NC0090131_Fact Sheet_20230718

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO090131
Permit Writer/Email Contact Nick Coco, [e-mail]
Date: July 10, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Municipal Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑ Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
® New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Kings Mountain/Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP)
Applicant Address:
PO Box 429, Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Facility Address:
Jim Patterson Road, Grover, NC 28073
Permitted Flow:
4.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Municipal; 100% domestic
Facility Class:
Grade IV Biological Water Pollution Control System
Treatment Units:
One manual bar screen, one automatic bar screen, grit removal system,
influent flow measurement, splitter box, two sequencing batch reactors
(SBRs), rotating disc filters, dual train UV disinfection, effluent weir
and Parshall flume, cascade aeration, two sludge holding tanks, belt
press
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Cleveland
Region
I Mooresville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: The City of Kings Mountain
applied on August 3, 2022 for a new discharge, to be permitted under NPDES permit NCO090131, for the
proposed Mills Creek WWTP at 4.0 MGD with an expansion tier at 6.0 MGD. Please note that review of
flow projections has determined the 6.0 MGD expanded flow tier is not justified at this point. As such, the
6.0 MGD expanded flow tier has not been included as part of this permit. This project is receiving
funding via the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The project will also include the termination of two
existing NPDES permits: NCO065242 Grover WWTP and NCO032867 Kings Mountain Travel Plaza
plant. Flow projections are discussed in detail below in Antidegradation Review.
This proposed facility will serve a population of approximately 14,400 residents in the southeastern area
of Cleveland County (Project South service area), including the towns of Grover and Kings Mountain.
Page 1 of 12

The pennittee indicated in their permit application that no wastewater would be received from significant
industrial users. Treated domestic wastewater is proposed for discharge via Outfall 001 into Dixon
Branch, a class C water in the Broad River Basin. Outfall 001 is located approximately 1.5 miles
upstream of the NC/SC state border.
Sludge Disposal: Sludge is to be sent to the Self-McNeilly Landfill.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Dixon Branch
Stream Index:
9-54-3
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi):
1.31 *
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.30*
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.50*
30Q2 (cfs):
0.65*
Average Flow (cfs):
1.65*
IWC (% effluent):
90
2022 303(d) listed/parameter:
Not listed in NC 2022 303d List or SC 2018 303d List
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes- State wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC:
03-08-05/03050105
USGS Topo Quad:
G13NW Grover, NC
*Based on updated USGS stream statistics provided on August 24, 2020 (attached).
3. Effluent Data Summary
As this is a proposed new facility, no effluent data are available. Speculative limits were provided to the
City by the Division on January 7, 2022 for the 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD flow tier. These limits are found
below in Table 1. Please note that the 6.0 MGD flow tier is not being incorporated into the permit at this
time.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for City of Kings Mountain proposed new facility.
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow
4.0/6.0 MGD
BODs
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
NH3 as N (Apr. -Oct.)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 m
NH3 as N (Nov. -Mar.)
1.8 mg/L
5.7 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
minimum daily average)
6.0 mg/L
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/L
Monitor &
Report (mg/1)
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
TRC
17 u 1
Fecal coliform (geometric
mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
(Quarterly test
90%
Page 2 of 12

These speculative limits act as the basis of design for the facility. In their FAA, the City notes that in
order to meet the speculative limits, a tertiary treatment process is proposed. The secondary treatment
utilized is proposed to be a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process. Design calculations are based on a
continuous flow system (ICEAS) manufactured by Sanitaire.
The treatment process is proposed to include the following:
1. Headworks Headworks consisting of a dual channel screen system (one automatic, one
manual), grit system, and influent flow measurement. The headworks will be designed for a
hydraulic capacity of 6.0 MGD with a 2.5 peaking factor.
2. Secondary Treatment Process — The treatment process will initially be designed for a flow of 4.0
MGD in two (2) - 2.0 MGD trains. The layout will allow for the addition of a third 2 MGD basin
in the future to increase the capacity to 6 MGD.
A splitter box will be located upstream of the SBR with the ability to equally split the flow among
3 trains (two initial, one future).
The preliminary design is based on the ICEAS SBR manufactured by Sanitaire. The design is
preferred because it allows continuous flow to all basins without the need for automatic valves to
control the flow.
The treatment system will be designed for an initial capacity of 4 MGD, and expandable to 6
MGD in the future. Hydraulically the system will be designed with a peaking factor of 2.5 MGD.
The ICEAS SBR includes complete fine bubble aeration system, two submerged horizontal
propeller type mixers, waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps, and motor controlled horizontal
decanter.
A surge tank will be included in the design. The surge tank will have sufficient capacity to allow
the ICEAS to operate with periodic high -rate discharges from the SBR and control the discharge
rate to the filters and UV system using a flow control valve. The control valve will maintain a
steady state flow through the filters and the disinfection system.
The SBR will be automatically controlled to reduce total nitrogen (TN) in the discharge. To
accomplish TN reduction, nitrification and denitrification must occur. Instrumentation will be
installed to provide feedback to the SBR control system.
3. Tertiary Treatment/ Rotating Disc Filters — Stainless steel mesh or cloth rotating disc filters will
be installed to provide tertiary treatment of the SBR discharge. Redundant filters will be provided
to provide treatment for the design flow rate with the largest unit out of service. Backwash flow
from the filters will be returned to the headworks of the plant.
4. Disinfection — Disinfection can be accomplished using a chlorine contact basin followed by
dechlorination prior to discharge or using a LJV disinfection system. The use of UV disinfection is
preferred. A dual train UV system will be included with each train containing two cassettes with a
capacity of 2 MGD per cassette. The UV system will include a cassette removal and cleaning
system with the ability to remove, inspect, and clean each cassette.
5. Post Flow Measurement and Re -Aeration — A flow measurement device and a post aeration
system will follow the disinfection process. Flow measurement will be provided by a weir flow
device or a Parshall flume.
Aeration will be provided by using fine bubble diffusers installed in effluent trough or with the
installation of a cascade aerator. A cascade aerator is the preferred system, ensuring adequate re -
aeration prior to discharge.
6. Sludge Handling — Waste activated sludge is removed from the SBR process during each 4-
hour (approximately) cycle. WAS removed from the basin will have an average concentration of.
85%. WAS will be pumped to one of two sludge holding tanks, each with a volume of 750, 000
gpd. Each tank will include an aeration system and a decanting system. The aeration/decanting
process will be controlled through an instrumentation system with the goal of limiting the return
Page 3 of 12

