NC0087033_Permit Issuance_20011115

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D, Acting Director
November 15, 2001
The Honorable John Ray Campbell
Town of Harmony
P.O. Box 118
Harmony, North Carolina 28634
K�
Am
NCD NR
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO087033
Harmony WWTP
Iredell County
Dear Mayor Campbell:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for issuance of 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.)
The permit authorizes The Town of Harmony to discharge up to 0.250 MGD of treated wastewater
to Dutchman Creek, a class C water in the Yadkin River Basin. The permit includes discharge requirements
for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended residue (TSR), ammonia, dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliform bacteria, total residual chlorine, pH, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chronic toxicity.
The Division has some concern about the proposed constructed wetlands waste treatment because
information indicates they are not appropriate for nitrification. The final permit contains stringent summer
and winter NH3 limits for protection against ammonia toxicity in Dutchman Creek. It is recommended that
Harmony clearly evaluate this discharge alternative for its ability to immediately comply with recommended
limits.
The Town should contact Tom Poe of the -DWQ Pretreatment Unit, 919-733-5083 ext. 522, to
determine if a pretreatment program will be required, if the Town accepts industrial wastewater from
dischargers within the municipality.
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 a demand is made, this permit shall be
final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at
telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
avid A. Goodrich
regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office / Water Quality Section
NPDES Permit File
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Pretreatment Unit, Arm. Deborah Gore
Aquatic Toxicology Unit

Permit NCO087033
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 provision 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,
Town of Harmony
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Harmony WWTP
Harmony
Iredell County
to receiving waters designated as the Dutchman Creek in the Yadkin - Pee Dee 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 December 1, 2001
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2004.
Signed this day November 15, 2001
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

t
Permit No. NC0087033
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Harmony
is hereby authorized :
1. After- reee-ivin -an A-uthorization -to-Corrstraet fr-om-the- Di-vi.sion of -Water
-Quality; construct and operate facilities necessary to treat up to tY.12640L 0•115
MGD -of wastewater, located at Harmony Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Harmony, Iredell County, and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Dutchman Creek, which are classified C waters in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

�� .s� fir: n-. c. yFyr,.` ^r. �cq r. �f `�
a �� .si_rs���a

Permit NCO087033
A. (I.) EFFLUENT LINIITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Averse
Weekly
Averse
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location'
Flow
-0. 5 18D
0415-M&D,
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-da , 202C 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NHs as N
(April 1- October 31
2.4 mg/L
.� ,,
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1- March 31
4.7 mg/L
�, M�
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
(April 1- October 31
Weekly
Grab :
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
November 1- March 31
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
H4-
_ 9 5
d �
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
28 Ng/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
2001100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxici 6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved_ oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
The -pH -shall' its-nor-greatex than-9.0-standard unaits.
5. Monitoring requirement and limit apply only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ %; July, October, January, and April (see Supplement to Effluent
Limitations, Page A (2)).�b7D 7
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit No. NCO087033
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LD IITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIItEMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (2). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
CeHodaPhnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 35 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, guarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina CerWWhnia. 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, then 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 chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival 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: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Branch at
the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from 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
organism 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.

MZo , �s ,,)Ad4k1ecc4-rl 7 a4,4w� A' jc-.� �
l /At �y�t wi��i�l6I IA4"QJ Permit NCO087033
��Cf;f
�''MI OA.
/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 provision 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,
Town of Harmony
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Harmony WWTP
Harmony
Iredell County
to receiving waters designated as the Dutchman Creek in the Yadkin — Pee Dee 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
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2006.
Signed this day
DRAFT
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO087033
Facility Information
Applicant Facility Name:
Town of Harmony WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 118 Harmony NC 28634
AN 20
Facility Address:
NA —�
Permitted Flow
0.250 MGD, __ U
Type of Waste:
Domestic and industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Proposed New
-9
FacilityClassification
II
County:
Iredell
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Dutchman
Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
C
USGS To' o Quad:
D15NE
303 d Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
03-07-06
Date:
August 8, 2001
Drainage Area mil :
4.3
Summer 7Q10
cfs
0.71
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
1.12
Average Flow cfs :
4.52
IWC % :
35%
Primary SIC Code:
14952
SUMMARY OF FACILITY AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Harmony is requesting issuance of a new NPDES permit for 0.250 MGD. The proposed
constructed wetlands wastewater treatment system would discharge to Dutchman Creek, a
class C water, in subbasin 030706 in the Yadkin River Basin. Dutchman Creek is not listed
on the 303(d) list for impaired streams. It is not a monitored stream and does not have a use
support rating listed in the 1998 Yadkin River Basinwide Management Plan.
The Town currently has no public WWTP. Failing septic tank systems throughout the Town are
treating wastewater from residences and businesses. Harmony requested speculative limits for
a proposed system from DWQ and was provided the following tentative limits on April 23, 1999.
BOD5
TSS
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen
NH3-N
NH3-N
Fecal Coliform
Residual Chlorine
pH
30 mg/1
30 mg/1
5 mg/1 (summer)
monitor (winter)
2.4 mg/1 (summer)
4.7 mg/1 (winter)
200/100ml
28 Ng/l
6-9 SU
Harmony submitted an engineering report that evaluated four methods of wastewater disposal:
1) a 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands WWT facility,
2) a 250,000 gpd mechanical WWT facility,
3) a 250,000 gpd land application WWT facility,
4) the connection to a nearby existing wastewater collection system. (The closest collection
system is 12 miles away in the City of Statesville. This option is too far and too expensive
for further consideration by the Town.)
Option 2 - the mechanical WWTP would include screening equipment two aeration basins, two
clarifiers, sludge digestion, tertiary filtration, disinfection, and post aeration. This option would
require about 10 acres of land. Projected limits for Harmony could be met with this equipment.
MRO expressed concern that upon start up, there would be some problems because of the low
'001
;)t'61ON
Harmony WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

flow that would come into the system. It would not be enough to properly operate the system
and some effluent limits could be exceeded.
Option 3 — the land application treatment facility would include a mechanical bar screen, flow
monitoring station, aerated lagoon and a land application field. This option would require about
90 acres of land, which would place the cost of the project very high, due to land costs.
Option 1 - the constructed wetlands WWTP is the least expensive option by about $150,000
compared to the mechanical WWT. The system would include primary screening equipment, a
tricell lagoon (aerobic, nonaerobic, partially aerobic), dual shallow rooted plant cells (bulrush
and cattails), and post treatment including a sand filter, UV disinfection, parshall flume, and
cascade aeration. This option would require about 20 acres of land.
DWQ concern with this method would be that constructed wetlands are not designed for
nitrification and Harmony has low NH3 limits that must be met in the summer and winter.
Best available information does not indicate that low NH3 limits can be met consistently. A
comparable constructed wetland system in Walnut Cove WWTP has had relatively low NH3
effluent concentrations. However, the NH3 levels exceeded Harmony's projected NH3 limits of
2.4 mg/1 and 4.7 mg/1, four times in the past 18 months. It should be noted that Harmony
has already received $ 1 M supplemental grant funds from the Rural Center for construction of
the wetlands treatment facility. Other reasons for the constructed wetlands WWT, are lower
costs for O&M. The user base is not there to support the cost of a mechanical WWT. There will
be only 333 users connected to the system. Estimated startup flow will be 95,000 GPD and will
have just 1 wetland lagoon to start @ 125,000 GPD. Tricell lagoon will be constructed to full
size for 250,000 GPD.
Recommend issuance of NPDES permit for Harmony WWTP. The Town must provide
information that indicates that constructed wetland can meet NH3 limits in permit. DWQ
would prefer mechanical treatment system to ensure compliance with all limits. Town may
need to evaluate reuse opportunities.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Recommended Requirement: Chronic Ceriodaphnia P/F @ 35% Jan Apr July Sept
Per facility's application, Town has indicated that industrial wastewater will be sent to the
WWTP. Information provided that a metal finisher might discharge to plant. Will notify the
pretreatment group of possible SIU to the WWTP. Application also indicated that NH3 lead,
aluminum, copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium, beryllium, and nickel may be in t�
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Proposed facility, no effluent data to review
INSTREAM MONITORING:
No instream monitoring recommended
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Not applicable to new permit
`-
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT
ISSUANCE:
t�
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
08/22/2001
C
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
10/ 15/2001
—
Tentative Effective Date:
11/01/2001
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jackie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
Harmony WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
W(,o f
Iv
Zie, 11-4�( 1!l
NAME: D - DAM 2(/27/0/
NPDES SUPERVISOR COMMENT:
� �� ✓r cr c�v� le, ?r
� �y
NAME: DATE: / /�/OI
Harmony NVvVTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

Twl Harmony
Subject: Fw: Harmony
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:46:09 -0400
From: "Lisa Routh" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Jackie,
This is an e-mail from our agricultural wastewater specialist that may help with the ammonia question on
Harmony.
Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From , Gus7Simtiions
To Lisa ou
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: Harmony
Lisa,
Steve or Tory has one of my wastewater guru books that may be able to provide some more scientific data. It is
the book by Loehr. However, in a nut shell, here is why the ammonia is not a problem:
The Harmony design was very conservative. It was conservative in that we did not try to include 02 added by
wave action and atmospheric interphase with the surface of the facultative lagoon. We also provided more than
enough aeration to match the requirements for BOD stabilization, in order to provide additional oxygen to drive
nitrification. The anaerobic portion of the facultative lagoon will reduce the BOD loading to the aerobic portion,
and will also provide an anoxic area for denitrification. Truth be known, we are going to see significantly better 1
more efficient treatment than what we designed for. Why??? Because the data regarding these very issues is
somewhat elusive. So, we over designed the system to ensure adequate treatment.
As far as the ammonia goes, there is a point (can get from the Loehr book) in which the addition of oxygen drives
nitrification as easily as it stabilizes BOD. Nitrification is described by the following:
NH4 +3/2 02=2H++ H20+ NO2
On top of all this, the wetland plant species will utilize the NO3 for plant growth, and may utilize 30% of any
residual ammonia directly. Also, according to our calculations using the data from Mark Rice, the wetland loading
rate for TKN is 5-18 Ibs TKN/ac-day. We used 9.5 Ibs TKN/ac-day. As we talked about above, TKN is ON +
NH4. Your influent characteristics show that 77% of the TKN is NH4. So, it would stand to reason that if these
proportions remain consistent, and we have a 6.9 acre_wetland, that will utilize 65.55 Ibs of TKN, that it will utilize
50.5 Ibs of NH4.
I am still digging, but let me know if this helps any at all.
Regards,
Gus Simmons
Agricultural Services Director
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
1426 Commonwealth Drive, Suite B
Wilmington, NC 28412
[e-mail]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
-----Original Message ----
From: Lisa Routh [mailto:[e-mail]]
1 of 2 9/20/01 11:55 AM

