be required, neither groundwater quality nor quantity should be adversely directly
affected by construction'or operation of the proposedproject Direct impacts to streams and wetland areas
from installation cof*, the forcemain will largely be avoided by using directional driMindteclmiques; however,
I

•
• installation Of the gravity interceptor will require open -cut crossings with•40- to 604optclearingS and*ill
directly impact a total of approximately 1.7 acres of Wetlands. _InStallatiOn of thogravityinterceptor will also -
necessitate clearing approximately 25 acres of forested area. Substantial nutrient loading to the Lower -Little -
River is not expected, and water quality in the river 'should be improved through the-pliMination of the two
• • existing secondary treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake for the expansion of a Single tertiary
discharge. Proper erosion and sedimentation practices will be followed during -constructionto protectlocal
- : water quality as well as aquatic habitat and wildlife, • There -will not be any significant direct negative impacts
- • on existing land uses, public lands, recreational areas, or threatened or endangered sttedies.'„ • .. ' ' . -.
Harnett County has -worked with the State Historic Preservation Office (SEPO) to amend the prOjdat,so'that
it will not adversely impact local National Register -listed Properties'. The County has agreed to the following
conditions ta,attain SHPO's concurrence with this Fin -ding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) -.-! • : . -' -. . .;. '
• All will be buried pipe within existing road rights -of way afThorbiskope With no,Mean§ of '
. . creating sewage odors or any other adverse direct impacts. Once construction is complete, virtually no
sign of a sewer sYsteniwill exist within proximityto Thorbiskope. .„ . . . .
• Ellerslie will not have, a sewer main located on or adjacent to its property. No appurtenances of the ; • ,,
wastewater treatment or -transmission systeraS will he visible from the Ellerslie proneity.- -, . : • , . .
' • The high- quality„Of the tertiary -treated effluent discharged into the tower Little River exceeds the -
qnality, of:effluent discharged from either the Fort praggslyNkrTliarpekting:Lake WWTP,'bothwAidb.. ...... : ,-., .. ..-
-- • —, currently discharge sed.on -treated wastewater effluent upstreain of Ellerslie andThorbiskope
..... --:.- -: • .,,
Properties.. Decommissioning these two plants will benefit environmental quality along the Lower Little
.
. . .
, . . .
• Because of the remote WWTP location, trealinent technology, and:quail quality of the management, operation, ,
. .
and maintenance Of critieal WWTP components; chemiCatadditions- at -the plant healdworksialuniinum - -• '.
coverings over the raw sewage pump station, and fully contained sludge -processing building and storage
facilities, the South Harnett WWTP should not produce nuisance odors that will affect Thorbiskope or
. ..
Ellerslie: - ‘'.. , ' .'- -.' • ' . . • • ,
..... , , , .. . ..,,.
• Due to the distances involved and the remote downslope locationof the WWTP site, no light emitted - .-:- -
from the WWTP lighting fixtures will spill onto theEllerslie and Thorbiskope home Sites or be
deteotable from these home sites: TO•rritnimin the amount of sky glow fromthe WWTP site, , '
fully shielded. pole-monnted- fixtures, and wall lights will be used that meet the International Dark -Sky
Advocate ,(IDA) certification requirements
. . .
. , . . . _ - . . , • , , . , . .. . .
. . Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (SCI) may result from this project and are outlined in the
EA. State and local programs to mitigate•impacts in theprojectarea, including local Zoning , subdivision
' : regulations, land use plans, and watershed overlay ordinances, are described in -detail within the EA and . ' • -
include policies that promote orderly growth through ptoficient use of land and cost-effective provision of
sewer service. Therefore, the proposed project should not result in significant SCL .
. ' BaSed- on the findings Of the EA; the impact avoidance/mitigation measures containedtherein, and revieWed .
- - - by governmental agencies, the Division of, Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will 'net
result in significant impacts to the enVironment. This'EA and FNSI are prerequisites the issuance of
Division of Water Quality permits necessary for the project's construction. .An Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for, this project. This FNSI completes the environmental review record,
-which is available forinspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality •
22 September 2009:

ATA
MENR
North Carolina Department•of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue . Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Govemor Director Secretary
December 4, 2009
Mr. Rodney Tart, Director
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
P.O. Box 1119
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
SUBJECT: Authorization to Construct
A to C No. 088366A02
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
Hamett County -
Dear Mr. Tart:
A letter of request for an Authorization to Construct was received -July 8, 2008, by the
Division, and final plans and specifications for the subject project have been reviewed and found
to be satisfactory:" A•atTibnzation is hereby granted: for_ttheconstructi.on.of modifications to the
existing 5 MGD South Regional Wastewater•Treatment Plant, with, discharge of•trealed •
wastewater into the Little River In: the Cape Fear River Basin.
This authorization results in no increase in design or permitted capacity and is awarded
for the construction of the following specific modifications:
Dual intermittent continuous extended aeration systems (ICEAS No. 2 and No. 3) with
each system including dual 126-ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins providing a total
aeration volume of 5.90 MG, a 1.30 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers, decanter and
five (5) 25 Hp submersible mixers; four (4) 2,300 scfm blowers; dual tertiary traveling
bridge filters (filter No. 2 and No. 3), with'three (3) 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; dual
channel UV disinfection system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of
12.5 MGD; and a sludge management facility expansion including a 2-meter• gravity belt
thickener rated at 900 drypounds/hour, a 2.2-meter sludge filter press rated at 2,041 dry
pounds/day with sludge feed pump; screw,conveyers, Class A residuals heated vessel
rated at 2,000 dry pounds/hour, lime storage silo and delivery system, odor control
system; a 1,0601W emergency generator; and all site work, yard piping, and electrical
and work; in conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data
subsequently -fled and:approved• by the; Department. ofEnvironment and Natural : • > •
Resources: •• .
1617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer SeMce:1-877-623-674B
Internet: www.ncwaterqualty.org
M Equal Opporhmity%Affirmative Action Employer
•
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Mr. Rodney Tart, Director
December 4, 2009
Page 2
This Authorization to Construct is issued in.accordance with Part III, Paragraph A of
NPDES Permit No. NC0088366 issued December 1, 2006, and shall be subject to revocation
unless the wastewater treatment facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions and
limitations specified in Permit No. NC0088366. •
Please note this Authorization to Construct does not expressly grant or imply approval of
any additional capacity pursuant to Permit No. NC0088366. Expenditures for the construction of
• these facilities shall not be considered in any such request for additional capacity above that
expressly granted in the current NPDES Permit (NC0088366).
It is the responsibility of the Permittee to 'ensure that all contracts entered into for the.
construction of these -facilities are_issued in accordance with applicable North Carolina General
Statutes.
The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance
with G.S. 143-215.1' and in a manner approved by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may
be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional orreplacement wastewater
treatment or disposal facilities. •
The Fayetteville Regional Office, telephone number [phone]; shall be notified' at
least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an on site
inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the
normal office hours from' 8:00 a.m. until 5:90 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State
Holidays.
- Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a
certification must be received from a.professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility •
has been installed in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Authorization to Construct and the
approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to: Construction Grants & Loans,
DWQ/DENR, 1633 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1633.
Upon classification of the facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall
employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) of the
wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the type and grade at
least equi'alent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment
facilities by the Certification Commission.
The Permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and
grade to comply with the conditions of T15A:8G.0202: The ORC of the facility must visit each
Class I'facility at least weekly and each Class 1T, .BEE andiVfacility at 1ea"st Gaily,' excluding ' '
weekends and holidays, must properly manage the facility, must document daily operation and
maintenance of the facility, and must comply with all other conditions of T15A:8G.0202.

Mr. Rodriey Tart, Director
December 4, 2009
Page 3
A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
Permittee for the life of the facility.
During the construction of the proposed additions/inodifications; the permittee shall
continue to properly maintain and operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities at all times,
and in such a manner, as necessary to comply with the effluent limits specified in the NPDES
Permit.
You are reminded that it is mandatory for the project to be constructed in accordance
with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and when applicable, the North
Carolina Dam Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly statewhatthe contractor's
responsibilities shall be in complying with these Acts.
• Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the recipient must have obtained all
applicable permits from the State. '
Failure to abide by the requirements contained in this Authorization to Construct may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement'action by the Division. of Water Quality in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C. .
The issuance of fhis Authorization to Construct does not preclude the Permittee from
complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
�j other government agencies (local, state,: and federal). which have jurisdiction.
One (1) set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you have
any.questions or need additional information, please contact Seth Robertson, P.E. at telephone
number (919) 715-620.6. -
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Su11in5
kp:sr
cc: Joseph W. McGougan, P.E., _ Marziano & McGougan, P.A., 1300 Second Avenue,
Suite 211, Conway, SC 29526
Harnett County Health Department
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
DWQ, Technical Assistance and Certification Unit
DWQ, Point Source Branch, NPDES.Program
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Seth Robertson, P.E.
Ken Pohlig, P.E.
ATC File