of phosphorus to the headworks of the plant. Through decanting, the sludge concentration will be
increased to approximately 2.5%.
Concentrated sludge will be dewatered using a belt press or a centrifuge. The dewatered sludge
will be disposed of at a permitted facility. Decant from the sludge basins and dewatering system
will be returned to the headworks.
Review of DMR data from July 2018 through January 2023 for the Grover WWTP (NC0065242) are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Data Summary NC0065242 Grover WWTP
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Influent BOD
mg/1
472
1382
46
Influent NH3N
Summer
mg/1
40
133
19.25
Influent NH3N
Winter
mg/1
36
66
14.25
Influent TSS
I mg/1
1 338
1 2200
46.5
Effluent TN
mg/1
18.4
52.7
< 2
Effluent TP
mg/1
3.4
7.86
0.96
Influent BOD, ammonia, and TSS data, as well as effluent TN and TP data are summarized for reference
of what may be present in the influent of the proposed Mill Creek WWTP, though these values may be
variable when considering the larger service area. No such data was available for the Kings Mountain
Travel Plaza (NC0032867).
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action:
As this is a proposed new facility, no instream data are available. As this proposed facility is Grade IV per
15A NCAC 08G .0302, instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen, temperature and fecal coliform is
proposed at a frequency of three times per week during June, July, August, and September, and once per
week during the rest of the year. Additionally, instream monitoring for TKN, Nitrate + Nitrite, and total
phosphorous is proposed at a frequency of once per quarter. For calculation of dissolved metals, upstream
hardness sampling has been proposed at a frequency of once per quarter. Based on review of the 2021
Level B model identifying the DO sag point occurring 0.4 miles downstream from the outfall, instream
sampling will be collected upstream at least 100 feet above the outfall and downstream at Jim Patterson
Road.
Instream conductivity monitoring is also listed in 15A NCAC 08G .0302. However, per the 2002
Guidance Regarding Conductivity and Fecal Coliform Monitoring, as the facility is proposed as 100%
domestic, instream conductivity monitoring has not been added to the permit. Should the facility begin
accepting industrial wastewater, instream conductivity monitoring should be added to the permit.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA
Page 4 of 12

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): NA
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): NA
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: NA
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and MixingZones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Assimilative
capacity to protect the instream dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0 mg/L was modeled with a 2021 NC
specific Streeter -Phelps model.
The resultant limits are summer limits of 5 mg/L (BOD5) and 1 mg/I (NH3-N) and winter limits of 10
mg/L (BOD5) and 1.8 mg/L (NH3-N). These limits are proposed for the 4.0 MGD flow.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: TRC
requirements have been assessed for the 4.0 MGD flow tier a daily maximum limit of 17 ug/L has been
applied based on the speculative limits provided by the Division on January 7, 2022.
Please see Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations above for background on ammonia limits.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
Page 5 of 12

RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of %2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
As this is a new facility with no discharge to date, no effluent data is available. Per 40 CFR 122.210)(4),
"for POTWs applying prior to commencement of discharge, data shall be submitted no later than 24
months after the commencement of discharge." As such, a requirement has been added to the permit that
an effluent pollutant scan be conducted and submitted to the Division within 24 months of the
commencement of discharge, and once per year for the 2 following years.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: Quarterly chronic toxicity testing at 90% effluent
concentration is proposed. Testing is to be conducted during the months of January, April, July and
October.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
As this is a new facility with no discharge to date, no effluent data is available. Low Level mercury
testing is required as part of the effluent pollutant scan requirement. A Mercury Minimization Plan
(MMP) is proposed to mitigate the potential for elevated total mercury levels upon facility startup.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: As the proposed discharge is approximately 1.5 miles above the SC/NC border,
SCDHEC was consulted with regard to nutrient management. To protect downstream uses, the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control recommends that total phosphorus be limited
to 1.0 mg/L.
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: As required by Session
Law 2018-5, Senate Bill 99, Section 13.1(r), every applicant shall submit documentation of any additional
pollutants for which there are certified methods with the permit application if their discharge is
anticipated. However, as no effluent data have been collected due to no discharge existing, the chemical
addendum is not applicable.
As the Mill Creek WWTP has a proposed discharge 1.5 miles upstream of the SC/NC state border,
monitoring of PFAS chemicals will be added to the permit at a frequency of quarterly. Since an EPA
method for sampling and analyzing PFAS in wastewater is not currently available, the PFAS sampling
requirement in the Permit includes a compliance schedule which delays the effective date of this
Page 6 of 12