NORTH CAROLINA
IREDELL COUNTY
On the basis of thorolucgn
staff review and appa
'
lion of NC General Ste-
fire5001 43.
d1 'their lc 18awful
standards and regula-
tions, the North Carolina
affective 45 tlays rmu
the publish date of this
notice.
Written
rtl ng. he m
ents re-
gaproposed
permit will be accepted
until 30 days after the
publish date of this no-
tice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date
are considered in the
final determinations re-
garding the PTOPoeed
at. The Director o'
ter Quality mey
to hold a public meeting
for the proposed Permit
should the Division re-
ceive a significant de
-
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County
and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized
y law to administer oaths, personally appeared
b
bBumgarner who being first duly sworn, de-
y. Allison that she is an employee authorized to
poses and says:
make this statement by Media General Newspapers,
Inc. engaged in the publication of a newspaper known
as the Statesville Record & Landmark published,
issued, and entered as second class l In ththateshe of
Statesville in said County and State,
authorized to make this a al advertisement a true copy
vit and sworn statement;
that the notice or other leg was published in the
Of which is attached hereto, dates:
Statesville Record & Landmark n the following
AUGUST 24+ 2001
Copies of the draft per-
mit and other supporting
informationon file used
to determine conditions
present in the draft per-
mit are available upon
request and payment of
tuc-
he
Mail commentsequeto the NC DNl-
skin of Water Cuality at
the s or
call Ms.VeCh Christie sJack-
son at [phone],
extension 538. Please
include the Ni per-
mit number (attached) in
any communication. In-
terested persons may
also visit the Division o'
water OualitV at 512 N
atw
the hours Of
:00 a.
:Oo a.m. and SAO P.m-
) review information on
is.
WOES Permit Town Number
ICOO87033,
iarmony. PA.Box
28_834
iarmony, C_
,�appiied for -a new
permiI for a facility
lo-in Iredell County
discharging treated was-
tchman
Creektr in t the uYadkin
and that the said newspaper in which h notice,
such
ment, or legal advertisement was p
paper, docuublished
was at the time of each and every such publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifi-
eneral Statues of North
cations of Section 1.597 ofthe G newspaper within the
Carolina and was a qualified
meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statues Of
North Carolina.
Of
A
d subscribed
2001
�
24th
this __�
Sworn to an
A GS20 0
UT
day of
Notary Pub fc
_�a-auoy
Commission expires:
One are water quality li-
mited. This discharge
may affect future allo-
cations in this portion of
the receiving stream.
Auqust24

,FW1 Harmony
16
•
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 1:56 PM
To: Gus Simmons
Subject: Harmony
Gus, here's the Harmony spreadsheet. I need a discussion on why this plant will have no problem
meeting ammonia limts. The spec limits for the plant are NH3-N 2.4 mg/I (summer) and 4.7 mg/I
winter).
Also, Jackie has asked for any example systems like this one.
Another concern is a sheet metal industry in town. They manufacture HVAC systems and the like.
There is some concern about toxicity so if you could give me some information on that it would be
helpful. I told her that more than likely the industry would be reqyured to implement a pretreatment
program.
Thanks for your help!
Lisa
2 of 2 9/20/01 11:55 AM

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: NO
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Jackie Nowell
Date: June 1, 2001
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Iredell
NPDES Permit No.: NCO087033
MRO No.: 00-102
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
`A
3.
0
Facility and address: Town of Harmony
Post Office Box 118
Harmony, N.C. 28634
Date of investigation: January 12, 2001
Report prepared by: Michael L. Parker, Environ. Engr. II
�a
vo
om
L
y9
G
V V
H ,
Z
'
c>
m n
pp
ma
o
mo
vc
N
I
CEE
Person contacted and telephone number: Lisa Routh, P.E., Cavanaugh & Associates,
[phone].
5. Directions to site: From the jct. of Hwy. 21 and Tomlin Rd. (SR 1843) in the Town of
Harmony, travel west on Tomlin Rd. = 0.5 mile and turn left onto Hickory Grove Road
(SR 1939). Travel = 1.0 mile and the entrance to the proposed WWTP site is at the end
of this road.
6. Discharge point(s), List for all discharge points: -
Latitude: 350 56' 22"
Longitude: 800 47' 40"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: D 15 NE
Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes. At least 68 acres are
available for construction of the proposed W WT facility (25 acres will actually be needed
for WWTP construction).
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The proposed site has rolling
topography (3-12% slopes). The lower portion of the site may be at or near flood plain
elevation, however, it is anticipated that all proposed treatment units will be constructed
above flood plain elevation.

Page Two
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Approx. 1000 feet from the WWTP site.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Dutchmans Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Yadkin 03-07-06
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The area is
very rural in nature with agriculture being the primary use. The receiving stream
is = 4-5 feet wide and 2-6 inches deep at the proposed point of discharge. There
are no known downstream dischargers.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater: 0.250 MGD (Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity: N/A
C. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): N/A
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the
previous two years: N/A (new facility)
e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: There are no
existing WWT facilities at this time.
f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: The Town proposes to construct a
Wetlands WWT facility consisting of primary screening, dual facultative lagjand
a duckweed cell, a duckweed collection cell, dual shallow rooted plant cells,
effluent disinfection.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: If chlorine is used for disinfection, then
toxic impacts could be expected and TRC limits should apply.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Not Needed at the present time.
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme: There was no residuals management
plan submitted with the NPDES application. Prior to issuance of an ATC, the applicant
will be required to provide the agency with plans for residuals management/disposal.
3. Treatment plant classification: Class II
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
5. MTU Code(s): 32510
Wastewater Code(s): 01

Page Three
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? Yes. Public monies will be used in the construction of this
WWT facility. The Town has applied for funding from a variety of sources.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None at this time.
3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
4. Alternative analysis evaluation
a. Spray Irrigation: Estimates provided by the Town's engineer indicated that at least
90 acres of land would be necessary to accommodate the projected waste flow
from the Town (this amount of land is currently unavailable). Although sufficient
area necessary to land apply the projected waste flow could possibly be found
within a reasonable distance of the Town, high land costs would most likely stall
this project since funding is based primarily on grants.
b. Connect to regional sewer system: The closest sewer collection system that would
have sufficient capacity to handle the Town's projected flow would be the City of
Statesville, and the nearest Statesville line is at least 12 miles from the Town. For
this reason, this alternative was eliminated.
C. Subsurface: There is insufficient area available to the Town to adequately
assimilate the projected waste flow. Furthermore, septic tank failures are the
primary reason behind the Town's efforts to construct a WWTP.
d. Other disposal options: None that we are aware.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Harmony has applied for issuance of an NPDES permit to allow for a
discharge of treated municipal wastewater into Dutchmans Creek. Extensive septic tank failures
in and around the Town have resulted in substantial hardships for the residents and business that
are located there. Construction of the proposed Constructed Wetlands WWTP (CWWWTP) is
planned for 2002 with operation to begin in early 2003.
Of the various wastewater disposal options evaluated by the Town, mechanical treatment
and CWWWTP were the two options that appear to be the most viable, with the CWWWTP
being the one recommended by the Town's engineering firm (Cavanaugh & Associates). Part of
this recommendation is based on experience gleaned from a similar CWWWTP located in
VSJal-nut-Cove (Stokes County). In phone conversations with the DWQ's Winston-Salem RO
staff, permit comnliance as been consistent at the Walnut Cove CWWWTP. In addition,
seasonal temperature fluctuations have not posed any unusual O&M problems with regards to
dead or dormant wetland vegetation or treatment plant efficiency.

Page Four
The wastewater generated by the Town will be almost entireley domestic, which is preferred for
the day-to-day operation of a C W W WTP. It appears that this type of system can be a viable
means of wastewater treatment/disposal if properly operated and maintained.
Pending receipt and approval of the WLA, it is recommended that an NPDES permit be
issued.
Signature of Report Areparer Date
CAU.
Water Quality Re0onal Supervisor Date
h:\dsr\dsrO I ftmony.dsr

February 21, 2001
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Town of Harmony NPDES Permit Application
Permit No. NC0087033
Iredell County
Return #2104
C&A No.: HM9901
Dear Ms. Nowell:
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and portnership
FEB 2 7 KjT
On behalf of the Town of Harmony, we are resubmitting the NPDES Permit Application
for the proposed Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility for the Town.
The following items are enclosed:
• Three copies of the NPDES permit application
• Three copies of the Preliminary Engineering Alternatives Analysis
• One copy of your letter dated February 7, 2001 verifying the waiver of the
application fee.
If you need further information, please call me at 336/759-9001. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGHH&& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Lis�tSfh, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mayor John Ray Campbell, Town of Harmony
Mike Parker, Mooresville Regional Office

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
February 7, 2001
Mayor John Ray Campbell
Town of Harmony
P.O. Box 118
Harmony, North Carolina 28634
� 1"
NCDENR
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Town of Harmony
Permit No. NC0087033
Iredell County
Return # 2104
Dear Mayor Campbell:
In accordance with Division policy, we must hereby return the attached permit application
received on November 9, 2000. The Preliminary Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
submitted with the application is being returned to Ms. Lisa M. Routh of Cavanaugh &
Associates along with a copy of this letter. After conversations with the Mooresville Regional
Office staff, the NPDES Unit has determined that the application package should be returned
due to the major relocation of the discharge point and other facility design changes. Since this
application is being returned with minor review time, the Division will waive the $715
application fee upon resubmittal. Please send a copy of this letter with the new application
package for verification of the waiver.
If you have any questions about the NPDES permitting process, contact me at the
919-733-5083 ext. 512. Questions about permitting restrictions unique to your area
should be directed to Mike Parker of the Mooresville Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
acgfn M. N ell
f
NP Unit
cc: NPDES File
Ms. Lisa M. Routh, P.E.Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
Mooresville Regional Office / Mike Parker
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Re: for Harmon
Re! ermit � P YJ
Subject: Re: [Fwd: permit for Harmony]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:28:02 -0500
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To: Laura DeVivo <[e-mail]>
CC: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Laura,
The request from Harmony was received in November 2000. Normally, it takes us appro
Lisa Routh (the town's consultant from Cavanaugh and Associates) sent us an e-mail 1
the back burner for now". As I understand it, there are two factors driving this re
request are going to be made, and second, the consultant is suffering from something
me know if you need anything else.
- Dave
I'm copying Jackie Nowell, because she's our permit writer on this one.
Laura DeVivo wrote:
> Dave, Can you let me know the status? I am speaking with the interested legislat
> Yhanks, Laura DeVivo
> 919-715-4189
> Kim Colson wrote:
> > Dave - I'm forwarding this to you since this turns out to be a NPDES
> > permit. KC
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: Re: permit for Harmony
> > Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 11:16:23 -0500
> > From: Laura DeVivo <[e-mail]>
> > Organization: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > To: Kim Colson <kim. colson@ncmail . net>
> > References: <3A785ED7. 8CDD8A8@ncmail . net> <3A7862CE. 503D5E78@ncmail . net> <3A7865
> > Kim,
> > I've found a little info. It is NPDES permit application # NCO087033 for the To
> > of Harmony. The application was received on Nov 6, 2000. Can you find out the
> > status of the permit for me and what we might do to move it along?
> > Thanks, Laura
> > Kim Colson wrote:
> > > The grant will not change the permitting process unless they are supplementing
> > > it with a loan through the Construction Grants and Loans Section. KC
> > > Laura DeVivo wrote:
> > > > Rep. Mitchell will check with them to see if it's under a different name.
> > > > He just told me that they received some grant $ from the Rural Center. Does
> > > > that effect the way the permit is processed?
>>>>LD
> > > > Kim Colson wrote:
> > > > > Nothing on our computer system. Could it be under a different name? KC
> > > > > Laura DeVivo wrote:
>>>>>>Kim,
> > > > > > Do you have an application for a WWTP application for Harmony? If so,
1 of 2 2/5/01 1:53 PM