APR-30-2008 09:26A FROM:C-60116A
813688
TO:18434880129 P.2/4
April;24; 2008
Rodney Tart, Director
Harnett County Department,of Public Utilities
P.O.Box 1119 _
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Dear Mr. Tart:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Stara of North Carolina
Willam GrRoss, tr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
.DIWsIon of Water Quality..
Subject: Speculative Limits
Harnett Co, Department of Public Utilities
Harnett County
•
This letter is in responseto your recent request for speculative effluent limits for an
expansion of the South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to 15 MGD, discharging
into the Lower Little River (N 35° 13.831' & W 78° 53,197'). The proposed discharge is for a
regional system consolidating the wastewatertreatment facilities of Harnett County, Spring
Lake and Fort Bragg. A Level B model was used to evaluate the effect of the proposed
discharge on the receiving stream. As aresult'of this evaluation, it was decided to apply best
available technology, limits for BOD-5 and for, ammonia :nitrogen for this proposed facility,
,The Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit will be issued at the proposed
location. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal
permit application for the proposed discharge and after the public has an opportunity to
continent on the project.
Speculative Effluent Limits
Speculative limits are presented in the attached effluent sheets and are explain as follows:
BODs and Ammonia - The monthly average limits for BOD-5, and ammonia nitrogen are based
on the best available technology for this proposed -expansion.
rota', Suspended Solids (TSS) - TSS limits are standard; for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater.
Fecal Coliform, pH - The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH represent water quality
standards for Class C waters (T15A NCAC 2B .0211).
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) - Facilities that use chlorine disinfection receive a total chlorine
lirnit to protect against chlorine toxicity in the receiving stream.
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus - Monitoring for these parameters is required to evaluate
and protect water quality in the receiving stream.
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch
:1617 Mali Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
512 N. Salisbury Street, Relelgh, North Carolina ' 27604
Telephone [phone] . '. Caro na
FAX [phone] )tij
On the Internet at http:/jh2o,enr.stalenaus/ aryaturmly

APR-30-2008 0926A FROM:C-GOUGA
813688 TO:18434880129 P.4/4
_J
h;/.r..ROdney Tart
April 24, 2008
Page2
•
Please be advised that the limits and monitoring frequencies on the attichedpage were
based on the information presented in. the speculative lint a request. A Complete 'evalitation of
these limits and -monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and
other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application.
• .
As you knOW, you must evaluate this project for environmental impacts before receiving •
a modified permit..Anyone proposing to construct new -or expanded waste treatment -facilities
using public funds or public (state)' lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
When wastewater fit:twat' (1) equalor exceed 0.5 mcn or (2) exceed one-thiicl, of. the 7Q10 flow of
the receiving stream. The NPDES Unit will not iskie a permit for this expansion until the •
Division has approved the EA and sent a Finding of No Significant ImpactOONSI) to the state
Cle'atinglionae for review and conunene.
. • .. . •
•
. .
. An Environmental Assessment -should contain a dear justification for the proposed
project. It should provide an analysis of potentialalternatives, including a thorough evaluation
of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge -alternatives such as spray irrigation, water'
conservation, or inflow and infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally
preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes,
the preferred alternative Must be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with
• the least adverse impact on the environment, if. the EA demonstrates that the ProjectMay result
in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the enVironmerit, you must then prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement. Hanna Stallings of the Water Quality Planning Branch can
provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
You May contact Ms. Stallings at 919-783-5083, ext.. 555.
The Division would be agreeable to meet with representatives Of Harnett County to
• discuss these limits presented here and the future plans for regionalization. Should you:have
any questions or if you need any, additional information, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-5083. extension 540.
Sincerely,
Gil Vinzard )/‘4''L
Supervisor, Eastern NPDES Unit
Ertdosure =
cc: Central Files
Fayetteville Regional Office, Belinda Hinson
NPDES Unit
Mr. Hiram J. Marziano - Mania= & McGougan, PA
P.O. Office Drawer 4428
Asheboro, North Carolina 272044428

APR-30-2008 09: 26A FROM: C-GOUGA . 813688 TO: 184348801F9 P. 3/4
Mr. Rodney Tart
April 24, 2008
Page 3
SPECULATIVE LEVIITA.TIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The following tablepresents speculative limits and associated monitoring requirements for the
proposed 15.0 Mat) Harnett County WWTP. Speculative limits do not guarantee that the
Division v411 issue a NPDES permit In addition, these limits may change when a permit is
issued to the Harnett County Department of Public Utilities. A complete evaluation of these
limits and monitoring frequendes, in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants, will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application,
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
-
SPECULATIVE LIMITS
SPECULATIVE
MONITORING
UIREMENTS•
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily '
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
' Sample
i
Location
Flow (MGD)
15.0 MGD
, ,•
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C2 (Apria 1-'
October 31)
5 mg/1
7.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
I, E
•BOD, 5 day, 20 °C2 (November 1-
March 31).
10 mg/1
.
15 mg/1
, .
Daily
•Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
' , Daily
Composite
,..
I, E
NH3-N (April 1 - October 31)
1.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
Daily.
Composite
E .
Nlia-N (November 1- March 31)
2.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
. .
Daily
,Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3 , '
, n.
Daily
Grab _
E, U, D
pH4 .
•
Daily '
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
, '
28 gg/I
Daily •,
Grab
E
Temperature 0C .
-
Daily.
Grab
E, U, D .
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
•
.
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
•
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity'
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
•, 1. Sample Locations: E • Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D Downstream. • Final monitoring
requirements to be determined after NPDES application review. •
• 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 85%
of the respective influent value (85% removal required).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than-9.0 standard units.
• 1 Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 33 percent; January, April, July, and October.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
3

WATER
Michael P. Easley
43 _ QG Governor
rWilliam G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Rodney Tart
Harnett County Public Utilities
P.O.Box 1119
Lilington, North Carolina 27546
Dear Mr. Tart:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E..Director
Division of Water Quality
December 1, 2006
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0088366
South Harnett County Regional WWTP
Harnett County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved• your application for the subject ,permit,
Accordingly, we are' forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum
of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,
1994 (or as subsequently amended).
if any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling _requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written
. petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714).
Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
. PIease note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to .the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuanee of the permit. This permit does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water
Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources. the Coastal Area Management Act
or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone
number [phone], extension 553.
Cc: NPDES Files
Fayetteville Regional Office — Surface Water Protection
USEPA Region 4
Aquatic Toilcology Unit •
use
N Caro Ana
Naturally
North Curelina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: tt2oenrstate.nc.us 512N.Salisbury Si_ Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX (9L9)733.0719 1477-623.6748
An ema( flnanreutvlAffitmative Art rm Fmni ier—F1a. Rorxriodflrpb Peet P.mnanor P>n6r

Permit NC0088366
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL . RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY.
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Harnett County Public Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Shady Grove Rd. - SR 2050
Spring Lake
Harnett County
to receiving waters designated as the Little River in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2007.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2011.
Signed this day December 1, 2006.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Dime t 5r
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0088366
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Harnett County. Public Utilities is hereby authorized to:
1. After obtaining an Authorization to Construct, construct and operate a 5.0 MGD
wastewater treatment facility located on Shady Grove .Rd, Spring Lake, in Harnett
County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
the Litde River, classified as C waters in the Cape FearRiver Basin.
5:44 fiRil i.r

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Regional WWTP
ptate GritilOnad: G23NWIManchcster /Ettit3g,Ie. 35° 13' 49"
Longitude; 78° 53' 00"
Receiving Stream: Liula River Dretnagne_Basin: Cape Fear River
Oreant Class: C Sub -Basin: 03-06-14
North
NPDES Permit No. NC0088366
Harnett County
67/ b
nnz-az- 7. I.
•ard 90:ZZ:VO
C699E6901.6

0
iJ
• 9108936643
12:19:44 p.m.
10-12-2006
Permit NC0088366
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Petmittec as specified below:
Effluent
Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Dalty
.2rfaximum .
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
sampleLocadonl
Flow
5.0 MGD
,
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-clay, 20°C
(April 1— October 31)2
5.0 mglL
7.5 mglL
Daily
Composite
.
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(November 1— March 31)2
10.0 mglL
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Soilds2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
•
Composite
Effluent
N1-I3 as N
(November 1— March 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100m1
400/100m1
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chiorine4
2Bpg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
•
Daily
Grab
Effluent •
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKN
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2 + NO3
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
•
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
ChronicToxicity5
Quarterly
Composite.
Effluent .
psis
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
P
. •
See Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Dissolved Oxen
Oxygen
See Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
NOTES:
1. Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream of the discharge. Downstream = at least 500 feet from the discharge.
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during the months of June, July, August, and
September and weekly during the remainder of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration as measured in the effluent shall not be less than 5.0
mg/L.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodap/pia) limit at 14 °/n with testing in January, April, July, and October (see Special
Condition A. (2)).
G. The pia shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
0 /32

it.
9108936643
t
1 2:20:28 p.m.
10-12-2006 11 /32
Permit NC0088366
A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dobfa at an effluent concentration of 14%.
The permit holder shall perform ar a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphrria Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions,
The tests will be performed during the months of January, April, July, and October. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit,
rhen multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The cbtonic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having nodetectable impairment of reproduction orsurvival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival, The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"'(Revised-February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results .required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR 1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30. days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and-ORC or approved designate signature:
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month. in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will he
required daring the following month.
Should any test datafrom this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit • may be re -opened and .modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organists
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the
month of the initial monitoring,
P

• 8108936643 12:21:23 p.m, 10-12-2006 13 /32
,
Permit NC0088366
A. (3) PERMIT RE -OPENER: SUPPLEMENTARY NUTRIENT MONITORING
Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 02H, specifically,15A NCAC 02H.0112(b)(1) and 02H.0114(a), and'Part II,
Sections B,12. and B.13. of this Permit, the Director of DWQ may reopen this permit to require supplemental•nutrient
monitoring of the discharge. The additional monitoring will be to support water qua[ity,modeJiog efforts within the
Cape Fear River Basin, and shall be consistent with a monitoring plan developed jointly by the Division and affected
stakeholders.