requirement until the first full calendar quarter beginning 6 months after EPA has a final wastewater
method in 40 CFR136 published in the Federal Register. This date may be extended upon request and if
there are no NC -certified labs.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSS for Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSS for Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: The proposed expansion is funded via the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and is not subject to review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). As ARPA funding for this facility is subject to Chapter 159G and G.S. 113-12(h), no State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review is required.
An Engineer's Alternatives Analysis (EAA) was submitted by MBD Consulting Engineers, P.A. (MBD),
the consulting firm hired by the City of Kings Mountain, on August 3, 2022. In their EAA, MBD noted
that based on Census data and the NC Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM), Cleveland
County grew at a rate of 1.1 % in last 10 years. MBD has noted the belief that growth in this area was
impacted by the lack of sewer service available, including the growth in the Town of Grover. Upon their
review of growth trends in counties adjoining this area on both sides of the North Carolina/ South
Carolina state line, MBD notes that both areas are growing at higher rates. Gaston County, North Carolina
grew at a rate of 9.9% over the past 10 years. York County, South Carolina grew at a rate of 27% for the
same period. Growth occurring in adjoining counties combined with the impact of planned development
along I-85 in this area of Cleveland County will increase the demand for infrastructure in southeastern
Cleveland County. Sewer availability will impact the growth rate for the Project South service area.
Based on a 20-year growth projection, MBD projects a need for residential flow of approximately 2.8
MGD by 2042. This considers the 2020 census data for the Project South service area showing a
population of approximately 13,700 residents, an assumed 5% population growth rate based on
neighboring areas, 2.3 residents per service, 320 gallons per day per service, and an 85% connection rate.
Page 7 of 12

NC OSBM population growth data was reviewed by Division staff to accompany the submitted census
information. Review of Cleveland County (specifically Kings Mountain and Grover) echoed the
population growth of 1.1% indicated by MBD. Review of Gaston County (specifically Bessemer City and
Gastonia, as they are near the service area) reported similar growth. The growth projected by MBD
appears to assume that growth in the greater Gaston County will influence the service area, which may
overestimate demand in the service area. Based on a 5% growth rate, a 2020 Project South service area
population of approximately 13,700 residents, an assumed 85% connection rate, a flow rate of 70 gallons
per person per day, and a 15% reserve flow for potential industrial and commercial users, a flow demand
of approximately 2.1 MGD was calculated, which is relatively consistent with the future flow demand
estimated by MBD.
In their permit application and EAA, the City of Kings Mountain requests a 4 MGD flow tier and an
expanded flow tier to 6 MGD. At this time, it does not appear necessary to incorporate a 6 MGD
expanded flow tier. As the 2.8 MGD flow projection is only a result of an assumed growth rate based on
faster growing adjacent areas, it is not certain whether the existence of this WWTP will indeed impact
growth in the Project South service area. As such, only a 4 MGD flow tier is proposed, but a 6 MGD flow
may become necessary at a future date after additional growth information is developed.
The following alternatives were evaluated for the proposed discharge:
Alternative Description
20- ear NPV
Transfer flow and treatment to
nearbyPilot Creek WWTP
$67,368,600
Land Application
$91,163,200
Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
$46,933,600
Transfer Flow and Treatment to nearby Pilot Creek WWTP: The Pilot Creek WWTP is a 6.0 MGD
extended aeration, activated sludge treatment plant that utilizes lagoons for aeration followed by
clarification, disinfection, and discharge. The current average daily demand on the facility is 2.5 MGD. A
reserve of 1.0 MGD is included in the allocated capacity for Pilot Creek which would leave
approximately 2.5 MGD of capacity available for Project South. The existing service area for the Pilot
Creek WWTP extends to the proposed northern boundary of the Project South service area. Flow
collected for Project South would have to be transferred back to the WWTP due to capacity issues in the
existing collection system. The topography in the southeastern portion of Cleveland County dictates the
design of the sewer collection system for Project South. Pumping the wastewater back to the Pilot Creek
WWTP will require overcoming the friction and static head loss. The location of the primary collection
pump station will be at an elevation that is substantially lower than the high point of the system. The route
that the force main would take to cross I-85, which would be the high point of the force main system. In
order to accommodate the topography and the friction loss in the proposed force main system, two pump
stations will be required to enable the wastewater to be pumped to the high point. Once it reaches the high
point, the system would have the static head to deliver the wastewater to treatment plant without any
additional pumping. The two pump stations would be major sites that will include triplex pump stations
with screening systems and emergency generation (or bypass pumping) systems. Depending on the
availability of sites, the location of the second pump station in the series may benefit the design of the
Project South collection system but would not impact the location of the primary pump station. The cost
of the pump stations and collection system was estimated to be $26,882,000. Construction of upgrades at
the Pilot Creek WWTP was estimated to cost $24,087,000.
Land Application: Soil type and land availability were considered when evaluating the land application
option. Soil information was obtained from the " Custom Soil Resource Report for Cleveland County,
North Carolina and Gaston County, North Carolina" prepared by USDA. The predominate soil types in
southeastern Cleveland County are shown below. The soils in this area are not generally receptive to Land
Application systems with high application volumes. The predominate soil types are listed below.
Page 8 of 12