-Re: [Fwd: permit for Harmony]
f
> > > > > > how is it coming?
> > > > > > Thanks, Laura
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Division of Water Quality
> > DENR
> > Division of Water Quality
> > DENR
> > 1617 Mail Service Center Work: 919-733-5083 ext 540
> > Raleigh
> > North Carolina
> > 27699-1617
> > USA
> > Additional Information:
> > Last Name Colson
> > First Name Kim
> > Version 2.1
2 of 2 2/5/01 1:53 PM

Revised PPDES application for the Town of Harmony
Subject: Revised NPDES application for the Town of Harmony
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:21:38 -0500
From: Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Mooresville Regional Office
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: Rex Gleason <[e-mail]>
Jackie,
I have received a response from Lisa Routh who is the engineer for the Town of
- y concerning revisions that are necessary to complete the review of the
Town's NPDES Permit application. As you can see from her comments, the
requested info will not be available for some time. Such being the case, we
need to place this application on hold until such time as the information
needed to complete our review has been submitted. Just so you will know, the
Town has completely changed the location and point of dischargerfrom the
application as submitted in the original permit application, therefore, the
need to submit a revised application. Call me if you have any questions.
MLP
Lisa Routh wrote:
> Hi Mike, as much as I hate to do it, go ahead and advise Raleigh to put it
> on the back burner for now. It will probably be a few weeks before I can
> submit revisions. With just Tory and me in the office, it's tough to get
> everything done when you want to get it done. I'm sure you can relate to
> being short staffed. As soon as we can get the revisions done, I'll send
> them on to you.
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:41 PM
> Subject: Revised NPDES application for Harmony
> >Lisa, thought I would check with you and see how the revised NPDES
> >Permit application for Harmony was coming along. If we are looking at
> >several more weeks before you are ready to submit the revisions, I can
> >advise our staff in Raleigh to put it on the "back burner" until you get
> >all your information together, if necessary.
> >No rush, just wanted to see where we stood.
> >Michael Parker - [e-mail]
> >Environmental Engineer II
> >North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
> >Division of Water Quality
> >919 N. Main Street
> >Mooresville, NC 28115
> >Ph: 704.663.1699 Fax: [phone]
Michael Parker <Michael.Parkernuncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer II
NC DENR - Mooresville
Division of Water Quality
1 of 2/l/01 9:16AM

z c '0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
November 9, 2000
Mayor John Ray Campbell
Town of Harmony
P.O. Box 118
Harmony, North Carolina 28634
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NPDES Permit Application NCO087033
Harmony WWTP
Itedell County
Dear Mayor Campbell:
The Division received your permit application and fee of $715.00 (paid by check # 4706) on November
6, 2000. Thank you for submitting this package. Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell of the NPDES Unit staff will review the
application and prepare the draft permit. Ms. Nowell will contact your Authorized Representative (Lisa Routh
of Cavanaugh & Associates) if further information is needed to draft the permit.
Please note that the NPDES Unit has consistently had at least 3 (and as many as 5) vacant positions
since October 1998. Our remaining permit writers are currently carrying extremely heavy workloads. While we
do not expect severe delays in handling your request, be aware that your application is one of many that Ms.
Nowell is currently reviewing.
If you have any additional questions concerning the subject application, please contact Ms. Nowell at
[phone],extension UK
sr Sincerely,
/W k �' vtwm � -
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Re tonal Office / Water Quality Section
Cavanaugh & Associates / Lisa Routh
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 511 (fax) 919 733-0719
Vlsrr Us oNTHE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES [e-mail]

November 2, 2000
Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Town of Harmony NPDES Permit
C&A No.: HM9901
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
OOOl g - AON
The Town of Harmony in Iredell County is in the process of developing a public sewer system to serve
the town. Enclosed are the following items:
• Three copies of the NPDES Permit application for a new constructed wetlands wastewater
treatment facility for the Town of Harmony
• Three copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report/Alternatives Analysis
• A copy of the speculative limits for Dutchmans Creek
• An application fee in the amount of $715
If you need further information, please contact me or Tory Wagoner, E.I. at 336/759-9001. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
4 mvq--�
Lisa M. Routh, P.E.
cc: Mayor John Ray Campbell, Town of Harmony
Mike Parker, Mooresville Regional Office

YADKIN RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Subbasin
Stream Index Number
Map Number
Class
Deadfall Creek
YAD17
13-47-2
H18SW4
C
Deals Creek
YAD04
12-109
E16NE3
C
Deals Creek
YADO6
12-109
E16NE3
C
Deep Bottom Branch
YAD14
13-17-40-21
G18SW2
C
Deep Creek
YAD02
12-84
C16SE3
WS-IV
Dehart Branch
YAD01
12-46-1-9-1
B14SW6
C
Delta Lake
YAD11
13-17-8-1
G16NW1
C
Dennis Creek
YAD01
12-7
C12NE7
C Tr
Densons Creek
YAD15
13-25-20-(1)
F19NW6
C HQW
Densons Creek
YAD15
13-25-20-(9)
F19NE7
C
Derita Creek
YAD17
13-42-1-3-1-1
H18NE3
C
Dicke Creek
YAD15
13-25-18
F19NE8
C
Dishmon Creek
YAD06
12-108-11-1
C15SW7
C
Discus Creek
YAD15
13-25-32
F19SW8
C
Dobbins Creek
YADO6
12-108-16-6-1
C15NE7
WS-III
Dobbins Pond
YAD02
12-84-1-1
C16NW8
C
Doby Creek
YAD11
13-17-5-3
F15SEG
C
Doctors Branch
YAD06
12-108-20-4-1-1
D14SE9
C
Dogwood Branch
YADO1
12-40-2-4
B13SES
WS-II Tr
Double Creek
YADO1
12-46-2-5
B14NE7
C Tr
Double Creek
YAD02
12-87-1-(0.4)
C17SW4
C
Double Creek
YAD02
12-87-1-(0.7)
C17SW2
WS-IV
Double Springs Branch
YAD03
12-72-2-1
A16SE6
WS-IV
Draft Branch
YAD04
12-110-4
E16NE8
C
Dripoff Branch
YAD06
12-108-9-1
D14NE6
WS-IV
Dry Branch
YADOS
12-102-4
C16SW9
C
Dry Branch
YAD04
12-123-2
E18NW5
C
Dry Creek
YAD15
13-25-36-7
G19NE1
C
Dry Creek
YAD10
13-28-1-1
G19NEG
C
Dry Creek (Andrews Pond)
YAD10
13-22
G18SE3
C
Dry Fork
YAD14
13-17-36-6-3
G16SE7
C
Dry Lake and City Lake
YAD03
12-72-8-4
A16SW9
C
Duck Creek
YAD06
12-108-20-4-3
E15NW3
C
Duck Creek
YAD12
13-17-IS-3
G16NE4
C
Duck Lake
YAD15
13-25-30-2-1
F19SW6
C
Dogger Creek
YAD01
12-24-11
C12NE9
B Tr ORW
Dugger Creek
YAD06
12-108-16-2-4
C15SW2
WS-III
Dula Thoroughfare
YAD10
13-18
G1aNE8
C
Dumas Creek
YAD10
13-16-1
F18SE6
C
Dumas Creek
YAD15
13-25-20-8
F19NW5
C HQW
Dunagan Creek
YAD02
12-63-16
B16SW5
C
Duncombe Creek
YAD09
13-2-17
E19SW7
C
Dungeon Creek
YAD01
12-42-1-1
B14SW1
C
Dunkers Creek
YAD04
12-98-3
D17NE7
WS-IV
Dutch Buffalo Creek
YAD12
13-17-11-(1)
E16SE9
WS-II
Dutch Buffalo Creek
YAD12
13-17-11-(4.5)
F17NW5
WS-II CA
Dutch Buffalo Creek
YAD12
13-17-11-(5)
F17NW5
C
Dutch Sohn Creek
YADOS
12-137-(1)
F18NE8
WS-IV&B
Dutch John Creek
YADOS
12-137-(2)
F18NE8
WS-IV&B CA
Dutchman Creek
YAD02
12-56
B15SE7
C
Dutchman Creek
YADOS
12-102-(2)
C16SW9
C
Dutchman Creek
YADOS
12-102-(17.5)
D17SWl
WS-IV
Dutchman Creek
YADO6
12-108-12
D15NE2
C 14
Dutchman Creek, including proposed reservoir
YAD05
12-102-(1)
C16SWB
B
Page 7 of 27

C-«
er� �
w

wW7P
333
��tt✓/il�/3 �.ti,T = o2,�sup/.�p �y�iPO/—oC,�'
GIwo-t cvf
,f b✓, z.ov 0
bt,C 24sn/O
u�
Sf/Q
i� zD7
Z/z
vl/f
A*1 UZ)1
/, 8,9
-f/X
ilrruc,
Aw
r7 & o, Y7
,9zrr o, o
.Se'p i°' co
ocr 1 % 0, %U

Harmony WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.71
7Q10 (CFS)
0.71
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.25
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.25
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.3875
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.3875
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (U
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
35.31
IWC (%)
35.31
Allowable Concentration (ug/
48.16
Allowable Concentration (m
2.43
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.12
Fecal Limit
200/100mi
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.25
Ratio of 1.8 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.3875
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
25.70
Allowable Concentration (m
6.37
NC0087033 817101

Harmony WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.71
7Q10 (CFS)
0.71
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (U
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
21.44
IWC (%)
21.44
Allowable Concentration (ug/
79.30
Allowable Concentration (m
3.86
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.12
Fecal Limit 200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
Ratio of 3.7 :1 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
14.75
Allowable Concentration (m
10.93
NCO087033 817101