9108036643
12:21:45 p.m.
10-12-2006 15 /32
Permit NC0088366
A. (4) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The pertnittec shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below (in
accordance with 40 CPR Part 136), The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal (summer,
winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwiseindicated, metals shall be analyzed as
"total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum Level shall be the most sensitive as
provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual,TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and grease ,
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile orgnnic contpoueds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromofonn
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroelhylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
' 1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-tichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dirutro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
ease -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyI) phthalate
4-bromophextyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzy! phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene.
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
bi-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3;3-dichlorobenzidine
' Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluorantl)ene •
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadtene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone•_
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
• Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPAI or in a form approved by the Director, within
90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address: Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 flail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

9108936643
12:22:29 p.m. 10-12-2006 17132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Pagel of 16
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
Section A. Definitions
2/Month •
Samples are collected twice pet month with at least ten calendar days between sampling events.
3/Weep
Samples are collected three times per week on three separate calendar days.
Actor "the .Act" .
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also !mown as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 USC 1251, et seq.
,Annu jAverage
The arithmetic Mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar year. In the case of fecal
coiifoem,the geometric mean of such discharges.
• Arithmetic Mean
The summation of the individual, values divided by the number of individual values.
Bypass
The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system, which
is not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility.
Calendar Day .
The period froth midnight •of one day until midnight of the nest clay. However, for purposes of this permit; any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling:
Calendar Quarter
One of. the following distinct periods: January through March, April through June, July through September, and
October through December.
Composite Sample:
A sample collected over a 24-hour period by continuous sampling or combining grab samples of at least 100 nil in
such a manner as to result in a total sample representative of the wastewater discharge during the sample period. The
Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time
interval between grab samples, etc) on a case -by -case basis. Sarnples may be collected manually or automatically.
Composite samples may be obtained by the following methods:
(1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
(2) Constant time/variable volume: a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour
period of discharge' and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(3) Variable time/constant volume; a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period
with the time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing the sampling
point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow recorder and
totalizer, and the preset gallon interval between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1/24 of the
expected total daily flow at the treatment system, or - r
(4) Constant time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal voluine collected over a 24-hour period at
a constant time interval. This method may only be -used in situations where effluent flow rates vary
less than 15 percent. The grab samples shall be taken at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart
during any 29-hour period and must be of equal size and of no less than 100 milliliters. Use of this method
requites prior approval by the Director.
Version 5/1/2006
L
)

I
9108936643
J(�
1
t
12:23:00 p.m. 10-12-2006 18 t32
NPDES Permit Requix znents'
Page2of16
In accordance with (4) above, influent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
Effluent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour except at wastewater treatment systems
having a detention• time of greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be collected at
intervals evenly spaced over the 24-hour period that are equal in number of hours to the detention time of the
system in number of days. However, the interval between effluent grab samples may not exceed six hours nor
the number of samples less than four during a 24-hour sampling period.
Continuou8 flow measurement
Flow monitoring that occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of .the facility: Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be no flow orfor infrequent maintenance
activities on the flow device.
pally Discharge . -
The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants measured in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as
the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. The "daily discharge" concentration comprises the mean
concentration for a 24-hour sampling period as either a composite sample concentration or the arithmetic mean of all
grab samples collected during that period. (40 CFR 122.3)
D* Maximum
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month for conventional and other non -toxicant parameters.
NOTE: Permittees tray not submit a "daily. average" calculation for determining compliance with permit limits for
toxicants. See the relevant Federal effluent guideline[s] for the appropriate calculation interval.
Daily Sampling '
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless.otherwise specified in the
permit. The Division expects that sampling shall be conducted on weekdays except where holidays or other
disruptions of normal operations prevent weekday sampling If sampling is required for all seven days of the week
for any permit parameter(s), that requirement will be so noted on the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Page(s).
DWQ or "the Division"
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural. Resources.
gMC •
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
Facility Closure
The cessation of wastewater treatment at a permitted facility; or the cessation of al] activities that require coverage.
under the NIMES. Completion of facility closure' will allow this permit to be rescinded.
•
Geometric Mean
The Nth root of the product of the individual values where N = the number of individual values. For purposes of
calculating the geometric mean, values of "0" (or "< [detection level]") shall be considered =1.
Grab Sample -
Individual samples of at least 100 ml collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples can be
collected manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge (or the receiving stream, for instream
samples).
Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40.CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Instantaneous flow measurement
A measure of flow taken zt the time of sampling, when both the sample and flow will be representative of the total
discharge.
Version 5/112006

9108936643
t
12:23:32 p.m. 10-12-2008 10 132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 3 of 16
Monthly Average .(concentration limit)
The arithrnetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal
coliform, the geamet is mean of such discharges.
Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
QuarterlyAvarage (concentration limit)
The average of all samples taken over a calendar quarter.
Severe property damage
Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable,
or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage excludes economic loss caused by delays in production.
Toxic Pollutant:
.Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(I) of the Clean Water Act.
Upset
An incident beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee causing unintentional and temporary noncompliance'with
permit effluent lirnitations and/or monitoring requirements. An' upset does not include noncompliance caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive.
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Weekly Average (concentration limit), '
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar week. in the case of fecal
colifornz, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Section B. Genera I Conditions
1. Duty to Camply
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Any permit noncompliance constitutes a. violation
of -the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance,
or modification; or denial of a permit. renewal application [40 CFR 122.411.
a. The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under
section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act within the time provided in the regulations that establish these
standards or prohibitions or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the petnvt bas not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the
Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section
402, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment, program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(6)(8)
of the Act; is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation: [40 CFR 122.41 (a)
(2))
c. The CIean Water Act provides that any person who rre84gertly violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or
405 of the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act; or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section
402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500' to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both, In the case of a second or subsequent conviction fax a
negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. [40 CFR 122.41 (a) (2)]
Version 5/1/2006

0108936643
12:24:10 p.m. 10-12-2006 20 /32.
it
NPDES Permit Requireinents
Pap 4of16
d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation,, or impxisoninent for not more than 3 years, or both: In
the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal
penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both.
[40 CFR 122.41 (a) (2)]
e. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 30B, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act,
and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent clanger of death or serious
bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not
mate than 15 years, or both, In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment
violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than
30 years,'or both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iit) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction
of violating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined
up to $2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR 122.41 (a) (2)]
• f. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person
who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit [North
Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A]
g. .Any person tray be assessed an atlri,inistrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such
sections is a permit issued under section 402 of this Act Administrative penalties for Class I violations are
not to exceed $10,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$25,000. Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each (fay during which the
violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $125,000. [40 CFR
122.41 (a) (3)]
2. Duty to Mtigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the envitonnient
[40 CFR 122.41(d)]..•
3. Civil and Criminal L>;ability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part. II. C. 4), "Upsets" (Fart II. C. 5) and "Power
Failures" (Part II. C 7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3,143-215.6 or Section 309
of the Federal .Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the Permitter is responsible for consequential damages, such as
fish lolls, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Notliing is this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee
froth any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-
215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal 'Act, 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for .
• consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations [40 CFR 122.41 (g)1.
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or
facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
Version 611/2006

9108936643
12:24:49 p.m. 10-12-2006 21 /32
J11
p
j1
' NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 5 of 16
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of
this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby [NCGS 150E-23].
8. Duty. to Provide Information
The Pemlittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any information which the
Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revolting and reissuing, or
terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the
Permit Issuing Authority upon request, copies of records required by this permit [40 CFR 12.2,41(h)}.
9. Pity to Reapply
IE the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit [40 CFR 122.41 (b)].
10. Expiration of Pert
The Permittee is not authorized• to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive autotnatic
authorization to discharge beyond the.expiration date, the Permittee shall, submit such information, forms; and
fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date.
Any Permittee that has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior .to expiration, or any Perrnittee that does not
have a permit after the expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject
the Permittee to enforcemeat procedures as provided in. NCGS 143-V 5.6 and 33 USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements •
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and cerdited
[40 CFR 122.41(k)].
a. Ail permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (a) a president; secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar polity or decision
malting functions, for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the
operation of the regulated facility including having the •explicit or implicit duty of malting major capital
investment recornmendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long
term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that
the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for
permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated
to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For, a municipality, State, Federal,' or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official [40 CFR 122.22].
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if:
1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
2. The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or
well field, superintendent, a position. of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
3. The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.22]
• Version 5/1/2006