Soil Type
Name
Description
Slope
Capacity of Most
Limitin La er K sat
HhB
Hulett
Gravelly Sandy Loan
2-8%
0.57-1.98
GrD
Grover
Gravelly Sandy Loan
2-8%
0.57-1.98
HtC
Hulett
Gravelly Sand Loan
8-15%
0.57-1.98
HuC
Hulett
Soil Complex
4-15%(very rock
0.57-1.98
The above soils fall into category C. The actual application rate would be determined by a soils engineer
and on site sampling. For this study, an application rate of 0.5 inches per acre per week was used for
evaluating the technical and economic viability of this option. At a rate of 0.5 inches per acre per week, a
total of 2,062 acres would be required for land application. Adding addition property for buffer would
increase the required acreage to approximately 2,475 acres total. In addition to the area required for land
application, a 30-day holding pond (210 MG) would be required to be constructed on or near the site, as
well as an irrigation pump station. Based on current county GIS information, it would be difficult to
acquire a contiguous 2,500 acre site.
The cost of this option includes the cost of construction a new WWTP designed to meet the anticipated
treatment requirements for an Non -Discharge permit and the cost for the land application system. The
estimated construction cost of land application for the 4.0 MGD discharge including effluent pumping, a
30- day storage, land, clearing, seeding, and irrigation system is $21,158,200. The total costs for building
a 4 MGD WWTP and disposing of the effluent via land application is estimated to be $65,863,800.
Direct Discharge to Surface Waters: The cost of the treatment facility begins at the headworks and
extends through the proposed treatment process to the discharge and includes the sludge handling facility
and all ancillary systems. The treatment plant costs used in this analysis are similar for both the land
application and surface discharge options. While there may be slight differences in the treatment plants
costs, the difference would not be significant and would not impact this evaluation. The total project cost
for the WWTP include disinfection and discharge is estimated to be $26,149,100. The total costs include
all sitework piping, structures, process equipment, buildings, electrical, controls, etc. required for a
complete treatment process.
The most economically feasible and chosen option was the construction of the Mill Creek WWTP and
direct discharge into Dixon Branch. The Division has reviewed the alternatives and concurs with this
decision.
Please note that wastewater reuse as a disposal option was evaluated and found to be infeasible, as the
City of Kings Mountain does not currently have a reuse program that would allow for the disposal of
larger quantities of treated effluent. However, The WWTP will be designed to reuse treated wastewater
for wash down throughout the plant including any dewatering activities. Reuse water may also be used as
irrigation on site.
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YESNO): NO
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
Page 9 of 12

10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Monitoring frequencies proposed reflect those of a Grade IV POTW as identified in 15A NCAC 02B
.0508.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA is proposing to extend this deadline
from December 21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements. The current compliance date will be extended if the
implementation date is extended as a final regulation change in the federal register.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table 4. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 4.0 MGD
Parameter
Proposed Condition
Basis for Condition
Flow
MA 4.0 MGD
15A NCAC 213.0505
BOD5
MA 5.0 mg/1
WQBEL. Based on 2021 Level B model; 2022 Speculative
WA 7.5 mg/1
Limits and 2023 WLA spreadsheet; Surface Water Monitoring,
Monitor and Report Daily
15A NCAC 2B. 0500
NH3-N
Summer:
WQBEL. Based on 2021 Level B model and ammonia toxicity;
MA 1.0 mg/1
2022 Speculative Limits and 2023 WLA spreadsheet; Surface
WA 3.0 mg/1
Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Monitor and Report Daily
Winter:
MA 1.8 mg/1
WA 5.7 mg/1
Monitor and Report Dail
TSS
MA 30 mg/1
TBEL. Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
WA 45 mg/l
2B .0406; 2022 Speculative Limits; Surface Water Monitoring,
Monitor and Report Daily
15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Fecal coliform
MA 200 /100ml
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; Surface Water
WA 400 /100ml
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Daily monitoring
DO
DA > 6.0 mg/L
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; 2022 Speculative
Monitor and Report Daily
Limits; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Total Residual
DM 17 ug/L
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; 2022 Speculative
Chlorine
Monitor and Report Daily
Limits; Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Page 10 of 12

Temperature
Monitor and Report Daily
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
pH
6 — 9 SU
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 213; Surface Water
Monitor and Report Daily
Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
TKN
Monitor and Report
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Quarterly
NO2+NO3
Monitor and Report
For calculation of Total Nitrogen
Quarterly
Total Nitrogen
Monitor and Report
Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B. 0500
Quarterly
Total
MA 1.0 mg/L
WQBEL. 2022 Agreement with SCDHEC
Phosphorous
Monitor and Report
Weekly
PFAS
Quarterly monitoring
Evaluation of PFAS contribution: new facility; Implementation
with delayed
delayed until after EPA certified method becomes available.
implementation
Chronic
Chronic limit,
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts. 15A NCAC 2B
Toxicity
90% effluent
Effluent
Three times per permit
40 CFR 122
Pollutant Scan
cycle if the facility is in
operation, with the first
occurring within 24
months of
commencement of
discharge
Mercury
MMP Special Condition
Consistent with 2012 Statewide Mercury TMDL
Minimization
Implementation; New Municipality with Q > 2 MGD
Plan (MMP)
Notification of
Special Condition A.(6.)
New Discharger; Notify Division at least 7 days prior to
Discharge
commencement of discharge
Electronic
Electronic Reporting
In accordance with EPA Electronic Reporting Rule 2015.
Reporting
Special Condition
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max, QA
— Quarterly Average, DA — Daily Average, AA — Annual Average
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: May 25, 2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Nick Coco at [phone] or via email at nick.coco(cr�,deq.nc.gov.
Page 11 of 12

15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
The draft was submitted to EPA Region IV, the City of Kings Mountain, MBD Consulting Engineers, the
Town of Grover, Insignis Partners, South Carolina DHEC, and the Division's Mooresville Regional
Office, Aquatic Toxicology Branch and Operator Certification Program for review. No comments were
received from any party.
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): NO
If Yes, list changes and their basis below: NA
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• 2022 Speculative Limitations Letter
• SCDHEC Correspondence
• Correspondence with City
• Additional information provided by City
Page 12 of 12