Pq
Town of Harmony
Sewer Collection & wastewater Treatment Facility
Preliminary Engineering Repo rt/Alternatives Analysis
Revised February 12, 2001
Project Planning Area 1
..................................................................................................................
MR Existing Facilities & Need for the Project 3
.........................................................................................
Presentation of Proposed Improvements —Alternatives Considered 4
.......................................................
Description of Treatment Alternatives 5
.........................................................................................
Environmental Assessment of Treatment Alternatives 8
...................................................................
Land Requirements of Treatment Alternatives 9
..............................................................................
Construction Problems 9
�,............................................................................................................
Capital Cost for wastewater Treatment Facility Alternatives 11
.........................................................
Operation and Maintenance Costs 14
.......................................................................................
Net Present Cost of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives 19
.............................................................
Advantages/Disadvantages 21
..................................................................................................
Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative) 23
..............................................................................
Funding for the Project 24
.....................................................................................................
Conclusions & Recommendations 26
................................................................................................
F+ Exhibit A —Topographic map of area
Exhibit B — Correspondence
Exhibit C — Sewer Layout
Exhibit D — USDA RD "Guide 8"
MIR
M
fm
MR
r,
M
PM
MR

M
Project Plannin4 Area
op
The Town of Harmony is located in northern Iredell County, approximately 13 miles north of Stateville.
Highway 21 runs north/south through the middle of Harmony and State Route 901 runs east/west
am through the middle of town.
The Town of Harmony sits on a minor basin ridge. The southeast side of town flows into Kinder Creek.
Pm The north side of town flows into Long Branch and the west side of town flows into Dutchman Creek.
All of these are tributaries of the Yadkin River. Exhibit A shows the topography of the area surrounding
Harmony.
P-M
The Yadkin River Basin is the second largest river basin in North Carolina. Its headwaters begin in the
eastern Blue Ridge Mountains with part of the upper watershed in Virginia. The Yadkin flows into the
r, Pee Dee River through South Carolina and into the Atlantic Ocean. Harmony is in the 03-07-06 sub -
basin of the Upper Yadkin River Basin. There is no mention of the tributaries around Harmony in the
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. None of these tributaries are marked
for additional management strategies for Oxygen -Consuming Wastes. However, Hunting Creek and
Rocky Creek (into which the Dutchman, Kinder and Long flow) may be considered for reclassification
to High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORM.
Exhibit A is a topographic map showing the basins and major streams in the area. The majority of the
land surrounding Harmony is agricultural and forest land. There are no known historic sites or critical
habitats that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Growth areas & population trends
PSI
F,
sm
M
M,
M
MR
According to the North Carolina Office of State Planning, the 2000 population of Harmony was 587. In
1990 the pop was 502, a percent growth of 2.41 % per year on average. It is estimated that with the
addition of public sewer in Harmony, the population growth will only increase slightly. We are
estimating an increase of .5% per year on average.
The following table shows projections for Harmony's population growth first based on historical data,
then with the estimated increase in population with the addition of public sewer.
Year
Unsewered Population
Sewered Population
1990
502
502
2000
.587
587
2005
631
637
2010
678
701
2015
728
773
2020
783
'851 1
The following figure is a graphical representation of the population projections.
FM
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 1

a�
w.
Population Trends
800
7131 M
700
6i7
678
600
__..._...__y�.t-_.___------ .._
587
500
—.
50]
400
300 -
zoo
100
[990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Year
I
Uasewered Population Sewered Population
^ Though the population in Harmony will only slightly increase with the addition of public sewer,
economic development will be greatly affected. If public sewer is not provided, growth will stagnate.
There will be no new businesses and there will be no new development. Existing businesses may be
forced to close down, and the main street of Harmony will cease to exist. Businesses cannot develop
to their fullest potential because existing septic systems cannot support them. The following are some
of the existing realities in the Town of Harmony:
• A new barbecue restaurant has recently opened on the west side of town. The restaurant can only
serve take-out because they cannot provide sewer facilities to support a sit-down type of
restaurant.
• Main Street businesses such as the Dairy Freeze have had to close their doors because they can
not physically provide sewer service. When their existing septic systems failed and a new system
'• was needed, the land needed was not available.
• If the Harmony Cafd on Main Street were to even temporarily close, they would not be able to
reopen because of septic system requirements.
^ • There is raw sewage flowing behind the Harmony Elementary School.
• Rosewood Rest Home has been ordered to "do something now or else" about their failing septic
system.
^ • Approximately 60% of the septic systems in Harmony were failing in June 1999
.,
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 2

Rn
Existing Facilities & Need for the Protect
It is the goal and intent of every community to provide safe and healthy living conditions for all of its
citizens. The Town of Harmony relies completely on private septic systems. Residents and
�+ businesses in Harmony, including the elementary school, have in the past, and/or presently, are
suffering from failing septic systems. For example:
Right now there is raw sewage flowing in close proximity to the elementary school. The
potential exposure to children on playgrounds to raw sewage is not a pleasant thought
P&I Seventeen percent (17%) of community members responding to an opinion survey performed as part
of this PER said that they have experienced septic problems in the past two years, or are currently
experiencing problems. As Harmony grows, the failure of septic systems will continue, even though
FM community members who are experiencing problems with their septic systems will most likely begin to
experience negative environmental considerations in the future. The Town of Harmony needs to keep
these options of providing for future growth and development, and providing for safe and healthy living
F, conditions, to be left open.
Exhibit B includes correspondence from Iredell County and local businesses.
M
Growth
MI The following flow projections are based on the population projections above, existing businesses and
the projected increase in commercial use. Because the Town of Harmony has made a commitment to
mandatory connections to the public sewer system, the number of new customers is equal to the
number of houses and businesses in town. Maximum flow was calculated using a peak factor of 2.0.
MR
(94
OR
Sm
Year
Ave Daily Flow (gpd)
79,�45-- .
Max Dailv Flow (gpd)
1-58;690
2003
2005
--^= 82;865
165,730
2010
92,231
184,462
2015
205,694
2020
( 114,589
229317-8 ,
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 3

ri►
r1
Presentation of Proposed Improvements - Alternatives Considered
AM
The Town of Harmony will require both a collection system and a treatment facility to resolve the
driving issues. In order to have enough users to support the system, the entire town needs to be served
Mn with sewer instead of "phasing" the project. Exhibit C shows the layout of the sewer system and
proposed location of the treatment facility.
FM Collection Svstem Components
The Town of Harmony sits on a ridge and will require seven pump stations, most of which will be small
horsepower stations. Most of the town can be served by sewer lines in the NCDOT Right -of -Way with
MR only a small amount of outfall required. The majority of the collection lines will be 8" with a 12"
collection line through the business district. Below is a cost estimate for the collection _system
construction excluding design and administration costs.
M
M
M
•��1� 2' � zi 4*' r ��r a
8" PVC Sanitary Sewer
i�/ �IYtr
t�
LF
Rii/4i t
t%� �J.�
32,617
f VJ- A
$26
:- MIt r. �w
$848,042
12" PVC Sanitary Sewer
LF
6,500
$32
$208,000
4' Standard Manholes
EA
125
$1,600
$200,000
Stone Stabilitization
TN
9,153
$15
$137,301
Clear & Seed Easement Area
AC
8
$5,000
$39,486
Asphalt Repair & Replacement
SY
333
$16
$5,328
Service Connections
EA
333
$500
$166,500
Pump Station
LS
7
$70,000
$490,000
4-6" Force Main
LF
25,000
$12
$300,000
Subtotal
$293941,657
Treatment Component
mm The Town of Harmony would construct
a facility to treat Harmony's anticipated wastewater flows for a
design period of 20 years. The proposed
discharge would
be on Dutchman's Creek. Dutchman's
Creek is a tributary to Rocky Creek which
flows into the South Yadkin River. Speculative discharge
Mq limits for the Dutchman's Creek were
received April 23,
1999 for a site near the proposed plant
location. The Speculative limits are as follows:
Effluent Limits
Summer Winter
Flow
(MGD)
0.25 .25
BOD5
(mg/L)
30 30
NH3-N
(mg/L)
2.4 4.7
TSS
(mg/L)
30 30
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
5.0
Fecal Coliform
(#/100ml)
200 200
PH
(SU)
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
(erg/L)
28 28
CAR
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 4

M
The preliminary cost estimates for the design of the treatment facility are based on the following
elements:
1. Average Daily Flow
0.25 mgpd
MR 2. Design BODS
250 mg/L
3. Design TSS
250 mg/L
4. Design Total TKN
45 mg/L
5. Effluent BODS Required
5 mg/L
MR 6. Effluent TSS
10 mg/L
7. Effluent Ammonia as NH3-N
2 mg/L
r,
Presentation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
`'"'' Four alternatives were considered to address Harmony's wastewater needs:
Option A: A 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Option B: A 250,000 gpd Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Option C: A 250,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility
Option D: Connecting to any nearby existing wastewater collection systems
M Description of Treatment Alternatives
Option A: A 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town of Harmony would construct a new 250,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater
AM Treatment Facility (CWWTF) to treat Harmony's anticipated wastewater flows for a design period of 20
years. The CWWTF would consists of the following components:
MR Preliminary screening equipment
• Tri-cell lagoon (aerobic, non -aerobic, partially aerobic)
• Dual Shallow rooted plant cells
Post -treatment (sand filter, UV disinfection, Parshall flume, cascade aeration)
The manual screening device for the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility would have an
,m effective opening of 3/8 to 1 inch. The tri-cell lagoon system which would serve as the primary
treatment unit would utilize three cells within one lagoon. The first cell would have two aerators; the
second cell non -aerobic and the third cell would be partially aerobic with one aerator.
MR
Following the tri-cell lagoon is the wetland cells which serve as secondary treatment. The shallow -
rooted plants included in these cells will be bullrush and cattails. The wetland cells comprise the
MR majority of the site area and will need to be terraced to fit the terrain of the project site.
Following the wetlands cells will be post treatment units including a sand filter, UV disinfection, a
am Parshall flume and cascade aeration.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 5
am

fan
The CWWTF would require approximately 20 acres which would include access roads and other
infrastructure. While the Constructed Wetlands wastewater Treatment facility could be configured to
minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area required to be under construction.
Of course, the larger the construction area, the more opportunity for construction related problems to
occur. A detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed to determine the amount of rock, if
any, expected to be encountered during construction. Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth
MIR of basins likewise shallow; it is anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table
would be limited.
Pa,
SIR
fm
FML,
I,
OR
Mn
Option B: A 250,000 upd Mechanical wastewater Treatment Facility
Mq The Town of Harmony would construct a 200,000 gpd mechanical wastewater treatment plant to meet
their wastewater needs. The following components would be required:
foul • Screening equipment
• Two Aeration Basins
• Two Clarifiers
SM Sludge Digestion
• Tertiary Filtration
• Disinfection
Post Aeration
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 6
am

to
tM
AM The following is a schematic of a mechanical wastewater treatment facility.
PIR
M
SM
Owl
Clarifier (Cl� r i
i
5cr�enin�� ' splttter 11 Junction Tertiury
i\•feesttrentettt !Aeration t7isint�citon
I Box [lox iltra�i��u
' Posi
:lerution
Ld
ItAS Sludge Return
Pump Station
WAS
To Diszltar-, -
Point
Ui�esunn To Sludge Disposal
�, The discharge points and design criteria for the mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be the
same as for the CW TF.
tit
Option C: A 250,000 gpd Land Application Treatment FaciliMR ty
The Town of Harmony would develop a land application site with a capacity of 250,000 gpd to meet
their wastewater treatment needs. This system would consist of the following components:
Mt • A secondary treatment facility consisting of a mechanical bar screen, flow monitoring station
and aerated storage lagoon.
• A land application field (for this preliminary report slow rate irrigation is the assumed method
SW, of application).
This alternative does not require an NPDES permit since wastewater is not released or discharged to
f-M surface waters of the State. The hydraulic application to the soil must be carefully determined to
preclude run off. The applied wastewater evaporates and is used by plants or percolates into the soil
and ultimately joins the groundwater. The total system must be carefully controlled to insure proper
MR operation, and the groundwater must be monitored to prevent contamination.
,�, Option D: Connecting to any nearby existing wastewater collection systems
The nearest existing wastewater treatment facilities to Harmony is the Statesville. The closest line is 12
M, miles from Harmony which is too distant to consider as a possible discharge point. This option is cost
prohibitive and will not be included as an option for evaluation further in this report.
AIM
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 7
am