•
0108936643
12:25:27 p.m. 10-12-2006 22 /32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 6 of 16
c. Changes to authorization: If an authorization under paragraph (b) of this section is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director
prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized
representative [40 CFR 122.22)
d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
following certification [40 CFR 122.22]:
'I certify, under penally of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of tines and imprisonment for knowing violations.'
12. Permit Actions
This permit May be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the
Perri ittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, of termination, or a notification of planned
changes ox anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition [40 CFR 122.41 (f)).
13. ,Permit Modification. Revocation and ]teissuance. 9r Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations
contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts L2 and 123; Title I5A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.•
14. Amoral Adixvysterinnd Cornflliarzce Monitori g Fee Reouirements
The Permittee must pay the annual arlm;n;stering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty -days after being
billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0105 (b) (2)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit
Section C. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Certified Operator
Upon classification of the permitted facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall employ a
certified water pollution control treatment system operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the water pollution
control treatment system. Such operator must hold a certification of the grade equivalent to or greater than the
classification assigned to the water pollution control treatment system by the Certification Commission. The
Permittee roust also employ one or more certified Back-up ORCs who possess a currently valid certificate of the
type of the system. Back-up ORCs roust possess a grade equal to (or no more than one grade less than) the grade
of the system [15A NCAC 8G.02011.
The ORC death Class I facility must:
➢ Visit the facility at least weekly
➢ Comply with all other conditions of I5A NCAC 8G.0204.
The ORC of each Class II, III and IV facility must:
• Visit the facility at least daily, excluding weekends and holidays
> Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
• Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 8G.0204.
Once the facility is classified, the Permittee shall submit a letter to the Certification Commission designating the
operator in responsible charge:
a. 'Within 60 calendar days prior to wastewater being introduced into a new system
Version 671/2006

( 0108038643
12:26:04 p.m. 10-12-2008 23 /32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page7of1a
b. Within 120 calendar days of
) Receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiring the designation of a
new ORC and back-up ORC
> A vacancy in the position of ORC or back-up ORC.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance resources necessary to operate the existing
facilities at optimum efficiency. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to
achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures, This provision requires the Pennittee to install
and operate backup or auxiliary facilities only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
permit [40 CFR 122.41 (e)].
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with .the condition of this permit [40 CFR 122.41
(c))•
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Bypass not exceeding limitations [40 CFR 122.41 (m) (2)] •
The Permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but
only if it also is fox essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs b. and c. of this section.
b.
Notice [40 CFR 122.41 (m) (3))
(1) Antidpated bypass. If the Permittee
notice, if possible at least ten days
anticipated quality and effect of the byp
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee
U. E. G. (24-hour notice). •
c. Prohibition of Bypass -
(1) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing .Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of -
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The Permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph b. of this section. ..
(2) Bypass from the collection system is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for a bypass as provided in any -current ,or future system -wide collection system
permit associated with the treatment facility;
(3) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if
the P•ermit IssuingAuthotity determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Paragraph c.
(1) of this section.
knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior
before the date of the bypass; including an 'evaluation of the
ass.
shall subriut notice of an unantidpated bypass as required in Part
5. Upsets
a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 122.41• (n) (2)]: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action
brought for noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of
paragraph b. of this condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
Version 5/1/2006

;i 9108936643
12:26:38 p.m. 10-12-2006 24 r32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 8of16
I noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review.
b. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset A Permittee , who wishes to establish the
affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occutxed and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The Permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II. E, 6. (b) of this :permit
(4) The Permittee complied with any remedial measuxes required under Part II. B. 2. of this permit.
•
c. Burden of proof [40 CFR 122.41 (n) (4)]: The Permittee seeking , to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof in any enforcement proceeding.
6. Rernoved Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in. a manner such as toprevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States, The Perrnittee
shall comply with all existing Federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of
40 CFR part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority for the utilization/disposal of sludge may be
reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR 503. The
Permittee shall comply with applicable 40 CFR 503 Standards for the Use, and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (when
promulgated) within the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit is not modified to incorporate the
requirement. The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use
or disposal practices.
7. Power Failure%
The Pennittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0124.
Reliability) to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power failures
either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators or retendon of inadequately treated effluent.
Sectionn D. Monitoring and Records
1, Rep esentative Samnlinm-
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the volume and nature of
the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is
chazacteristic of the dischatge over the entire period the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the
monitoring points specified itt this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted
by any other wastestream, body of water, or substance, Monitoring points shall not be changed without
notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.41 G)].
2. Reporting -
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be stimmarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Foam (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postmarked no later than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of
these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
NC IJENR / Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service • Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
. Version 5/1/20rS

it
l�
)t
ee
9108936643
12:27:14 p.m. 10-12-2008 25 /32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 9of16
3. Flow Meeserements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices shall be selected
and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent
with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a
maxirnum deviation of less than 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge
volumes. Flow measurement devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minknum of once per year and maintained
' to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device.
The Director shall approve the flow measurement device end monitoring location prior to installation.
Once -through condenser cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I
of this permit end based onthe manufacturers pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test P:ocedutes
Test procedures for the, analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations (published pursuant to
NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq), the Water and Air Quality Reporting Act; and to regulations published pursuant to
Section 304(g); 33 USC 1314, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as Amended), and 40 CFR 136; or in
the case of sludge use or disposal, approved under 40 CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, unless
othet test procedures have been specified in this permit [40 CFR 122.41].
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit; all test procedures must produce minimum
detection and 'reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be
reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are
determined capibie of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements,
then the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must
be used.
5. penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to be rnaintairied under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment, for not more than two years per violation, or
by both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more
than 4 years, or both [40 CFR 122.41].
• 6. Itecorda, Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the Permittee's sewage sludge
use and disposal activities, which shall be retained fora period of at least Eve years (or Longer es required by 40
,CFR 503), the Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including:
all calibration and maintenance records
Y all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation
Y copies of all reports required by this permit
i copies of all data used to complete the application for this permit
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years 'from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period mzy be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
•
7. jtecordingResults
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Pemuttee shall record
the following information [40 CFR 122.41];
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
,b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
Version 5/1/2006

p
9103936643
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
12:27:52 p.m. 10-12-2006 26132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 10 of 16
S. Inspection and Entry .
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor, acting
as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to;
a. Enter upon the Permitte&s premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where
records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this
Pin
c. Inspect at reasonable tunes. any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices,
or operations regulated or required under.this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location (40 CFR 122.41 (i)].
Section E Reporting Requirements
1. Change in Digccarge
All discharges anthorzed herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this perrnit. The discharge
of any pollutant identified in this permit more fxegriently than or at a level in excess of that.authorized shall
constitute a violation of the permit. • ' -
2. Planned Changes
The Pennittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility, [40 CFR 122.41 (I)]. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for new sources at 40 CFR
122.29 (b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged.. This notification applies to pollutants subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
noti.ficatiorrrequirements under 40 CFR 122.42 (a) (1). .
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Pennittee's sludge use or disposal practices,
and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permitconditionsthat are different
from or absent in the existing permit; including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported
during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. ,Anticipates Toneompliance
The Perrnittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes to the permitted facility or other
activities that might result in noncompliance with the permit [40 CFR 122.41 (I) (2)].
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. The Director may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the pemmit to document the change of ownership. .Any such action
may incorporate other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act [40 CFR 122.41(1) (3)].
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit [40 CFR 122.41 (1) (4)J.
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (D1YIR) (See Past II. D. 2) or farms
provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b. If the Pexmittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR.
Version 5/1/2006
•
•
•

0108036643
i1
12:23:25 p.m. 10-12-2006
27132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page itof16
6. Twenty-four Hour Reyorting
a. The Permittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that
potentially threatens public health or the environment Any information shall be provided orally within 24
hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the circumstances. .A written submission shall also be
provided _within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of -the circumstances. The written
submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance,. and its cause; the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has rot been corrected, die anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance [40 CFR 122.41 (1) (6)].
b. the Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under this section if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
c. , Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response
personnel at [phone], [phone] or [phone].
7. Other Noncompliance •
The Permittee shall report aJ1 instances of noncompliance not reported under Part IL E. 5 and 6. of this permit at
the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part II. E. • 6. of
_ this permit [40 CFR 122.41 (1) (7)].
8. Other information,
Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or
' submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly subtuit
such facts or information [40 CFR 122.41 (1) (8)].
9. Noncompliance Notification
The Permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of the
Division as soon as possible; but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day following the
occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution _ control facility which results in the discharge of significant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of,a sludge
digester, the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility, or any other unusual
circumstances.
L. e, ,. „...ems .,,,,. r it...s. rt..A to Irnntvn nr 11n1er vn rrasenne. that render the facility incapable of adequate