LOCAL010
StarNews I The Dispatch I Times -News PO Box 631245 Cincinnati, OH 45263-1245
Sun Journal I The Daily News I The Star
The Free Press I Gaston Gazette
Public Notice
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
North Carolina Environmen-
tal Management Commis-
sion/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Wren Thedford
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
Deq-Division Of Water Res
NPDES Wastewater Permit
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
1 Mill Creek WTP
The N t
The North Carolina Environ-
Raleigh NC 27699
mental Management
Commission proposes to
issue a NPDES wastewater
discharge permit to the
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF CLEVELAND
person(s) listed below. Writ-
ten comments regarding the
proposed permit will be
The Star, a newspaper printed and published in the city of Shelby,
accepted until 30 days after
and of general circulation in the County of Cleveland, State of
notice uThe Drector of the
North Carolina, and personal knowledge of the facts herein state
NC Division of water
and that the notice hereto annexed was Published in said
Resources (DWR) may hold
a public hearing should there
newspapers in the issue dated:
be a significant degree of
public interest. Please mail
05/25/2023
comments and/or informa-
tion requests to DWR at the
above address. Interested
and that the fees charged are legal.
persons may visit the DWR
Sworn to and subscribed before on 05/25/2023
at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604 to review
the information on file. Addi-
tional information on NPDES
permits and this notice may
be found on our website:
https://deq.nc.gov/public-
notices-hearings,or by call-
ing [phone]. The City of
Kings Mountain (P.O. Box
429, Kings Mountain, NC
280861 has applied for a new
discharge permit NPDES
permit NCO090131 for its
proposed Mill Creek Waste-
water Treatment Plant,
located in Cleveland County.
Legal Clerk
This proposed facility
discharges treated municipal
V
wastewater to Dixon Branch,
a class C water in the Broad
Notary, State of WI, County of Brown
River Basin. BOD, ammonia,
fecal coliform, dissolved
p 1.
oxygen, total residual chlo-
y p
rine, PH, and total phospho-
rous are proposed to be
Publication Cost: $90.00
water quality limited. This
discharge may affect future
Order No: 8853975 # of Copies:
allocations in this segment of
Dixon Branch.
Customer No: 512930 -1
5/25/23 8853975
PO #:
THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE!
Please do not use this farm for payment remittance
E
RIAH VEPR bAc ENNotaryate of Wisconsin
Page 1 of 1

12/22/21, 12:24 PM Mail - Hill, David A - Outlook
[External] Fw: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Thu 10/21/2021 8:25 AM
To: Hill, David A <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.
David, Mike -
FYI. The WEC analysis proposed 1 mg/LTP limits.
Thanks,
Wade
Wade Cantrell
303d, Modeling & TMDL Section Manager
Division of Water Quality - Bureau of Water
S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
Office: [phone]
Connect: www.scdhec.gov Facebook Twitter
From: Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 20218:18 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <MGoodrich @Water-EC.com>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
Jeff -
The WEC analysis and proposed TP limits address concerns about incremental impacts to downstream waters. It is also noted that the proposed TP limits are
forward -thinking and would represent a higher level of treatment than current discharges in the basin. These limits would likely put the facility in a defensible
position in any future re -allocation or TMDL scenario. However, due to recent proposals in the basin, including a major new proposal we are evaluating now, we are
having to look at our approach to cumulative impacts. Under the circumstances, I am not sure at this point if DHEC would comment on a draft permit with the
proposed limits or if so, what the comments would be. In any case, the advance communication and WEC analysis are helpful. Suggest keeping communication
open on this.
Thanks,
Wade
Wade Cantrell
303d, Modeling & TMDL Section Manager
Division of Water Quality - Bureau of Water
S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
Office: [phone]
Connect: www.scdhec.gov Facebook Twitter
From: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:26 PM
To: Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>; Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
*** Caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
Matt B and Wade C:
Please review the attached — based on our conversation. Look forward to your feedback.
Thanks.
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Cell: 803-351-1067
Office: 843-375-9022
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
From: Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:51 AM
To: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>; Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>; Matt Goodrich <mgoodrich @water-ec.com>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
Matt — Here's some info on what I was using for the upper Broad
Broad River
USGS gage 02153200 (drainage area 1290 sq. mi.)
https:Houtlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU2YTMOMzl1 LTc1 NTYtNDAwNy05NzY5LWMyZGZIZGEzYzk1 MAAQAOQpByD7DO%2FJoSw5%2FtKM... 1/4

12/22/21, 12:24 PM Mail - Hill, David A - Outlook
DHEC ambient monitoring stations B-042 (est. drainage are 1287.5 sq. mi.) and B-044 (est. drainage area 1650 sq. mi.).
Kings Creek: B-333
No recent gage data here, but there is an old gage: 02153600
Let me know if you have any questions/need anything else.
Cheers,
Matt
From: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
*** Caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
Thanks for your quick response
From iPhone
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Cell: 803-351-1067 (preferred)
Office: 843-375-9022
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
From: Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:48:59 AM
To: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>; Matt Goodrich <mgoodrich water-ec.com>; Baumann, Matthew S. <baumanms@,dhec.sc.gov>
Subject: Re: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
as discussed from another proposal, calculated increase in P in Broad River after mixing
Wade Cantrell
303d, Modeling & TMDL Section Manager
Division of Water Quality - Bureau of Water
S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
Office: [phone]
Connect: www.scdhec.gov Facebook Twitter
From: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:02 AM
To: MGoodrich@.Water-EC.com <MGoodrich @Water-EC.com>; Baumann, Matthew S. <baumanm @dhec.sc.gov>; Cantrell, Wade <CANTREWM@n)dhec.sc.gov>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
*** Caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
https:Houtlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU2YTMOMzll LTc1 NTYtNDAwNy05NzY5LWMyZGZIZGEzYzk1 MAAQAOQpByD7DO%2FJoSw5%2FtKM... 2/4