Environmental Assessment of Treatment Alternatives
The following is an environmental discussion of the impacts of each of the alternatives. This section
primarily addresses the adverse impacts associated with each option.
Option A: 250,000 god Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility will require construction of approximately 10
acres of property. Counting roadways and appurtenant infrastructure, this number approaches 20
acres. Because of the large land area required and associated buffers around the wastewater treatment
`�' facility, it is anticipated that the opportunity for disturbance of habitat, existing wetland areas, and other
highly specialized natural areas is possible. A species survey (both plant and animal) as well as a
wetland delineation is anticipated prior to the final option being exercised on the property. During the
Fin course of construction, machinery such as bulldozers, scrapers, pans, and other trucks and
combustion powered equipment will be on the project site. The project duration is anticipated to be
short (within 6 to 8 months) and the environmental impacts are considered to be minimal.
rM
The effects on the environment with respect to ultimate system and how it fits in and balances with the
environment is an extreme positive and one of the primary considerations for this alternative being
carefully considered. The approximately 20 acres of new natural habitat area associated with the
constructed wetlands facility are anticipated to greatly outweigh any potential temporary environmental
impacts associated with construction.
Mm
Option B: 250,000 ad Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
fm
The construction of concrete basins and piping and discharge facilities does represent a temporary
impact to a small area. This impact would be in the form of utilization of combustion engines on the
Mm, project site, potential for construction noise, and the transport of new materials to the project site. The
temporary construction noise and air quality effects are minimal as they relate to the overall operation
of positive environmental solutions. There are, however, long-term environmental impacts anticipated
rM such as an increase in decibel level to the area based on the continual operation of rotary positive
displacement blowers and other rotating equipment.
R, The mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be designed with sufficient aeration which would
provide for the dampening to reduction of any potential negative odors associated with the facility.
rM
Option C: A 250,000 apd Land Application Treatment Facility
r, Following primary treatment and disinfection, wastewater can be land -applied using irrigation or
infiltration/percolation systems. Generally, land application requires several acres of cleared land with
gentle or no slopes to prevent runoff if spray applied. Irrigation applications require comparable
acreage. The ability of existing soils in the community to adequately treat the wastewater irrigation
would control the required acreage. The area is defined by mountainous terrain. Substantial clearing
and grading would have to be performed to develop adequate ground slopes. This would require
implementation of erosion control measures during construction. Substantial storm water controls
FMwouldalso have to be constructed to control storm water runoff during a rain event. The temporary
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 8
MR

rim
construction impact could be minimized with proper construction techniques and construction
oversight. The temporary environmental impacts during construction can be categorized as moderate.
Permanent environmental impacts for land application by field irrigation are minimal, if properly
installed. A pumping system would be required to provide the flow to the irrigation system. Noise
`�' levels from the pump station are considered non-existent. Noise levels from the floating aerator for the
primary treatment lagoon can be moderate. During wet weather odor from the application field may be
a consideration. Extremely prolonged wet spells could also provide inadequacies in the ability of the
am application field to properly transport the irrigation. Saturated soils during
p p y p g g prolonged wet periods may
cause wastewater to reach receiving waters in either an untreated or partially treated state.
Land Requirements of Treatment Alternatives
Option A: A 250,000 apd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
FM 20 acres including buffer area
M
Option B: 250,000 ad Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
10 acres
rM Option C: 250,000 god Land Application Treatment Facility
ram
MR
90 acres including storage acreage
Construction Problems
Option A: A 250,000 apd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
This option would require approximately 20 acres which would include access roads and other
infrastructure. While the constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment facility could be configured to
minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area required to be under construction.
Of course, the larger the construction area, the more opportunity for construction related problems to
occur. A detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed to determine the presence of rock on
the proposed site. Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth of basins likewise shallow; it is
FMI anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table would be limited.
Option B: 250,000 god Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
RM
Dependant upon the hydraulic profile associated with the final layout of the mechanical wastewater
treatment facility, it is anticipated that a portion of those structures necessary for the major process
units may need to be buried with a wall height of 42 inches. This partial burial would require an
evaluation of the groundwater conditions and possible dewatering of high groundwater in the area of
construction. The other construction consideration such as rock are expected to be minimal based
upon the minimal footprint required for mechanical treatment facility.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 9
ow

n
am
Option C: 250,000 Qpd Land Application Treatment Facility
M,
Because this option required 90 acres of land, the availability of that much consecutive land is a
concern for the Town of Harmony. Also, a detailed geotechnical investigation will be needed to insure
am
that the soil is acceptable for land application and to determine the amount of rock to be expected.
M
MR
SM
MR
rM
pq
MR
Pq
IM
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 10
MR

M
M
M
M
Capital Cost for Wastewater Treatment Facility Alternatives
Option A: 250,000 and Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facilitv
Item
M
Item
Unit
Quantity;,nit
Price
Total
CY
125,000
2.00
$250.000
ring
Clearing and Grubbing
AC
22
$ 2,500
$55,000
Wetland L r(
etland Liner (Bentomat)
SF
348,480
$ 0.45
$156,816
Wetland Plantings
SF
348,480
$ 0.05
$17,424
Plant Process Piping
LF
2,200
$ 15.00
$33,000
Lagoon Baffle
SF
3,600
T --1.00
— $3,6001
Splitter Boxes
EA
1
T 1,50-0.00
— $1,5001
Effluent Control Structure
CY
100
T 30-0-00
$30,000
UV Disinfection Equipment and Installation
LS
1
T 2500-0-00
$25,000
Sand Filter system Installation
LS
1
T 15,00-0-00
$15,000
Cascade Aeration Structure
LS
1
$ 5,000.00
$5,000
.Plant Access Roadway (Gravel)
LF
2,500
$ 25.00
$62,500
Influent Wetland Distribution Manifold
EA
1
$ 1,500.00
$1,500
Effluent Wetland Collection Box
EA
1
$ 1,500.00
$1,500
Floating Aerator Including Mooring
EA
3
$ 10,000.00
$30,0001
Miscellaneous Elect 'ication
LS
1
$ 10,000.00
$10,0001
Erosion and Sediment Control
LS
1
$ 30,000.00
$30,0001
Sewer Collection System ILS
11
$ 2,394,656
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,122,497
Species Survey & FloodwaY Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$36,5001
Design
$199,800
Subsurface investigations
$10,000
Land Cost
$135,000
Legal & Administrative
$31,200
Construction Administration
$149,9001
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,0010
Interest During Construction
$50,000
Construction Contingency
$3�
Total Cost Opinion
—$4,@,0n
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 11

W
M
0
.,
Option B: 250,000 and Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Item Total Price
Site Preparation ___T $300,000
Yard Piping $35,000
Aeration Basins I $125,000
Clarifiers $100,000
Sludge Return & Filter Pump Station $42,500
Tertiary Filters
$45,000
Control Building
$50,000
Standby Power & Electrical
$44,000
Disinfection
$25,000
Sludge Stabilization Basin
$62,500
Instrumentation
$12,500
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
$30,000
Sewer Collection System
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,266,157
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$36,500
Design
$209,000
Subsurface Investigations
$10,000
Land Cost
$90,000
Legal & Administrative
$32,600
Construction Administration
$156,800
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,000
Interest During Construction
$50,000
Construction Contingency 1$326,600
Total Cost Opinion 1$4,202,657
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 12

n
fm
ow
em
MR
1W
FM
OR
Mq
M"
Option C: 250,000 nod Land Application Treatment Facility
item
unit
qty.
unit cost
total
Land Acquisition
AC
85
$
6,000
$ 507,612
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
85
$
1,500
$ 126,903
Crop Planting, Seeding, Mulching
AC
85
$
1,000
$ 84,602
Storage Land Acquisition
AC
5
$
1,000
$ 4,911
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
5
$
1,500
$ 7,366
Build Earthen Berm
LS
1
$
48,000
$ 48,000
Liner
F
7
SY
23767
$
10
$ 237,671
Seeding & Mulching
AC
1.8
$
1,000
$ 1,837
Distribution Pump Station
LS
1
$
50,000
$ 50,000
Pre-screening
LS
1
$
210,000
$ 210,000
Delivery Piping
LF
2600
$
15
$ 39,000
Delivery Valves & Blowoffs
LS
1
$
5,000
$ 5,000
Irrigation Main
LF
5700
$
10
$ 57,000
Lateral Pipe
LF
28075
$
5
$ 140,374
Valves I
EA
67
$
300
$ 20,107
Sprinkler Heads
EA
281
$
200
$ 56,150
Sewer Collection System
LS
1
$
2,394,656
$2,394,657
Construction Subtotal
$3,991,100
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (easements & property)
$50,000
Design
$255,400
Subsurface Investigations
$10,000
Legal & Administrative
$39,900
Construction Administration
$191,600
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$15,000
Interest During Construction
$60,000
Construction Contingency
$399,100
Total Cost Opinion
$5,0229100
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report - October 2000 Page 13
00