9188936643
12:35:56 p.m. 10-12-2006 28 /32
NPDES Permit Requirdments '
Page 12 of 16
not more than $25,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both
[40 CFR 122.41J.
12. Annual performance Reports
Permittees who own or operate facilities that collect or treat municipal or domestic waste shall provide an annual
report to the Permit Issuing Authority and to the users/customers served by the•Permittee (NCGS 143-215.1C).
The report shall summarize the performance of the collection or treatment system, as well as the extent to which
the facility was compliant with applicable Federal or State Iaws, regulations and rules pertaining to water quality.
The report shall be provided no later than sixty days after the end of the calendar or fiscal year, depending upon
which annual period is used for evaluation.
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Section A. Construction
The Permittee shall not commence construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the plant's treatment
capacity, nor change the treatment process(es) ntiliaed at the treatment plant unless the Division has issued an.
Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit. Issuance of an AtC wi.11 not occur until Final Plans and Specifications for
the proposed construction have been submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Division,
Section B. Groundwater Monitoring
The Pettnittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct groundwater
monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facilitywith the current
groundwater standards. •
Section C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Permit issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR 122.42):
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would resultin the discharge, on a routine or frequent
basis, of any eerie pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels' ;
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 pg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200.pg/L) for acrolein end ecryionitrile; five hundred micrograms
per liter (500 pg/L) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 24-nethyl-4.6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter
(1 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Five times the rnarimum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any, discharge, on a non -routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the
highest of the following "notification levels";
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 pg/L);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
,Section D. Evaluation of Wastewater Discharge Alternatives _
The Permittee shall evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most environmentally sound
alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facility is in substantial non-compliance with the terms
and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing rules, regulations or laws, the Permittee shall submit a report in,
such form end detail as required by the Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within 60 days of
notification by the Division.
Section E. Facility Closure Requirements
The Permittee must notify the Division at least 90 days prior to the closure of any wastewater treatment system
covered by this permit. The Division may require specific measures during deactivation of the system to prevent
Version 5/1/2006

0108036643
- S II 1 • l .
•
I I
1 1
I •
1
11
12:36:30 p.m. 10-12-2006 20 /32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 13 of 16
adverse impacts to waters of the State. This permit cannot be rescinded while any activities requiring this pemvt
continue at the permitted facility.
. PART ry
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR MUNCIPAL FACILITIES
Section A. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following,
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to
section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced by an indirect discharger
as influent to that POTW at the time of issuance of the permit
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and quantity of
effluent introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated iinpact of the change on the quantity or quality
of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
Section B. Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial liners.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs from
industries using the Municipal system may be present in the Pezmittee's discharge. At such time as
sufficient information becomes available to establish limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be
revised to specify effluent limitations for any .or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best
practicable technology or water quality standards.
•
2. Under no circumstances shall the Permittee allow introduction of the following wastes in the waste
treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, inducting, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a dosed cup Cashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees
Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage .to the POTW, but in no case Discharges
with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such Discharges;
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW
resulting in Interference; -
d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (COD, etc) released in a Discharge at a flow
rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in
no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C
(104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
f Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil' origin in amounts that will
cause interference or pass through; •
Pollutants which result in the presence of. toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a
quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for the
Permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to
ensure compliance by the Permttee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the Permittee
may be necessary regarding some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
4. The Permittee shall require any industrial discharges sending influent to the permitted system to meet
Federal Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act., Prior to accepting
wastewater from any significant industrial user, the Permittee shall either develop and submit to the
Version 5/1/2006

0108036643
12:37:42 p.m.
10-12-2006 31 /32
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 15 of 16
6. Authorization to Construct (A to C)
The Permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct permit (AtC) is issued to all applicable
industrial users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment facility. Prior to the issuance of
an AtC, the proposed pretreatment facility and treatment process roust be ebalusited •for its capacity to
comply with all Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations.
7. pOTW Inspection & Monitoring of their Ms
The Permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as described in its Division
approved pretreatment program is order to determine, independent of information supplied by industrial
users, compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. The Permittee must:
a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SI[Ts) at least once per calendar year; and •
b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (StUs) at least twice pee calendar year 'for all permit -
limited pollutants, once during the period •fxoxin January 1 through June 30 and once during the
period from July 1 through Decemhar 31, except for organic compounds which shall be sampled
once per calendar year, •
8. SIU SelfMonitoung and Repotting
• The Permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring and teporting
requirements outlined in the Division approved pretreatment progtasir, the industry's pretreatment permit,
or in 15A NCAC 2H .0908.
9. gnforceszaent Response Plan (E1tP)
The Permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment standards
promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water .Act (40 CFR 405 et seq.), prolubitsve
discharge standards as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 2II.0909, and specific local limtations.
All enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) approved by the
Division.
10. pretreatment .Annual Reports (PAR)
The Permittee shall report to the Division in accordance with 1SA NCAC 2H .0908. Ea lieu of submitting
annual reports, Mre iFed Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 2H .0904 (b) may be'
required to meet with Division personnel periodically to discuss enforcement of pretreatxneritrequirements
and other pretreatment impleinentation issues.
Pot all other active pretreatment programs, the Persnittee shall submit two copies of a Pretre tment:Axxnuat
Report (PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous twelve months to the Division at the.
following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Pretreatment Unit.
1617 Marl Service Center
]taleig4gh, NC 27699-1617
These reports shall be submitted according to a schedule established by the Director and shall contain the
following.
a.) Nam -wive
A brief discussion of reasons for, status oarid actions takenfor all Significant Industrae!
Users (SIUs) in Significant Non -Compliance (SNC);
b.) Pretreatment Program Summary (PPS)
A pretreatment progracn summary (PPS) on specific fortes approved by the Division;
c.) Significant Non-Coroplience Report (SNCR)
The astute of the violations and the actions taken or proposed to correct the violations on
• specific forms approved by the Division;
d.) Industrial Data Summary Forms (IDS1)
Version &20/2003

• 9108936643
•;
12:38:15 p.m.
10-12-2006
32'132
if
p
11 •
it
'NPD%5 Permit Requlrements
Pagt16of16
•
Monitoring data from samples collected by both the POTW and, the Significant Indlisttiai
User'(SID). These analytical results must be.reported on Industrial Data Summary Forms .
(IDSF) or other specific format approved by. the Division;
e.) Other Tnfammatiort .
Copies of the POTW's allocation table, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules,
public notice of STUB is SNC, and any other information, upon request, which in the
opinion of the Director is needed to determine compliance with the pretreatment
implementation requirements of this peami4 ••
11. Public Notice
The Pertnittee shall publish annually a, list of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that were in Significant -
• Noct-Compliance, (SNC) as defined in the Permittee's Division approved Sewer Use Ordinance with
applicable pretreatment requirements and standards during the previous twelve. Month period. This list
shall be published within four months of the applicable twelve-month period.
•
12. Record Keeping
The Pezmittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of 'Monitoring activities and results, along •
Nail support information including general records, water quality records, and records of industrial impact
• on the FOTW. •
13. • •. Funding end Financial wort
The Pestnittee shall maintain adequate funding and staffing le:vels.•to accomplish the objectives -of its
approved pretreatment program.
14. lvfodification to Pretreatment Progra ns "
Modifications to the approved' pretreatment programs including but not limited to local limits
.modifications, POTW monitoring of tkar Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), and Monitoring Plan
modifications, shall be considered a permit modification and shall be governed by'15 NCAC 2H .0114 and
15A NCAC 2H :0907.
Version 6/242O 3

® 2003 DeLorme. XMap®.
www.delorme.com
XMVtap® 4.0
Scale 1 : 40,525
1" = 3,385.4 ft
Data Zoom 13-2

Harnett.County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
APPENDIX B
Project Maps
• Project Service Area Overlay. on Water Supply Watersheds.
• Project Service Area Overlay on Zoning Map (Harnett & Cumberland)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (1 of 2)
• Overall.Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (2 of 2)
• 2006 Aerial Photography: WWTP Components and Location
• Detailed Site Plan for Proposed WWTP Upgrade (existing'and proposed structures)
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC --Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
APPENDIX C
Present Worth Analysis
• Alternative #2 - Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 rngd Discharged to Lower Little River)
• Alternative'#4 - Land Application Alternative'- Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower Little River)
Mai-ziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Present Worth of
Initial Capital Cost
Present Worth of
Annual O&M
Present Worth of
Replacement Costs .
Present Worth of
Salvage Value
Total (Net)
Present Worth
Alternative #1: Expand the South Harnett
1.
Regional WWTP from 5:0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0
mgd Discharged to Little River)
$29,185,330
$18,209,728
$161,530
-$4,683,048
• ' $42,873,540
Alternative #2:Land Application Alternative -
Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent Land
•
2
2 :
Application Site (Maintain 5:0 .mgd
$75,126,330
$18,832,536
$782,800
-$19,312,357.
$75,429,309
Discharge to Little River)
Page 1 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd. of Effluent to Adjacent Land
Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
EVALUATION PERIOD - 20 Years
DISCOUNT RATE 4.875%
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (YEAR 20) $2,013,000
PRESENT WORTH OF INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS $75,126,330
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Fixed O&M * (P/A,i,n) $14,149,627
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Variable O&M * (P/G,i,n) $4,682,908
PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS = (P/F,i,n) $782,800
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE VALUE = (P/F,i,n) $19,312,357
NET PRESENT WORTH = PW of Capital Costs + PW of O&M Costs.+ PW of
Replacement Costs - PW of Salvage =
$75,429,309
Page 2 of 20

PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part A - Expansion to 15.0 MGD WWTP
Wastewater Plant Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
• Cost -
1. Contractor Mobilization
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
3. Regional Pump Station
4. Regional Pump Station Screen
5. Splitter Box
6. Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System --Sequential Batch
Reactor Units
7. New UV Disinfection (10 MGD)
8. Backwash Pump Station
9. Sludge Treatment Facility
10. Lime Feed Area
11. Blower Building
12. Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
13. Electrical Allowance
14. Site Work
15. Yard Piping
16. Precast Concrete Structures
17. Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
Sub -Total
4330,000
-$135,000
-4193,000
-$78,000
.7.$35,833
42,820,667
-$127,372
-$52,107
-$74,493
-$30,106
-$13,831
,-$1,088,710
$0
$0
' $0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $62,127
$0 $0 $6
$0 $0 $0
$0 , $0 $0
-$140,000 -$54,037 $0
-$487,667 -$188,228 $0
-$66,667 -$25,732 , $0
-$201,000 • -$77,581 $0
--$210,000 -$81,055 , $0
-$15,300 -$5,905 $0
$0 $99,403
-$4,713,133 -$1,819,157 $161,530
Page 3 of 20

PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Collection.System Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
3. 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWTP
4 30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity Interceptor located
on Spring Lake WWTP's property (Capacity 15 mgd)
5. 42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg. Depth)
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional Sewer Pump
6' Station (near Shady Grove Road and NC-210)
7 30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional WWTP (parallels
existing 24" FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
8. Little River Crossing (major)
9. Creek Crossing (minor)
10. Highway Crossing (major)
11. 24" Plug Valves
12. Ductile Iron Fittings
13. 6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
14. Concrete Blocking
15. Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances
16. Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
Sub -Total
- $150,000
475,000
$0
- $870,000
-$1,596,000
$0
- $960,000
- $72,000
- $36,000
-$60,000
$31,500
$14,400
4266,667
-$24,000
$0
-$60,000
-$4,215,567
- $57,896
-$28,948
$0
$335,799
- $616,018
$0
-$370,537
427,790
- $13,895
-$23,159
412,158
-$5,558
$102,927
$9,263
$0
-$23,159
-$1,627,108
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part C - Construction of New Land Application System
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0,
$0,
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Collection System Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
Cost
1. Pump Station from WWTP to.Storage Lagoon
2. 30" PVC Forcemain to proposed Land Application tracts
3. Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon
4. Irrigation Pumps (Zone Application)
5. Private property for spray irrigation fields
6. Development of spray irrigation fields
Sub -Total
$0
-$150,000
-$5,943,000
4300,000
-$20,625,000
-$8,249,600
-$35,267,600
$0
-$57,896
-$2,293,857
- $115,793
-$7,960,759
-$3,184,149
-$13,612,454
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$621,270
$621,270
Sub -Total of Construction Costs
Page 4 of 20
-$44,196,300
-$17,058,720
$782,800

J'
PRESENT WORTH OF, SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part D - Engineering & Construction Administration.
Component Description
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
Cost
' 1. Geotechnical-$60,000.-$23,159 $0
2. Design-$1,040,113 -$401,459 ' , $0
3. Construction Administration & Observation .-$588,485-$227,141 $0 ._
4. O&M Manual -$13,200 -$5,095 $0
5. Startup ..-$15,000 -$5,790 $0
Sub -Total of Engineering Costs -$1,716,798 -$662,643 : ' $0
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
PartE- OtherCosts
Component Description
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
" Replacement
Cost
1. Contingency (10% of total construction) -$3,924,000 -$1,514,571 $0
2. Legal / Administrative Costs -$198,000 -$76,423 ' $0
Sub -Total of Other Costs .-$4,122,000 --$1,590,994 $0
Total Project Costs
• --$50,035,098
-$19,312,357
$782,800
Page 5 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #2: Land,Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent Land
Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
Part WWTP Construction: Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.
Contractor Mobilization
1
LS
$550,000.00
$550,000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees
.1
LS
$225,000.00
$225,000
3.
Regional Pump Station
1
LS
$579,000.00
$579,000
4.
Regional Pump Station Screen
1
LS
$234,000.00
$234,000
5.
Splitter Box
1
LS
$107,500.00
$107,500
6.
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -
Sequential Batch Reactor Units
1
LS
$8,462,000.00
$8,462,000
7.
New UV Disinfection (10 MGD)
LS
$712,250.00
$712,250
8.
Backwash Pump Station
LS
$97,000,00,
$97,000
9.
Sludge Treatment Facility
1
•LS
$678,750.00
$678,750
10.
Lime Feed Area
1
L
$74,000.00
$74,000
11.
Blower Building
Ls'
$420,000.00
$420,000
12.
Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
1
LS
$1,463,000.00
$1,463,000
13.
Electrical Allowance
1
LS
$200,000.00
$200,000
14.
Site Work
1
LS
$335,000.00
$335,000
15. .
Yard Piping
1
LS;
$350,000.00
$350,000
16.
Precast Concrete Structures
1
LS
$25,500.00
$25,500
17.
Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
1
LS
$160,000.00
$160,000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$14,673,000
Page 6 of 20

Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost, , -
1..
Contractor Mobilization :
1
LS
$250,000.00
$250,000
2.
Bond & Ins.urance Fees
1
LS
$125,000.00
$125;000
3.dPump
Station Construction @Fort Bragg
WWTP
1 _
LS
$500,000.00
..
$500;000
4.,
30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity
Interceptor located on Spring Lake WWTP's
property (Capacity 15 mgd)
14,500. •
LF
.$100.00
.
$1,450,000
5.,
42" Gravity Sewer 'Interceptor (Concrete, 10' Avg.
Depth) �
' ' 19,000 .
LF -
. $140,00
$2,660,000
6.
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional ..
Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NC-210)
1
' LS
•
$500,000.00
.
, '
$500,000
7.
30" FM.(C900) from Regional PS to South Regional
WWTP (parallels existing 24" FM serving SCWSD
Phase.1 & SWWSD) .
16,000-
LF '
$100.00
$1,600,000
8. •
Little River Crossing (major) "
1
EA
•
$120,000.00
$120,000
9.
Creek Crossing (minor)
3 .
EA
• $20,000.00
.
$60,000
10.
Highway Crossing (major)
2
• EA
$50,000.00
$100,000
11.
24" Plug Valves ..
7
. 'EA
•. $7,500.00
$52,500
12.
Ductile Iron Fittings
. 12,000
LBS.
-.. $2.00
$24,000
13.
6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
. 100
EA
' $8,000.00
$800,000
14.
Concrete Blocking
'100
, CY
..
$400.00
$40,000
15..
Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances
49,500
LF
$2.00
. .
$99,000
16.
Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
1
.. LS •:
$100,000.00
$100,000
SUB -TOTAL' OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$8,480,500
Page 7 of 20

Part C - Construction of New Land Application System (3.3 MGD)
1. ,
.
.
Desired Daily Effluent Disposal Rate
10,000,009
„ .
,
- gallons .
2.
Minimum Lagoon Storage for Inclement Weather (froth Water Balance.
Worlcsheet)
, 400,000,000
gallons
3.
Total Recommended Acreage for Purchase -
,
6,875 1
.
acres
4.
.
Minimum Acreage Required for Land Application Of Effluent
5,156
.
. acres
5; .
Minimum Acreage for Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon (on property
adjacent to existing WWTP) : ,
1.23.00
, acres
Project Description '
Quantity
Unit ,_
Unit Cost `
' Extended Cost
1.
Pump Station from WWTP to Storage Lagoon,
including all SODA and appurtenances
1
LS
$650,600.00
$650;000
- 2.
30" PVC Sewer Transmission Forcemain from
Harnett County WWTP to proposed Land .
Application tracts
2,500
LF ''
. $100.00.
$250,000
Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon (on property
adjacent to existing WWTP)
1,981,009
CY: '
_ : $5.00
,
,
$9,905,000
,
Irrigation Pumps (Zone Application), Metering
Station & other appurtenances
1
LS
,
$500,000.00
.
$500,000
5.
Purchase private property to develop spray
irrigation fields to accept effluent
6,875 ,
Acres
„
. -; ' $1,500.00
.
-:
$10,312,500
,
6. ,
Development of spray irrigation fields to accept
effluent (all reiated appurtenances)
5,156
Acres
: $4,000.00
:
_
$20,624,00.0
.
„ . . .
SUB -TOTAL , „
. . ,
'
.
'
$42,241,500
:SOB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION CPSTS,
$65,395,000
Page 8 of 20