12/22/21, 12:24 PM Mail - Hill, David A - Outlook
Ok— I'll call in... may have a grandkid making noise in the background (ha)
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Cell: 803-351-1067
Office:843-375-9022
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
From: Matt Goodrich <mgoodrich water-ec.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 20219:43 AM
To: Baumann, Matthew S. <[e-mail]>; Jeff deBessonet <jdebessonet@.water-ec.com>; Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
That works for me
Thanks
Matt
Matt Goodrich, P.E.
Principal
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-2221
Office: 843-375-9022 ext. 2
Cell: 843-696-0682
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
From: Baumann, Matthew S. <baumanms(adhec.sc.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 20219:06 AM
To: Jeff deBessonet <jdebessonet(Mwater-ec.com>; Cantrell, Wade <CANTREWM(@dhec.sc.gov>
Cc: Matt Goodrich <mgoodrich water-ec.com>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
How does 1030 this morning sound? If so, I can set up a Teams call.
From: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 20219:00 AM
To: Cantrell, Wade <CANTREWMCiadhec.sc.gov>
Cc: MGoodrich(aWater-EC.com; Baumann, Matthew S. <baumanms@ hec.sc.gov>
Subject: RE: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
*** Caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
Monday pm I'm tied up 2-3.
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Cell: 803-351-1067
Office:843-375-9022
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
From: Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 20218:56 AM
To: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Cc: Matt Goodrich <mgoodrich water-ec.com>; Baumann, Matthew S. <baumanms@.dhec.sc.gov>
Subject: Re: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
Jeff -
Are you guys available to talk briefly this morning or Monday afternoon? Some further thoughts.
Thanks,
Wade
Wade Cantrell
303d, Modeling & TMDL Section Manager
https:Houtlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU2YTMOMzl1 LTc1 NTYtNDAwNy05NzY5LWMyZGZIZGEzYzk1 MAAQAOQpByD7DO%2FJoSw5%2FtKM... 3/4

12/22/21, 12:24 PM
Mail - Hill, David A - Outlook
Division of Water Quality - Bureau of Water
S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
Office: [phone]
Connect: www.scdhec.gov Facebook Twitter
From: Jeff deBessonet <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:53 PM
To: Cantrell, Wade <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <MGoodrich @Water-EC.com>
Subject: Dixon Branch... phosphorus (per our discussion today)
*** Caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ***
Wade: Talked to Joe and the PER work he is doing.
He hopes to finish right after labor day —so an answer around then will allow him to confirm that his design will work (e.g., 1 mg/1). He will forward the PER to his client at that
point.
Make sense?
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Water Environment Consultants
P.O. Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Cell: 803-351-1067
Office: 843-375-9022
www.water-ec.com
Specialized Engineering and Permitting Support in the Water Environment
https:Houtlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU2YTMOMzll LTc1 NTYtNDAwNy05NzY5LWMyZGZIZGEzYzk1 MAAQAOQpByD7DO%2FJoSw5%2FtKM... 4/4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9686938F-2AB0-4656-BAD5-9E5CD43228FF
ROY COOPER
Governor
DIONNE DELLI-GATTI
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
Jeff deBessonet, P.E.
Water Environment Consultants
PO Box 2221
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465
Dear Mr. deBessonet:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 7, 2022
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
City of Kings Mountain
Cleveland County
Broad River Basin
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for a new WWTP serving the City of Kings
Mountain located on Dixon Branch with proposed flows of 4.0 and 6.0 MGD. A second location
for the discharge was also considered for Kings Creek. These speculative limits replace those
dated July 13, 2021 to incorporate total phosphorus limits recommended by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. Please recognize that speculative limits may
change based on future water quality initiatives, and it is highly recommended that the applicant
verify the speculative limits with the Division's NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work.
Receiving Streams. Dixon Branch is located within the Broad River Basin. Dixon Branch has a
stream classification of C, and waters with this classification have a best usage for aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Dixon Branch has a summer 7Q10 flow of 0.27 cfs, a winter 7Q10 flow of 0.49 cfs,
a 30Q2 flow of 0.62 cfs, and an annual average flow of 1.58 cfs.
Kings Creek is currently listed as an impaired waterbody on the 2018 North Carolina 303(d)
Impaired Waters List for exceeding benthic criteria. There are no specific permitting strategies or
TMDL for Kings Creek, therefore, the Division cannot permit a new discharge that may cause or
contribute to an impairment and these speculative limits are for Dixon Branch only.
Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Online Map Viewer, there are not any Federally Listed threatened or endangered aquatic species
identified within a 5-mile radius of the proposed discharge location. If there are any identified
threatened/endangered species, it is recommended that the applicant discuss the proposed project
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the proposed discharge location might
impact such species.
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and water
quality modeling results, speculative limits for a proposed new facility at 4.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD
are presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring requirements for
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality j Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NOPTHCAPQUNA
oem�.A.f ��m i a�.i� 919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9686938F-2AB0-4656-BAD5-9E5CD43228FF
metals and other toxicants, as well as potential instream monitoring requirements, will be
addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application. Some features of the speculative
limit development include the following:
• BOD/NH3 Limits. Assimilative capacity to protect the instream dissolved oxygen
standard of 5.0 mg/L was modeled with a NC specific Streeter -Phelps model. NH3
limits are the stricter of that needed to protect instream DO and NH3 toxicity. Please
note that this proposed WWTP will have an interacting discharge with the Kings
Mountain Travel Plaza (NC0032867) and the combined discharges will use all
available assimilative capacity for NH3 toxicity in the stream. The Division will expect
connection of the Travel Plaza to the new WWTP to be evaluated in the EAA
requirements discussed below. The resultant limits are considered technologically
feasible.
• Nutrients. To protect downstream uses, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control recommends that total phosphorus be limited to 1.0 mg/L.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for City of Kings Mountain proposed new facility.
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow
4.0/6.0 MGD
BOD5
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
NH3 as N (Apr. -Oct.)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N(Nov. -Mar.)
1.8 mg/L
5.7 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum daily average)
6.0 mg/L
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/L
Monitor &
Report (mg/1)
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
TRC
17 a /1
Fecal coliform (geometric
mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
(Quarterly test)
90%
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that
an NPDES permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative limits.
Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit
application for the new/expanded discharge. In accordance with North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most environmentally sound alternative
should be selected from all reasonably cost-effective options. Therefore, as a component of
all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an
analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. EAA guidance can be found at:
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document
may be required for projects that: 1) involve $10 Million or more of state funds; or 2) will
significantly and permanently impact 10 or more acres of public lands. Please check with the
Page 2 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9686938F-2AB0-4656-BAD5-9E5CD43228FF
DWR SEPA coordinator (David Wainwright, 919-707-9045) as to whether your project
requires SEPA review. For projects that are subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed
above will need to be folded into the SEPA document. Additionally, if subject to SEPA, the
NPDES Unit will not process an NPDES permit application for a new/expanding discharge
until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment.
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting
requirements, please feel free to contact David Hill at david.hill([e-mail] or (919) 707-
3612.
Respectfully,
Michael Montebello
Supervisor, NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit
Electronic Copy:
NC WRC, West Piedmont Coordinator, [e-mail]
US Fish and Wildlife Service, [e-mail]
/WOffice/Mooresville DWRater Quality Regional Oce/Mooresville
DWR/Basinwide Planning
DWR/NPDES Server>Specs
SCDHEC Wade Cantrell, [e-mail]
City of Kings Mountain, [e-mail]
Page 3 of 3