n
r-W
om Operation and Maintenance Costs
Sewer Collection System Operations and Maintenance
I" There are seven pump stations that will be operated and maintained in the sewer collection system
along with the actual line work itself. Below is an estimate of the operation and maintenance cost for
fm the collection system.
AM
M
U_�
2003
2023
(@2%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Pump Station - Power
$9,100
$13,500
Pump Maintenance
$10,200
5,200
Total operations & Maintenance
$19,300
t$28,700
$24,000
Annual operations and maintenance costs are described for each of the primary alternatives.
Option A: 250,000 upd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
MP If a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility is selected for the Town of Harmony, the
operation and maintenance is reduced significantly. The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment
concept uses the natural approach of biological waste decomposition through anaerobic, aerobic and
facultative microbial life. The influent waste stream would still need to undergo a rudimentary screening
process followed by flow measurement. These operation and maintenance aspects were outlined in
the mechanical treatment section.
Following the preliminary screening, the wastewater must undergo primary treatment. The primary
treatment anticipated for the Harmony system would be a small aerobic lagoon which provides for
MR aeration, then a quiescent zone settling followed by a slight reaeration zone prior to entrance into the
constructed wetlands marsh facility. This highly aerobic zone would be accomplished through either
floating aerators or course bubble diffused aeration in an impervious lagoon or tank. The maintenance
associated with a floating -type aerator would be lined periodic observation of the aeration equipment
and turning off and inspecting the equipment for required greasing of fittings, etc. The aeration
equipment that should be designed and installed in the aerobic zone should be equipment that is
Pin expected to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Following the preliminary treatment, the wastewater would flow to the natural section of the constructed
,Q wetlands wastewater treatment facility. In this section which could be a bulrush or cattail plant section,
the waste is placed in an environment which has an extremely long detention time. The natural nutrient
uptake from the plant species breaks down the waste elements specifically nutrients such as
„M phosphorus and nitrogen. There is maintenance around this facility, as it is land intensive. It is,
however, only as it relates to mowing and potential animal depravation if those animals begin to cause
problems such as borrowing into berms, etc. Following the natural marsh facility, the wastewater
would flow to a sand filter followed by UV disinfection, a Parshall flume and finally cascade aeration.
These components would require the same type of maintenance required as described in the
mechanical treatment section.
am
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 14

MR
am
am
MR
FMR
MR
MR
M
MR
onq
M"
FM
MR
Eveded Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
(@2°%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$8,500
$12,600
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$9,500
$14,100
Treatment Plant - Operations
$34,000
$50,500
Total Operations & Maintenance
$529000
$779200
$649600
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 15
an

FM
MR
am
Option B: Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
If conventional mechanical treatment facilities are constructed, the Town can expect to provide
operation and maintenance to the following process units:
• Manual/mechanical bar screen which will require attention raking and screenings removal and
disposal.
• Influent wastewater pumping which will require electrical power maintenance at the pump station
and potential odor control.
Influent flow measurement through a Parshall flume with an ultrasonic flow meter recording flow.
The output for this flow would most likely go to a circular chart recorder which would require daily
son or weekly chart maintenance to switch the charts, pins, etc.
• Aeration basin. In most mechanical wastewater treatment facilities, aeration is provided as the
primary treatment facility in the flow scheme. In any aeration basin you will have either mechanical
surface type aeration or diffused bubble aeration. In either of these, there are bearings on
mechanical rotating equipment or blowers with rotating equipment providing aeration. Operation
and maintenance would be in the form of checking grease fittings on bearings, observing the
`a' equipment in operation and a routine maintenance plan.
• Clarification. For the liquid/solid separation circular clarifiers are typically utilized. The circular
clarifier is driven by a one to two horsepower worm gear drive unit which rarely needs extensive
maintenance other changing the oil. Periodically, the clarifiers need to be taken down and the
rotating equipment (skimmer arms, scrapper blades, etc.) need to be touched up and repainted.
• Tertiary Filtration. Most likely a mechanical wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Harmony
would be required to use a tertiary filtration basin. This third step in the treatment process will
rim assure high quality effluent, particularly for total suspended solids and BOD5 that is captured on the
suspended solids. Typical operation and maintenance items for tertiary filtration include:
periodically coring the filter media to observe its functionality and uniformity and operating the
RM filters in a backwash mode to clean and scrub the media to afford a 50% media expansion for
continued filter performance. The equipment necessary to facilitate backwash and normal
operation typically includes a rotary positive displacement blower pumps, etc. Greasing and
�+ observation of this equipment would be a part of the routine.
• Disinfection Facilities. While the move in wastewater treatment technology is more towards
P, ultraviolet disinfection, the characteristics of the waste treated must be carefully considered. If UV
disinfection is selected, it is anticipated that bulb cleaning, which involves taking a rack of bulbs
..out of the wastewater flow stream and removing the film that builds up over time, would improve
the transmissivity of light. This is a routine maintenance item. Periodic observation of the
equipment for other touch-up paint type items or cleanliness around the facilities is critical. If
chlorination/dechlorination is suggested based on effluent conditions, then chlorine storage and
handling becomes a major consideration. Chlorine which is a hazardous chemical, is required to
be stored in a safe manner. It is anticipated that this would include a storage building equipped
with evacuation fans, alarms, sensors, and scales. The operation and maintenance requires a
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
MR
Page 16

RM
process safety management plan and training of operators, specifically for work around the facility
containing chlorine.
• Routine process control test, as well as laboratory and NPDES Permitting test are required. It is
FM anticipated that a portion of these new laboratory procedures would be "farmed out" to larger
facilities or to contract operators. Nonetheless, however, a few of the basic rudimentary
operational test must still be performed by the operators. These would include total suspended
OR solids, BOD5, residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen, etc.
M
M
F"
MR
Pq
M
SM
r,
W4
0M
Expected Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
(@2°%/yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$32,500
$48,300
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$15,000
$22,300
Treatment Plant - Operations
$45,000
$66,900
Total Operations & Maintenance
$929500
$1379500
$115,000
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 17

Option C: A 250,000 Qpd Land Application Treatment Facility
Am
A land application treatment facility consists of the same preliminary treatment equipment as a
mechanical plant. A mechanical bar removes large solids from the influent. Flow is then sent to an
Mq aeration basin. Aeration is provided as described in the mechanical plant process.
From aeration the flow is disinfected. Disinfection is normally achieved by chlorine disinfection
IM systems. Ultra violet light disinfection is normally not an option due to the lack of clarity in the effluent.
Once disinfected, flow is pumped to the irrigation field for application. The irrigation field consists of a
series of distribution lines and control valves. Field vegetation control most also be considered.
fm Expected Annual 0 & M
FER
SM
M
MR
MIR
ran
W
rjn
MR
run
fm
2003
2023
(@2°//yr.)
Average/yr.
Treatment Plant - Power
$25,000
$37,100
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
$7,000
$10,400
Treatment Plant - Operations
$38,000
$56,500
Total Operations & Maintenance
1 $70,000 1
$104,000
$87,000
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 18
ow

Net Present Cost of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
am
For the basis of comparing alternatives, a 20-year life cycle cost analysis (net present cost) was
performed for each alternative. A compounding rate of 8% was used for the analysis. Salvage value
am was based upon the land cost, and assumed a 50-yr useful life on piping and other materials. The
following summarizes the net present cost analysis:
pq Option A: 250,000 upd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $869,884
Mq Salvage Value
Category
Cost
Salvage Factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,525,757
30/50
1,515,454
Land
$135,000
3% inc.(20 yr.)
243,823
fan Total Salvage Value year 2020 $1,759,277
Total Salvage Value year 2000 (98%) $377,365
Total Present Worth
Capital $4,072,097
0&M $869,884
Salvage $ 377 365
Total Present Worth $4,564,616
Option B: Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $1,364,716
ran
Salvage Value
Faq
M
fW
am
Category
Cost
Salvage Factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,829,657
30/50
1,697,794
Land
$90,000
3% inc.(20 yr.)
162,549
Total Salvage Value year 2020 $1,860,343
Total Salvage Value year 2000 (CM) $399,044
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 19
am

M
M
M
Total Present Worth
Capital $4,202,657
0&M $1,364,716
Salvage $ 399 044
Total Present Worth $5,168,329
Option C: A 250.000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facilitv
Total Present Worth of 0&M @ 8% $1,089,809
Salvaoe Value
Category
Cost
Salvage Factor
Salvage Value
Structure
$2,762,288
30/50
1,677,373
El
Land
$512,523
3% inc.(20 yr.)
925,678
Total Salvage Value year 2020 $2,603,051
Total Salvage Value year 2000 (@8%) $558,354
Total Present Worth
Capital $5,022,100
0&M $1,089,809
Salvage 558,354)
Total Present Worth $5,553,555
Table 4: Net Present Costs of Alternatives
From an economic position, the 250,000 GPD CWWTF yields the lowest Net Present Cost by
$441,223. This analysis indicates that best long term solution (20 years) for the Town of Harmony is
to construct a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 20

rsi
MI
Advantages/DisadvantaQes
Because the Town of Harmony is a small town with few resources, the cost of the wastewater
treatment facility, both capital and operational, must be as minimal as possible. The Town plans to
am contract out plant operation to a licensed operator instead of hiring an employee. Lab analysis, testing
and billing will also be contracted to outside sources. The best alternative will satisfy the Town's need
for low cost and ease of operation.
MM The followingtable has been developed to aid in the decision making p g process. This matrix identifies
seven selections or parameter weighting criteria. These are described as below:
1=9 1. Expandability - Expandability is the ability for the constructed option to be expanded upon in the
future and allow for additional flow and capacity within the existing site.
`-' 2. Life Span - Life span is the planning window and long term operation and maintenance window of
the facility.
FM 3. Engineering Concept - Engineering concept is the measure of applicability to normal engineering
practices and assuring the solution is technically capable of meeting the design constraints.
pq 4. Environmental Impact - Environmental impact identifies those areas which are potentials for upset
and concern.
MR 5. Susceptibility to Upset - Susceptibility to upset is the measure of the buffering or damping affect of
the wastewater treatment facility to handle abnormal occurrences of inflow or slow flows into the
waste treatment facility.
6. Ease of Operation - Ease of operation is a measure of how easy it is to operate the facility and how
adaptable and user friendly the facility is to operate or direct changes.
7. Net Present Cost - Net present cost is simply a measure of the total cost of the project or life cycle
cost. It is calculated by taking the capital cost and associated operation and maintenance cost and
,A, combining those costs to generate the total net present cost.
The matrix shows the relative importance in weighing each of these seven parameters. It is most
MR common that net present cost is the primary decision making tool, and as such, we have weighted it at
50 percent. The remaining decision making factors are distributed based on their importance to the
long term operation and their ability to meet existing and proposed conditions.
riq
Upon studying the preferred systems analysis matrix, it can be ascertained that not only is the
Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility the best alternative from a net present cost
rM standpoint but it is also the preferred alternative overall. The charts accompanying the matrix shows a
definite trend towards the Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility.
PIR
MR
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 21
an