Part D - Engineering & Construction Administration
1'..
Geotechnical
. ,
. $100,000
2.
Design
$1,733,522
3.
- .
Construction Administration & Observation
.
$980,808
4.
O&M Manual
, ,
$22,000
5.
Startup
`
$25,000
SUB -TOTAL OF ENGINEERING COSTS
$2,861,330
Part E - Other Costs
1. -
Contingency (10% of total construction)
' $6,540,000
2.
Legal / Administrative Costs
$330,000
SUB -TOTAL OF OTHER COSTS
-$6,870,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$75,126,330
Page 9 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
•
EXISTING BUDGET , PROPOSED
WWTP OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES (OPERATING @ 5.0 BUDGET
MGD) (OPERATING @
15.0 MGD)
1. Salaries . $300,000 $ :300,000
2. Overtime $ 14,800- $ - 14,800
- . .
3. Longevity $ 3,900 $ '3,900
4. Salaries/Resource . $ -11,000. • , $ ' 11,000,
5. Social Security $ 2$,300. $ ' 25,300
6. Retirement ' $ 14,300 ' $ 14,300
7. Deferred Compensation $ 7,600. , $ 7,600
8. Health Insurance $ 63,200 .' $ 63;200
9. Life Insurance $. - . " 2,900 $
10. Workers Compensation $ 8,800 , .$
11. Uniforms $ - 6,000 $
12. Vehicle Assessment $ - 26,000 $ . 2-6,060
13. Telephone 7,800. . $ 7,800
14. Professional Services $ ,-, • 50,000 $ 120,400
15. Professional Liability $ '
16. Office/Janitorial Supplies $ , 5,500 ,1 $ • 13,200
17. Travel/Training $ 5,000 ' ' $ • 12,000
18. Permits $ .: 6,500 . $ 15,700
19. Insurance $ 40,000 - - $ 96,300
20. Dues/Subscriptions $ .. ' - 1,000 $ 2,400
21. Service/Maintenance, Contracts $ 7,000 1 $ . 16,900
22. Safety Supplies $ 6;006 $ 14,400
23. Maintenance Supplies
24. Laboratoq Supplies
25. Operational Supplies
26. Equipment/Tools
27. Diesel Fuel $ 5,000 • - $ ' • 12,000
28. Scheduled Repairs/Maintenance $ 100,000 . $ 240,800
29. Unanticipated Repair's/Maintenance
30. WWTP Capital Outlay Expenditures $ 24,900 $ ' 60,000
31. Utilities $ . 166,100 $ , 400,000
32. Chemicals $ . 41,500 $ - 100,000
33. Sludge Costs
• 2,900
8,800
6,000
.- 5,000 $ 12,000
$ 7,000 , $ 16,900
$ .20,000 $ 48,200
$ 10,000 $ 24,100
$ 5,600 12,000 •
$ 1 10,000 - $ ' 24,100
TOTAL WWTP O&M EXPENDITURES
$ 116,300„ $ 280,000
1,123,400 •$ 2,013,000
Page 10 of 20

Discount Rate 4.875%
Years in PW Analysis 20
PW of Fixed O&M Costs = (P/A,i,n) $14,149,627
PW of Variable O&M Costs = (P/G,i,n) $4,682,908
Annual Increase in Variable O&M Costs = $46,821
Year
Total Annual O&M
Cost ($/year)
1
$1,123,400
2
$1,170,221
3
$1,217,042
4
$1,263,863
5
$1,310,684
6
'$1,357,505
7
'
$1,404,326
8 ..
. $1,451,147
9
$1,497,968
10
$1,544,789
11.
$1,591,611
12
$1,638,432
13
$1,685,253
14 .
.
$1,732,074
15
$1,778,895
16
$1,825,716
17
$1,872,537
18
$1,919,358
19
$1,966,179
20.
-. $2,013,000
Subtotal
$31,364,000
Page 11 of 20

J
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Little River)
EVALUATION PERIOD 20 Years
DISCOUNT RATE 4.875%
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (YEAR 20) . $1,938,000
PRESENT WORTH OF INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS $29,185,330
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Fixed O&M * (P/A,i,n) $13,757,912
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Variable O&M * (P/G,i,n) $4,451,816
PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS _ (P/F,i,n) $161,530
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE VALUE = (P/F,i,n) $4,683,048
NET PRESENT WORTH = PW of Capital Costs.+ PW of O&M Costs + PW of
Replacement Costs - PW of Salvage =
$42,873,540
Page 12 of 20

PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part A - Expansion to 15.0 MGD WWTP
Wastewater Plant Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
3. Regional Pump Station
4. Regional Purnp Station Screen
5. Splitter Box
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -Sequential Batch
6' Reactor Units
7. New Tertiary Filter (10 MGD) $518,50.0 .-$200,129 $0
8. New UV Disinfection (10 MGD) - $0 $0 $62,127
9. Backwash Pump Station $0 $0 $0
10. Sludge Treatment Facility .$0 $0 $0
11. Lime Feed Area $0 $0. $0
12. Blower Building $140,000' -$54,037 $0
13. Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades) ' -$487,667 -$188,228, $0
14. Electrical Allowance $66,667 425,732 $0
15. Site Work -$201,000 -$77,581 ' $0
16. Yard Piping 4210,000 -$81,055 $0
17. Precast Concrete Structures - -$15,300 -$5,905 $0
18. -Odor. Control & Chemical Feed Allowance, $0 $0 $99,403
Sub-Total-$5,231,633 ,-$2,019,286 $161,530
- $330,000
- $135,000
-$193,000
-$78,000
-$35,833.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$127,372
-$52,107
-$74,493
-$30,106
• -$13,831
42,820,667 $1,088,710
$0
Page 13 of 20

PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Collection System Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of`
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization -$150,000 -$57,896 $0
2. Bond & Insurance Fees $75,000 -$28,948 $0
3. 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWTP $0 $0 $0
30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity Interceptor located 4' $870,000 $0
on Spring Lake WWIP's property (Capacity 15 .mgd) $335,799
5. 42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg. Depth) $1,596,000. -$616,018 $0
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional Sewer Pump
6' Station (near Shady Grove Road and NC-210) $0 $0 $0
30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional WWTP (parallels
7` existing 24" FM serving S,CWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD) $960,000 $370,537 $0
8. Little River Crossing (major) .-$72,000-$27,790 $0
9. Creek Crossing (minor) • -$36,000 -$13,895 $0
10. Highway Crossing (major) -$60,000 -$23,159 $0
11. 30" Plug Valves i-$31,500 -$12,158 $0
12. Ductile Iron Fittings -$14,400 ' $5,558 $0
13. 6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole $266,667 -$102,927 $0
14. Concrete Blocking -$24,000 -$9,263 $0
15. Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances $0 $0 $0
16. Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing -$60,000 .-$23,159 $0
Sub -Total $4,215;567 -$1,627,108 .. $0
Sub -Total of Construction Costs
-$9;447,200
-$3,646,394
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part C - Engineering & Construction Administration
$161,530
Component Description
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
PW of
Replacement
Cost
1. Geotechnical -$9,000 .-$3,474 $0
2. Design-$1,040,113, $401,459 $0
3. Construction Administration & Observation -$588,485 -$227,141 $0_
4. O&M Manual -$13,200 -$5,095 $0
5. Startup-$15,000 -$5,790 $0
Sub -Total of Engineering Costs -$1,665,798 -$642,958 $0
Page 14 of 20
1

PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGEANALYSIS
Part D - Other Costs
Component Description
SalvageValue
PW of Salvage
. PW of
Replacement
Cost
1. Contingency (10% of total construction)
2: Legal / Administrative Costs
Sub -Total of Other Costs
Total Project Costs
-$972,000
-$48,000
-$1,020,000
-$1.2,132,998
•"'-$75,169
-$18,527
-$393,696
-$4,683,048
$0
$0
- $0
$161,530
•
J
Page 15 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY,PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP'Treatment" Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged.to.Little River)
Part A - WWTP Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.
Contractor Mobilization
1
,LS '-
.
• $550,000.00
' $550,000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees .
1
LS
$225,000.00
$225,000
3.
Regional Pump Station
1
LS
$579,000.00
$579,000
4.
Regional Pump Station Screen
1
LS
'
$234,0,00.00
$234,000
5.
Splitter Box
1
' •
LS
$107,500.00
$107,500
6.
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -
Sequential Batch Reactor Units
1
LS
$8,462,000.00
.
$8;462,000
7.
New Tertiary Filter (10 MGD)
1
'' LS
$1,555,500.00
$1,555,500
8.
New UV Disinfection (10, MGD)
1
LS
•
$712,250.00
$712;250
9..
Backwash Pump Station ,
1
LS
$97,000.90
, $97,000
10:
Sludge Treatment Facility
1
LS
$678,750.00
$678,750
11. '
Lime Feed Area
1
LS
$74,000:00
$74,000
' 12.
Blower Building
1
LS
$420,000.00
. $420,000
13.
Electrical(includes. Standby Power Upgrades)
1
LS
.
$1,463,000.00
$1,463,000
14. '
Electrical Allowance
1
LS
$200,000.00
$200,000
15.
Site Work _
1
-i
LS
.
$335,000,00
' $335,000
16.
Yard Piping
1
. LS
$350,000.00
$350,000
17.
Precast Concrete Structures
. 1
. LS
$25,500.0,0
$25,500
18.
OdorControl& Chemical Feed Allowance
1
LS
$160,000.00
.$160,000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$16,228,500
Page 16 of 20

Part B Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.,
Contractor Mobilization
1
, LS
$250,090.00
$250,000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees ,
1
.. LS
- $125,000.00
. '
$125,000
3.
8 mgd Pump Station'Cons_truction @ Fort Bragg
WWTP,
1
LS
$500,000.00
$500,000
4.
30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity
Interceptor located on Spring Lake WWTP's
property (Capacity 15 mgd) ,
14,500 .
LF
$100.00
$1,450,000
5.
42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg.
Depth)
19,000
LF
$140.00
$2,660,000
6.
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional
Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and ,
NC-210)
1
. LS
$500,000.00
$500,000
7:
30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional
WWTP (parallels existing 24" FM serving SCWSD
Phase1 & SWWSD)
16,000
LF
$100.00
$1,600,000
8.
Little River Crossing (major)
1
. EA '
, $120,000.00
'
`
$120,000
9.'
Creek Crossing (minor)
3
EA
,,';$20,000.00
.
$60,000
10:
Highway Crossing (major)
2 '.
EA
$50,000.00
. $100,000
11.
30" Plug Valves
7
EA
$7,500.00
'
$52,500
12.
Ductile Iron Fittings ,
12,000 '
LBS
$2.00
. $24,000
13.
6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
100
EA ,
$8,000.00
$800,000
14.
Concrete Blocking'
100
,' CY
$400.00
'
$40,000
15.
Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances.
49,500 ;
.LF :
.' $2.00
-,
$99,000
16.
Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
1
LS..
$100,000.00
'
$100,000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$8,480,500
Page 17 of 20