34)
CONSULTING
ENG I N EE R S, P.A.
March 3, 2023
Mr. Nick Coco, P.E.
NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC, 27604
RE: NCO090131 Mill Creek WWTP Additional Information Request
Project South Mill Creek WWTP
City of Kings Mountain
MBD Project No. 321010/300
Dear Mr. Coco:
We appreciate the email that we received from you and the continuing discussion on the items required on
the EAA. We have addressed your first two comments below. We are currently requesting confirmation
letters from the Town of Grover and the Travel Lodge on their desire to rescind their existing NPDES permit.
The Town of Grover is a biweekly participant in our project meetings and is actively looking forward to
closing out the wastewater treatment plant.
As your comments state, the chamber at the end of the SBR basins is in fact referred to as a surge tank. The
SBR's normal operation includes a treatment cycle and then the basin discharges the water that has
accumulated during the cycle (typically around 3.5 hours). The clarified effluent is decanted at a very high rate
of flow and the surge tank is used to store the decanted flow. The outlet of the surge tank includes a flow
meter and a control valve, as well as a level indicator inside the surge tank itself. The operation of the control
valve is based on maintaining flow through the plant at all times to keep the UV bulbs in operation, but also
controlling the flow through the filters to eliminate any upsets due to surges. The level indicator in the basin
allows for programming to increase the flow as needed to ensure that the surge tank does not overflow at any
time.
The wastewater treatment plant design does incorporate UV disinfection following the tertiary filtration
system. The filters will reduce total suspended solids (TSS) to an acceptable level for the operation of the UV
system prior to discharge to Dixon Branch.
We appreciate your comments. We will provide the letters from the two entities early next week. If you have
any additional comments or questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Joseph W. McGougan, P.E.
President
cc: Joel E. Wood, P.E.
MBD Consulting Engineers, P.A.
911 Norman Alley
Conway, SC 29526
843.488.0124

[e-mail]
From:
Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, August 24, 2020 10:02 AM
To:
[e-mail]
Cc:
Fine, Jason M; Albertin, Klaus P; Weaver, John C
Subject:
FW: Response from USGS concerning... Re: Low flow prediction for Dixon Branch and
Kings Creek in Cleveland County, North Carolina
Importance: High
Mr. deBassonet,
As I still have an email thread flagged on my laptop following your recent inquiries about low -flow characteristics for
Dixon Branch and Kings Creek near Kings Mountain in southeastern Cleveland County, I am forwarding an email from
March 2018 in which I provided estimated low -flow discharges for these two streams in response to a separate low -flow
request for this information.
After considering the map image you included in your first email (July 7), 1 had thoughts recollecting a previous but
similar low -flow request for these two streams. Forwarded below is the USGS response to the 2018 low -flow request for
Dixon Branch and Kings Creek. Your point of interest on Dixon Branch (1.31 sgmi) is identical to that in the 2018
request. However, your point of interest on Kings Creek (9.85 sgmi) is downstream from the 2018 point of interest for
Kings Creek (8.86 sgmi).
As the response to this request was completed in 2018, the information (low -flow yields, cfsm) used for this request
would still be the same that would be used to complete a response to your request. Therefore, please give
consideration to the forwarded email as being similarly applicable as a response to your low -flow request for these two
streams.
Please let me know of questions or concerns.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
]. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: icweaver(@usas.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: httvs://www.usas.cov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
From: Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:15 AM
To: W Ron Haynes <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