Table 6: Matrix Parameters
Parameters
Ability To Expand (0-5)
eightWe
j 5
OptionOption
3
4
Option
1 0.5
System Lifespan 0-2)
2
2
I 1.5
1 1
Engineering Concept(0-2)
2
2
2
2
Environmental Impact (0-7)
7
6
! 5
3
Upset Potential 0-7)
7
6
4
5
Operational Ease (0-27)
27
23
14
25
Net Present Cost 0-50
50
50
40
30
Total Score
100
92
j 7 1.5
66.5
Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Bbilgy To EspanE System Uespan Enginsenng Environmental Upset Pateneal (0- Cperetionsl Ease Net Present Cost
(0-5) (0.2) Concept(o2) Impact(0-7) ]) (0.27) (ozo)
®Constructed Welland Facility ®Mechanical WWrP ®Land Application System
Alternative Evaluation Summary
® Constructed Wetland Facility ®Mechanical W WTP ® Status Quo -Union County System
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 22

X"
am Proposed Project (Recommended Alternative)
Because of the on -going problems Harmony residents and businesses have with private septic
OR systems, the Town of Harmony will develop a public sewer system. Building a central collection
system that serves the entire town and a 250,000 gallon per day Constructed Wetlands Treatment
Facility is the best alternative for treating the Town.
am
The proposed treatment plant site is west of town and borders on Dutchman's Creek. The total
acreage of the site is approximately 68 acres, 25 of which will be used for the treatment facility.
MR Currently the site is predominately forest land.
MR
fm
M
MR
MM
am
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
Page 23
fm

(M
Funding the Project
The Town of Harmony has acquired a grant from The Rural Center
for $1,000,000 for this project
and also has a commitment from Iredell County for $200,000. This first model assumes no grant
money is acquired for the project.
Total Project Estimate (Updated 4-19-00)
$ 4,072,097
Rural Center Supplemental Grant
$1,000,000
Rural Center Unsewered Communities Money
Rosewood Rest Home Funding
$ -
,�, Iredell County Funding
$ 200,000
45% (of Total Project) Rural Development Grant
$ -
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan
$ 2,872,097
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amon, 4.475%)
$ 156,381
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
$ 71,289
Total Annual Revenue Need
$ 227,670
V"
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Cale)
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed)
$
333
56.97
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Pump Station Summary
Power (5Hp,12 Hr. Run, $.08/Kw-Hr)
$
1,306.99
Pump Replacement (1 every 10 Years)
$
500.00
Maintenance (0.25 Hr/day, $7.00/Hr)
$
455.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.)
$
500.00
Total Annual Per Pump Station Cost
$
2,761.99
ram
Number of Pump Stations in Project
7
Total Pump Station Cost $19,333.94
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Primary Process Power (15Hp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 7,841.95
Tertiary Process Power (SHp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 613.20
Laboratory and Analytical Testing $10,000.00
Mowing/Grounds Maintenance ($50/Acre, Ave. 6 wk.) $ 6,500.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.) $ 3,000.00
Operational Labor $ 24,000.00
Total Treatment Cost $ 51,955.15
Total Annual Operation and Treatment Cost $ 71,289.10
Suggested Rate Structure
Base Rate (Approximately 2/3 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $ 37.98 $151,780 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed {$/1000 Gal} $ 6.33
FM
Assuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usage $ 227,670
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 24
fm

rip •
OR
This second model assumes that a grant equaling 45% of the project cost is acquired from USDA
am Rural Development to bring the user cost down to a more reasonable monthly amount.
Total Project Estimate (Updated 4-19-00)
$ 4,072,097
,m Rural Center Supplemental Grant
$1,000,000
Rural Center Unsewered Communities Money
Rosewood Rest Home Funding
$ -
,m Iredell County Funding
$ 200,000
45% (of Total Project) Rural Development Grant
$1,832,444
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan
$1,039,653
m,
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amort, 4.475%)
$ 56,607
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
$ 71,289
Total Annual Revenue Need
$ 127,897
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Calc)
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed)
$
333
32.01
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Pump Station Summary
Power (5Hp,12 Hr. Run, $.08/Kw-Hr)
$
1,306.99
Pump Replacement (1 every 10 Years)
$
500.00
Maintenance (0.25 Hr/day, $7.00/Hr)
$
455.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.)
$
500.00
Total Annual Per Pump Station Cost
$
2,761.99
Number of Pump Stations in Project
7
Total Pump Station Cost $19,333.94
RM Wastewater Treatment Facility
Primary Process Power (15Hp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 7,841.95
Tertiary Process Power (SHp, 24 Hr., $0.08/Kw-Hr.) $ 613.20
Sep Laboratory and Analytical Testing $10,000.00
Mowing/Grounds Maintenance ($50/Acre, Ave. 6 wk.) $ 6,500.00
Maintenance Equip (truck, tools, etc.) $ 3,000.00
Operational Labor $ 24,000.00
Total Treatment Cost $ 51,955.15
Total Annual Operation and Treatment Cost $ 71,289.10
Suggested Rate Structure
Base Rate (Approximately 2/3 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $ 21.34 $ 85,264 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed {$/1000 Gal} $ 3.56
�► Assuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usage $ 127,897
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000 Page 25

go
pq
M
M
ral
FM
OR
Mal
M"
r-M
RM
an
Conclusions & Recommendations
In order for this project to move forward successfully for the Town of Harmony, additional funding must
be acquired. In order for the project to be affordable for the citizens of Harmony, grant funding must be
acquired. It is recommended that the Town of Harmony continue to work together with The Rural
Center and USDA Rural Development through the completion of the sewer system.
Harmony Preliminary Engineering Report — October 2000
Page 26

Exhibit A
7

■
A
*•■ L •■•
�� ■r* rM7
sOle
�
r —
i � - �r ■ r• rr�
■r R GmEmss
OWCAMM GLUK
SOONQ
■■
r•* �•.
1•
E�
■

Exhibit B

11/1 311998 18: 04 704546301'.0 TUBETEC
PAGE 02
vM
am
MR
r-M-1
Man
M-1
PEI
MR
FM
be.
to tee
.7
J.,
A 'in�LedTEbiQ-2-1echnq10 dX,
• 9Y.-L
L. Memorial
t - —ri L -
I'
iWY.
I larmony, NC '796-4
04
7 '546-3005
3 4"
John Ray Cj,,ljpj)ejl
Mayor
) 0(,Hannony
A, -.1V
11-0. Box 118
I IM-mony. NC 28634
v
May0j. ('4111, pbell,
Ttibe.tcc hcj.s VLTV much ommr, rh.4
1,1,t VO 0
0
u.�Y,
belve OCCtipie(f (1, #L.-DOeffig the..one year that we
)e he & Platt gIpPe 2'y%
XZ -eniployed 2' people
alld a -Similar number of temporary 7 e
We fla ve. been fiortunate to grow ext
% Y 'of. U§Mii§1. Tn. Odition we have
Jed by a ffiaidr cu"S"i.
"Ccciffly been notit' o =-r�f r
•'th#VPrbduC -I.On contrad E112t Will
6, our
W
begill in Julle Of 1999 that ill dou@-i iau�agYincrease the
fig
size of' ()tIj- f,-[C:il iEY within the next M
Sjk-
As you know. OtIr CUrrent. leased facil
ity.,
tkko
ffigre is not a 'r
I larmorly own of
-5ewC1*,SYs1etn. The nk-' t-l'' i-
_Q P!. U logical ical expansion
Spa'do flia h og
fty from Leggett
area for this pi-operty, thereby elimi *
rc -.e u I rig. t. 11 g
lot t 4111(1 C.Npill)(fillty it to meet top
our nee
ds. A.,
It is MV Understanding
-amp
that tile To,
--'Ijn6 io build a water
treat e
ft -bbDO %tional b June, 1999 and
"I rticili(Y "Id associated Se r vit-`
if(herc evert, a way to 111alllge -le -r
7j)e
AM'd
t11c (,-xistinbseptic timl;rubctecwold ldn01
in-'rhosame al -es as
. U:0bn6:q,MilI -it Pltt. ir hapefthe building
7
L
Becallse the sewc(-
SYSICITI fiinds aad.-�jrtje ine,
t- -cl
:n
a-pt6ces fseai -iingibra
'wf,lcililYtl)Rtcaill)etteraccomi,nb-�lat'e*,*,*,*,�"-'-'�
ed-,-'and inust be
4Y
'a(ional by Jane 1990 e
Nve flit ve:-ffot, if; 6 f 0 u
(lisapt*to(:'�ore
cFia.T6,4jiiiirMohy?!W:e; Javeenjo 'I sincered (IAvc liked ir) FId a %vuy S"-ve
here
1
plannim, Pie-ase fet me k-now. Y -Trt would Cftf!Ct our
Thmik- vou very much for llic hc)spit*
afiry,
Presidellf

f
� f
FOR
me
OR
am
M
MR
fun
RLI
ran
rAq
ra"
RVI
r-M
FUR
MR
02-10-1990 1i=26AM
XAY=Sn d IL Xabt
NsairA D"cc r
IM IRED. M14TY EN:'. HEyLTH TO :.XA5 bbUb1 �+ " U
ol
IREDELL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
318 Turrersburg Highway • Statesville, N0M C2r*"R* ;M5 • (704) a7343oQ
February 10) 1999
Steve McDonald
Iredell St it=►illa Schools
Dear Steve;
Recently we received a request to tie the concession st=d bathroomson to the existing septic
tank system At Harmony School. As part of the conditions to lx able to tie this on ow department
makes an inspection of the existing system to detortbkc the edition of the systr ar:d t0 see if it
h&S the cnp>acity to accept this additional load.
After I received this requst I checked this system mad found that one Of the four drainfields
had sewage surfacing. Therefom Ourdepartxnent cannot approve any additions to this system at this
time. It is our uAdecmtanding that Dent Gryder and his dcparun=t is now taking steps to impovc
landscape over this failing drainficld and distribution was going Zo be improved to spread more
eMuent in the 3 f CI& that were working,
After these improvem=ts are made i vriU reinspeu This system in approximately 30 days to
see if theme mcssures have caused the system io be rj=doanl again. If tho system continues to fait
after this dMe your engiaecr will need to pmpam a plan to repair this System. Thank you for your
cooperatioa in this mtltsrr.
Sincerely,
-e_C.
evq-ep-��
J. C. Moore, R.S.
.Enviran cntal Health Sptxialist
1'CTAI_ P.O-2