Part C - Engineering & Construction Administration
1.
Geotechnical .
$15,000
2.
Design
$1,733,522
3.
Construction Administration & Observation .
$980,808
4.
O&M Manual
$22,000
5.
Startup
$25,000
SUB -TOTAL OF ENGINEERING COSTS
$2,776,330
Part D - Other Costs
1.
Contingency (10% of total construction)
_ 0
$1,620,000
2.
Legal / Administrative Costs
$80,000
SUB -TOTAL OF OTHER COSTS
$1,700,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$29,185;330
Page 18 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY PUB LIC UTILITIES WWTP EXPANSION
ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to
WWTP OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES
1. Salaries
2. Overtime
3. Longevity
4. Salaries/Resource
•5. Social Security
6. Retirement
7. Deferred Compensation •
8. Health Insurance
9. Life Insurance
10. Workers Compensation. '
11...Unifotnas
12, .Vehicle'Assessment
13. Telephone
14. Professional Services'.
15. Professional Liability
16. Office/Janitorial Supplies
17. Travel/Training ,
18. Permits
19. Insurance
20. Dues/Subscriptions
21. Service/Maintenance Contracts
22. Safety Supplies
23. Maintenance Supplies
24. Laboratory Supplies
25. Operational Supplies,
26. Equipment/Tools
27. Diesel Fuel
28. Scheduled Repairs/Maintenance
29. Unanticipated Repairs/Maintenance
30, WWTP Capital Outlay Expenditures
31. Utilities
'32. Chemicals
33: , Sludge Costs
TOTAL WWII' O&M EXPENDITURES
EXISTING BUDGET
(OPERATING @ 5.0
MGD)
0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
Little River)
PROPOSED
BUDGET
(OPERATING @
15.0 MGD)
$
300,000: , 300,000,
14,800 $ -14,800
$ 3,900
11,000 • $ - 11000
25,300: $ 25,300
14,300 $ • 14,300
7,600
63,200
2;900 ,
8,800
6,000
26,000
7,800 ,
50,000
$ 5,000
$-
$
7,600
63,200
2,900
- 8,800
$ 6,000
26,000.
$ , 7,800
.$ • ' 120,400,
12,000
5,500 $ 13,200
$
5,000 $ n,000
6,500 $ 15,700
40,00.0
1,000
7,000
' 6,000
$ 7,000 •
$
$ - 96,300
2,400
$ • - 16,900
$
14,400
16,900 ,
20,000 $ 48,200
$: •
10,000 - $ 24,100.
5,000 $ 12,000
5,000 ' $ 12,000
$
100,000 $ '240,800
10,000 - $ 24,100
24,900$ 60,000'
135,000 $ 325,000
41,500 $ 100,000
$ 116,300
1,092,300
$ 280,000,
$ 1,938,000
Page 19 Of 20

Discount Rate
Years in PW Analysis
PW of Fixed O&M Costs = (P/A,i,n)
PW of Variable O&M Costs = (P/G,i,n)
Annual Increase in Variable O&M Costs =
Year
Total Annual O&M
Cost ($/year)
1 :
$1,092,300
2
$1,136,811
3
$1,181,321
4
$1,225,832
5
.
$1,270,342
6
'
$1,314,853
7
$1,359,363
8
.$1,403,874
9
$1,448,384
10
$1,492,895
11
-
$1,537,405
12
$1,581,916
13
$1,626,426
14,
$1,670,937
15
$1,715,447
16
-
$1,759,958
17 .
$1,804,468
18
•
$1,848,979
19
$1,893,489
20.
$1,938,000
Subtotal
`
$30,303,000
J
4.875%
20
$13,757,912-
$4,451,816
$44,511
Page 20 of 20

J
Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
APPENDIX D
Sewer Flow .&. Population Projections
• Table D.1 — 20-Year Sewer Flow Projections
• Table D.2 — 20-Year County Population Projection Methodologies
Chart D.3 — Graphical Comparison of 20-Year Population Projection Methodologies
Table D.4 - 20-Year Service Area Population Projections.
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

TABLE D.2
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WWTP UPGRADE
POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGIES
Linear Regression
Harnett County (NCOSPL)
2nd Order Polynomial (Parabola)
Year
Total
Population
Increase per
Year
% Growth
Total
Population
Increase per
Year "
% Growth'
Total
Population
Increase -per
Year
% Growth
1970
49,667
-
49,667
-
-
49,667
-
1980
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
1990
67,833
8,263
13.87%
67,833
8,263
13.87%
67,833
8,263
. 13.87%
2000
91,584
23,751
35.01%
91,584
23,751
35.01%
91,584
23,751
35.01%
2007
106,506
14,922
16.29%
106,506
14,922
16.29%
106,506
14,922
16.29%
2009
105,132
-1,374
-1.29%
110,943
4,437
4.17%
112,412
5,906
5.55%
2014
112,811
7,679
7.30%
122,000
11,057
9.97%
127,060
14,648
13.03%
2019
120,489
7,679
6.81%
133,504
11,504
9.43%
143,227
16,167.
12.72%
2024
128,168
7,679
6.37%
145,223
11,719
8.78%
160,913
17,686
12.35%
2029
135,846
7,678'
5.99%°
156,986
11,763
8.10%
180,118
19,205
1L94%
°GrTo°tal
-
30,714
29.21%
-
46,043
41.50%
-
67,706
60.23%
120,000
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
Linear Regression Model
y = 1535.7x + 91311
91,58
49,667
59 57
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
06
120,000
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
2nd Order Polynomial Model
y = 30.381 x2 + 2230.8x + 89874
1_06,506
91,5
49,667
9,57U
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Appendix D - Harnett County Population Projections
Page 2 of 4

l_ _
Population
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Chart D.3 - Harnett County
Population Projection Methods
fit•
,.
�.i AMY
,�F
F�'
)`1
'''
'` +
®Linear Regression
105,132
2014
112,811
2019
120,489
2024
1
128,168
2029
i
r
135,846,
NCOSPL Published Data • 110,943
122,000
133,504
145,223
156,986
:D 2nd Order- Polynomial 112,412
127,060
143,227
160,91'3
180;118
Year
Appendix D - Harnett County Population Projections
Page3of4,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WWTP UPGRADE
TABLE D.4 (Revised 9-17-2009) - ESTIMATED SEWER SERVICE .POPULATION
Year
South.Central, -
Phase 1
Carolina Lakes
&Hwy. 87
: Corridor .
Northern
Training Area ,
Fort Bragg &
Pope"AFB
Installation ..
Town "of Spring,
Lake ..
Total Service
Population
2009
14,000 ,
5,000
5,055
' , 76,000,
8,273
108,328
2010
.,
14,652.
,' 5,151
-
5,207
76,450 .
.:
8,522
109,982
::, 2011
15,335
.
5,301.,
- .
5,360',
76,900
.8,771 '
111,667:
' 2012
16,049
f°
5,452 :
•-
5,512
77,350
9,020
" . 113,383
2013
16,797
5,602 ' "
--
5,664
77,800.
9,270
,. , 115,133
2014 -
; 17,580
5,753
5,816.
:78,250-
9,519
116,918 ,
2015
.18,39.9
' r ,
- 5,903
5,969
78,700
•
'.
. 9,768:
, . •118,738
"
2016
19,25''6
6,054
6,121
79,150
10,017
120,598',
2017 ,
-;20,153
.6,205' ;
_ .P
6,273
.:
•
' 79,600 .
-
." :.
10,266
.
122,497
-
2018_
21,092
: -
6,355'.
- :
6;425
- • 80,050
' •
10,515
'-
124,437
2019.
22,074
` 6,506
6,578
80,500
=.10,764
126,422
2020 •
23,103
6,656:.
:
6,730
'
•
::80,950 `
11,014
, : -
128,452 .
- '
2021-
, 24,179
:
6,807 '
.
6,882
.'
.81,400 •
,
-
11,263
130,531
- 2022
.
'- 25,305
' 6,957 .
',
'
7,034
81,850 :
.
...
11,512
" :
.132;659
2023 .
26,484
, 7,108
7,187
82,300.
11,761
.
134,840•
2024
. 27,718
. 7,259
.:,
7,339
82,750 '• .
'
, : '
•-12,010
- •.:
137,076. •,
2025
29,010
7,409
' . '
7,491
83,200
' -
, .
12,259
",
139,369,
2026 .
, '
30,361
, 7,560
"
. "
"7,643
,
,
0,650
12,508
•. - 141;722
2027
` 31,776
. '�
7,710' .
7,796 '
•.
84,100
•
12,758
.. 144,139
.
2028
,
" 33,256
' ..
' , 7,861
. '
7,948
' .- ,
.
84,550
13;007
146,621
2029 ,
34,805
8,011,
8,100'
85,000 ;
13,256
149,172
Difference
':20,805
, ;
3,011 ..
3;045-,:
- 9,000
:
4,9.83
40,844
,'
•Appendix D-- Harnett County WWTP Flow Projections
"- Page 4 of 4.'