[e-mail]; Weaver, John C <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response from USGS concerning... Re: Low flow prediction for Dixon Branch and Kings Creek in Cleveland
County, North Carolina
Importance: High
Mr. Haynes,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for Dixon Branch and Kings Creek in the vicinity of Kings Mountain
in southeastern Cleveland County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (Raleigh office) indicates a previous low -
flow determination at the specific point of interest on Dixon Branch identified by the Iat/long coordinates (35.18901,-81.38279)
provided via your email dated February 20, 2018. Completed in February 1966, the 7Q10 discharge was estimated based on
transfer of low -flow characteristics from nearby index streamflow sites.
The low -flow files also indicate previous low -flow determinations for upstream and downstream locations on Kings Creek in
vicinity of the point of interest identified by the lat/long coordinates (35.18659,-81.36751) provided in your February 20
email. Completed in July 1986, the 7Q10 discharges were likewise estimated based on transfer of flow characteristics from
nearby index sites.
No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for the points of interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow characteristics at
ungaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area,
of cfsm) at nearby sites where such estimates have previously been determined.
A basin delineation completed using the online USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage area for the point of interest on Dixon Branch
(lat/long 35.18901,-81.38279) is 1.31 sgmi.
A basin delineation completed using the online USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage area for the point of interest on Kings Creek
(lat/long 35.18659,-81.36751) is 8.86 sgmi.
For streams in Cleveland County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following reports:
(1) The first is a statewide report completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow characteristics
of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.pdf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 1988) via
regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sgmi and not considered or known to be
affected by regulation and/or diversions.
(2) The second is a statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001, "Low -flow
characteristics and flow -duration statistics for selected USGS continuous -record streamgaging stations in North Carolina through
2012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The report provides updated low -
flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and discontinued streamgages across the
state where a minimum of 10 climatic years discharge records were available for flow analyses.
Inspection of the first report indicates the presence of four (4) nearby selected USGS partial -record sites in general vicinity of the
points of interest where low -flow characteristics were published. Among these 4 sites, the low -flow discharge yields for the
indicated flow statistics are as follows:
Annual 7Q10 low -flow yields =_> from 0.13 to 0.38 cfsm (average about 0.21 cfsm)
Annual 30Q2 low -flow yields =_> from 0.38 to 0.68 cfsm (average about 0.49 cfsm)
Winter 7Q10 low -flow yields =_> from 0.26 to 0.58 cfsm (average about 0.39 cfsm)
Average annual discharge yields ==> from 1.2 to 1.3 cfsm (average about 1.25 cfsm)
Application of the above range in yields to the drainage area (1.31 sgmi) for the point of interest on Dixon Branch results in the
following estimated low -flow discharges:

Annual 7Q10 discharges ==> from 0.17 to 0.5 cfs (average about 0.3 cfs)
Annual 30Q2 discharges ==> from 0.5 to 0.9 cfs (average about 0.65 cfs)
Winter 7Q10 discharges ==> from 0.34 to 0.75 cfs (average about 0.5 cfs)
Average annual discharge ==> from 1.6 to 1.7 cfs (average about 1.65 cfs)
Application of the above range in yields to the drainage area (8.86 sgmi) for the point of interest on Kings Creek results in the
following estimated low -flow discharges:
Annual 7Q10 discharges ==> from about 1.2 to 3.4 cfs (average about 1.9 cfs)
Annual 30Q2 discharges =_> from 3.4 to 6.0 cfs (average about 4.3 cfs)
Winter 7Q10 discharges =_> from 2.3 to about 5.1 cfs (average about 3.4 cfs)
Average annual discharge ==> from 10.6 to 11.5 cfs (average about 11.1 cfs)
Please note the estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
Please understand the information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered provisional,
subject to revision pending further analyses.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email; icweaver0usas.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online; httas://www.usas.aov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax; [phone]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:18 PM, W Ron Haynes <WRHaynes [e-mail]> wrote:
Thank you for adding us to your schedule
Ron Haynes
828/962-7733
From: Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:20 PM
To: W Ron Haynes
Cc: [e-mail]; Jeanne Robbins; John C Weaver
Subject: Re: Low flow prediction for Dixon Branch and Kings Creek in Cleveland County, North Carolina
Mr. Haynes,

We have received your request for streamflow statistics and anticipate being able to provide a response within the next two
months.
Please feel free to follow up in April regarding the status of your request.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email; icweaverOusgs.gov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: htWs://www.usgs.gov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:12 PM, W Ron Haynes <WRHaynes [e-mail]> wrote:
This request for winter and summer 7Q10 data for two locations on streams near Kings Mountain, NC is to
support planning for relocation and/or establishing a new outfalls for the City of Kings Mountain and Kings
Mountain Travel Plaza, an NPDES permittee.
Dixon Branch at Lat. Long. 3 5. 1 8 9 0 1,- 8 1.38279
Kings Creek at Lat. Long. 3 5. 1 8 6 5 9,- 8 1. 3 6 7 5 1
Thanks for the service you provided now in the past. If you need additional information please let me know.
Ron Haynes
828/962-7733
4

tNS' GN ' S
PARTNERS
March 8, 2023
Mr. Joel Wood
104 N. Dilling Street
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
RE: Wastewater Plant Decommissioning
To Whom it May Concern:
MLNC Acquisition, LLC agrees to the closing and decommissioning of the wastewater
treatment plant as part of Project South located at 400 Dixon School Road, Kings
Mountain, NC 28086.
Insignis Partners
Paul Sparks
Managing Partner

f885`
TOWN OF GROVER
207 Mulberry Road
PO Box 189
Grover, North Carolina 28073
704-937-9986
Fax [phone]
March 7, 2023
Mr. Joel Wood
104 N. Dilling Street
Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
RE: Town of Grover Wastewater Plant Decommissioning
To Whom it May Concern:
The Town of Grover agrees to the closing and decommissioning of the Town's wastewater treatment
plant as part of Project South.
Sincerely
TOWN OF GROVER
Mark McDaniel
Public Works Director