rem
an
��c ►od Next Nome
3134 Harmony
Harmony, NC 28634
Susiucss # [phone]
Fax [phone] -
NOVEMBER 16.1998
ram, TOWN of HARMONY
ATTN MA YOR JOFAi RAY CAMPBIE,L
FUG' HiWAY 21 NORTki
&OMONY, NC 28634
: RoaWOOD EST HOME
1'4fan�� , NC 28634
oBLEMS
DEAR MAYOR CAMpBF%L;
'-' 'VE PURCHASED ROSEWOOD _
JANUARY, I994; INN BITING 'Th[EIR Sg I3413ARMON Y H•Wy, H
FAILING "OR OVER 14 YEAR,S(t W ��LEZV ' OUR SYSTEM RA BBE
TO OUR TROUBLED Sy a P`RSSENTLy "AVE ONLY A N
� AYE R STHt WHILE AWAITING BARMONY S p URARY SOLUTIaN
F.NI' TkIOUSAImS OF � PURPOSED SYSTENL WE
THIS P1�OgLEIK TIC? ENGI3VEP.R FEES S AND
MANY, MANY HOURS TRYING TO RBC`I'1F AND ATTORNEY FEES HAVE BF -EN Y
F�IOR$ANTt
wE HAVE HAD PLANS DRAWN WM HASE H ALL MICE 1995 FOR A 40 BED gxpANSrON OUR
AND STATE, WE HAVE NOT AS CAUSED 8Y THE RgSppNSIgLE OFFICI�AI,S Y�RS), BUT
PRESENTLY IiA,VB 24 � TIitS DA?'E BE�.N ABLE TO BEGIN CONS7R�jIp W COUNTY
'CF-ASL H N 24 ]DR pF �S WlgO SERVE 49 RESIDENTS. OUR ADDITION E
THIS ALONE WOULD 8RlNG TAXXDDOI LA BY A WOULD
ARS TO HARMONY �' AND 1�REiAPS 1ti10RE.
WE STF'ONGL Y FEEL THAT IF THE TOWN OF
'_' NEEDS TO FIGHT DILIGENTLY FOR THE pRp�CTRL EWER SNS TO GROW, EVERYONE
TO ASK FOR YOUR ASS' STANCE IN A POSSIBLE G YSTBM WE WOULD LIkB
FACIi.ITY. WE WILT. DONATE THE ENi'IR.E AMOK HARMONY•OUR SSI� LMNG
�+ 1� PRC]JECT...
"'-EASE LET US KNOW W"AAT INFORMATION YOU MA Y NEED TO ASSIST US IN A CRANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR A'iTENrION TO THIS MUCH NEEDED p_NDEA REM
VOp YING
FM MNC:E;RELY,

HARMONY CAFETERIA, INC.
The Harmony Cafeteria Inc. has been operating under the management of Judy Daniels
and Marcia Parise since January of 1980. Prior to that it was operated by Robert and Mina
Kinder since 1973. The Hannony Cafeteria Inc. is a locally owned and community based
restaurant that is an integral part of the town of Harmony. Prior to purchasing the Cafe, both
Judy Daniels and Marcia Parise wormed as waitresses under the previous owner Robert Kinder
and other restaurant establishments. They now have over 50 years experience between the two
Of them.
Back in the 1980's, the restaurant was open 7 days a week: Monday through Saturday,
5:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., and Sundays, 11:30 am. until 2:00 p.m. In an effort to extend the life
of the septic system, the restaurant has been scaled back in hours. it is now only opened 6 days a
week from 5:15 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. to curtail water usage. That is a 39% reduction in hours!
The Health Inspector for Iredell County has informed, us that we are now operating under
a Grandfather Clause and the business cannot be sold. if the doors are closed a new restaumt
will not be allowed to operate on this site. We will become just like the Tastee Freeze across the
Pq street from us, a dead business We pump our septic tank on a regular basis, at a considerable
cost, to insure this does not happen.
The Harmony Cafeteria Inc. employees 5 full time people (6 people if 32 hours/week is
considered full time) and 10 to 15 part-time employees. Our part time employees are working
mothers, college students, and high school students from our community with varied schedules
that we try to accommodate. Please see the attached Harmony Cafeteria payroll earnings report
as of June 30, 1999.
Sincerely,
Judy A. Daniels
Sm Marcia K. Parise

1
1
Exhihif C
ni

9
o
4�
CAVANAUGH
Solutiom
rs
15 -- R)m r 46TAlivO

Ilk
em
S 4q
4.;o
bj
to
. .........
r
.fill
.�� ���� , �-- .% .'�--f �__.1 cam-
��� , . � � ...w�: ass, .��' ;
C) 10
00,
N Lot
'. VU
001%.
YI
184
ff------
ell
INN
d
fill j -�� • , ;i - :�,,;'�J :. �•,�� �•_'�..../-� �9� `.1` cC� �� � ; � I ? /,--"•' } J '`�,' � � ` _ �'� J � �. ;' .� :} 1C 'Q /�
ome\
-74 -�
CP
O.A
piig
I It f
rm\
1 ( � � { I ; � ; ' ~' �t� �`' � t1 • I �^••• `' � r ' ! � r r S
��Ma—4p.
aj
)v
T i,\,) I v.

a
t
o
,
Exhibit D
7

om
W1
rm
MR
W
rsq
ran
r�
MR
1=1
fam
rip
rip
MA
OR
Page I
SUPPLEMENTAL TO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
(SEWAGE FACILITY)
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
(List All Major Items)
SEWAGE COLLECTION
LF 8" Sewer Pipe
rr
(SEE ATTACHED
LF 10" Sewer Pipe
@
DETAILED
LF 12" Sewer Pipe
@
ESTIMATE)
Ea. Standard Manholes
@
Ea. Drop manholes
@
Ea. Lift Stations
@ LS
LF Force Mains
@
Ea. Service Taps
@
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
$2,394,657
SEWAGE TREATMENT: (Include all items to which EPA
will grant)
LF 8" Interceptor Pipe
@
(SEE ATTACHED
LF 12" Interceptor Pipe
@
DETAILED
LF 18" Interceptor Pipe
@
ESTIMATE)
LF 24" Interceptor Pipe
@
Ea. Lift Station
@ LS
LF Force Mains
a
Treatment Plant
@ LS
$727,840
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(Round to nearest thousand dollars)
$3,122,497
Above prices are current through 2000

c
r� v
Page 2
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Collection
Treatment
TOTAL
Construction
$2,394,657
$727,840
$3,122,497
Land & Rights
$5,000
$130,000
$135,000
Legal & Admin.
$10,000
$21,200
$31,200
Engineering & Const. Obs.
$268,201
$81,499
$349,700
Interest
$39,500
$10,500
$50,000
Equipment
0
$15,000
$15,000
Contingencies
$239,466
$72,734
$312,200
Surveying
$31,500
$5,000
$36,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$2,988,324
$1,063,773
$4;052,097
PROJECT FINANCING PLAN
Cash
'-M Contrib. Clean Wat. Other
FmHA Loan
by Appl. Bond Grant Grant*
(GO Bonds)
Total
rim $1,200,000
$2,852,097
$4,052,097
(Collection Facility)
fm
$195,700
$2,792,624
$2,988,324
rM
(Treatment Facility)
$1,004,300
$59,473
$1,063,773
TOTAL FUNDING $1,200,000
$2,852,097
$4,052,097
*Identify source of grant.
VM Do not assume any FmHA Grant.
Existing Indebtedness:
am (This facility only)
N/A
fm
rM
Amount of
Purpose Amount Owed Amortization Period Installment
r-W GRANTS
$1,000,000 Supplemental Grant from The Rural Center
$200,000 Grant from Iredell County
am
FIR

MR
Page 3
fm Sewer rates may be expressed as a percentage of the water bill or as a straight cost per 1,000 gallons of
water consumed.
a+
EXISTING RATE SCHEDULE
First
gallons @
Min.
am
Next
gallons @
Per 1,000 gal.
it
gallons @
44 44
«
"
gallons @
°t «
°L
All Over
gallons @
Cr CC
«
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
-
raq
First
2,000
gallons @ $21.34
Min.
Next
gallons @
Per 1,000
gal.
"
gallons @
it 49
i<
"
gallons @
°i °°
«
"'
All Over
2,000
gallons @ $3.56
USE AND INCOME ESTIMATES
F,
(According to proposed rate schedule)
SEWER:
'i'
Benefited Users (All users with % x 5/8 meters)
Existing
New
Total
,-M
25
25 users @
2,000
gal.
$
533.50
55
55 users @
4,000
gal.
$
1,565.30
145
145 users @
5,000
gal.
$
4,642.90
92
92 users @
6,000
gal.
$
3,273.36
'I'
8
8 users @
7,000
gal.
$
3 13. 12
5
5 users @
8,000
gal.
$
213.50
3
3 users @
10,000
gal.
$
149.46
MR
TOTAL
333
333 users @
gal.
$ 10,691.14
FM
Sm
r-WI
pq
Non Benefited Users (All users with'/4 x 5/8 meters)
Existin New Total
users @ gal. $
users @ gal. $
users @ gal. $
users @ gal. $
TOTAL users @ gal. $
TOTAL - $ 10,691.14 x 12 = $ 128,293.68 Annually
Im

�
c
Page 4
ow
BUDGET FOR COMPLETED FACILITY
Actual
Estimated
Im
(Fiscal Year
(Completed
Ending 19 )
Facility)
Income:
im
Sewer Charges
$128,294
Adv. Tax
rm
Other
TOTAL
$128,294
S,
EXPENSES:
Salaries
Supt. & Clerk
Labor
$24.000
Soc. Security Tax
$2,500
Office Exp. (Supplies, Postage,
Heat, Electricity, Telephone,
Equipment, etc.)
$1,000
Bond & Insurance
$500
FM
Audit
$300
Testing -St. Reg. Agy.
$10,000
Chemicals
014
Transportation
$5,000
Electricity
$17,600
Supplies
$1,500
Maint. & Repairs
$6,500
�'
Miscellaneous
$2.400
Bulk Treatment Charges
Debt Service
MR
Existing
Proposed Addition
$56,600
r1m
TOTAL
$127,900
BALANCE AVAILABLE
$394
ron
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
am
Is any part of project located in a flood plain area? If project is in flood area, is applicant eligible for
National Flood Insurance?
rAn
fm
MR

Z
WATER AND SEWER DESIGN AND COST INFORMATION
0M
Est. Value of
Project: TOWN OF HARMONY SEWER Existing Facilities: NONE
am
r&I
Nn
ran
rN9
r+4
ram
MWI
pq
Storage Already Available
Gal.
¢
Storage to be Provided
Gal.
�
U
3
PDesign
Daily Source Capacity
Gal. Per Day
U
O U
C�7
Design Average Daily Flow
250,000
Gal2da y
4L
¢
Cn
Design Maximum Daily Flow
Gal./day
V
a
Design Peak Hourly Flow
Gal./day
3
Design Treatment Plant Capacity
250,000
Gal./day
SEWAGE
Avg. Waste Water Flow
Gal./day
Percent of Domestic
Total Feet of Pipe in
39,117 gravity
Consumption: 100%
System:
25,000 force main
Percent of Farm Use
Percent of Other Use of
of System: 0%
System:
Development $3,122,497
Equipment
$15,000
0
0
U
Land and Rights $135,000
Contingencies
$312,200
Ll
z
Legal Services $31,200
Refinancing
0
Arch/Engr/Fees $386,200
Initial O&M
0
Capital Interest $50,000
Initial Reserves
0
Comments:
rm
Engineer/Architect: Lisa Routh, P.E./ Tory Wagoner, E.I.
r" Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Date: October 24, 2000
FM