NC0088897_Permit Issuance_20100706

1A4jZAli�i�
•
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Eddie Willard, Superintendent
City of King Water Treatment Plant
P.O. Box 719
King, NC 27021
Dear Mr. Willard:
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
July, 6, 2010
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO088897
City of King WTP
Forsyth County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal 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 October 17,
2007 (or as subsequently amended.)
This final permit includes the following change from the draft permit sent to you on May 12, 2010.
➢ Based on USGS findings in a letter sent to Mr. Rankin, AECOM, the summer 7Q10 flow for Old'
Richmond Creek is estimated at 0.3 cfs. Using 0.3 cfs, the facility's Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) limit is recalculated to be 28 ug/L. The TRC limitation in Section A. (L) Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements has been changed from 17 ug/L to 28 ug/L.
➢ Footnote 1, under Section A. (L) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, has been
amended to delay Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring until December 1, 2011 when the new
treatment facility should be completed.
Since this is a new permit, in order for the City of King's permit renewals to coincide with
other NPDES permits in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, this permit will expire on October 31,
2013.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 NOnY'thCar'011ria
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 Vatmally
Intemet www.ncwaterquality.org f�
An Equal Opportunity % Affirmative Action Employer

-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.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may require modification
revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements toobtain
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 questions concerning this permit, please contact Julie Grzyb by e-mail
[e-mail]) or phone at [phone].
Sincerely,
Z
en H. Sullins
Enclosure: NPDES Permit NCO088897 (Final)
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
e-copy:
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
ESS, Carrie Ruhlman
David Rankin, AECOM USA, Inc., 10 Patewood Drive, Bldg. VI, Suite 500, Greenville, SC 29615
1617 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1617 One
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarolliina
Phone! 919-807-63001 FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 �a'tut1Q! [%�
Internet: vvvvvv.nmaterqualiry.org -
An Equal ppponunity 1 Afirtnative Action Employer

Permit NCO088897
a
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,
The City of King
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
CITY OF KING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
6949 Donnaha Road
Tobaccoville
Forsyth County.
to receiving waters designated as Old Richmond 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 August 1, 2010.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2013.
Signed this day July 6, 2010.
Co en H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

-Permit NC0088897 r,
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are
hereby revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this
number is nd longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge
from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions
included herein.
The City of King is hereby authorized to:
1. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality,
construct and operate a treatment system to handle filter backwash and sedimentation
sludge which will 'include an upgraded wastewater pump station, dechlorination
equipment, a 300,000 gallon sludge decant thickening tank and a filter belt press.
Supernatant from the sludge thickening tank will discharge through Outfall 001. This
facility is located in Tobaccoville on 6949 Donnaha Road at the City of King's, Water
Treatment Plant in Forsyth County.
2. Discharge supernatant from said sludge decant thickening tank at the location specified
on the attached map into Old Richmond Creek, currently a class WS-IV stream in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

Latitude:36°13'15" USGS TOPO
Longitude; 80026'51" Vienna
N
SCALE
1:24,000
11^ = 20001
City of King WTP
NCO088897
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification: .
River Basin:
Sub-Basin/HUC #:
County:
Old Richmond Creek
WS-IV
Yadkin -Pee Dee
030701/ 03040101
Forsyth

Permit NCO088897
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge filter backwash and sludge supernatant from Outfall
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
CHARACTERISTICS
t'
Lj�/jl' j'$ ;' ° t ` v
MONITORINGEFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
ztt •_, t , 1
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
:Daily Maximum
'
; Measurement: �.
Frequency-.
>Sample Type
ti , '.Sannple
ocation
Flow 1
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
TSS 1
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
pH
Between 6.0 to 9.0 standard units
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µg/L
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Turbidity
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Aluminum
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
_
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Manganese
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Fluoride
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Zinc
Quarterly3
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Monitoring 1,3
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. Sampling for all parameters should commence on the permit effective date.
Continuous flow measurements, Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring, and the limits
for total suspended solids and total residual chlorine will take effect 16 months
(December 1, 2011) after the permit becomes effective. An estimate of the daily flow
should be provided on the Discharge Monitoring Reports for the first 16 months.
2. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/ L to be in
compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and
submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field
certified), even if these values fall below 50 ug/ L.
3. Parameters should be monitored in conjunction with toxicity test.
4. Chronic Toxicity Monitoring(Ceriodaphnia dubia) at 90%; January, April, July, and
October; See condition A.(2.) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Section of this Permit.
All samples collected should be from a representative discharge event.
There shall be no discharge• of floating solids or visible foam in other than- trace
amounts.

r
Permit NC0088897
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING (QRTRLY)
The permittee shall conduct guarterly chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the procedure document is 90%.
The testing shall be performed as a Ceriodaphnia dubia 7day pass/fail test. 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.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using
the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention:North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
• 1621 Mail Service Center •
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental
Sciences Section no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for
which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all
dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment
area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at
the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately. Upon submission of a valid test,
this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the
results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data
submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms submitted.
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.

IWC Calculations
Facility: City of King
NC0088897
Prepared By: Julie Grcyb
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.285
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 0.3
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 0.3
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.3
s7Q10 (CFS)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.285
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.285
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.44175
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.44175
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
59.56
IWC (%)
59:56
Allowable Conc. (ugll)
29
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.5
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
0.3
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.285
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.44175
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.68 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
59.56
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.9
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/1 (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009

Grzyb, Julie
From: Rankin, David (David. [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:47 PM
To: Grzyb, Julie
Subject: FW: Low -flow characteristics of Old Richmond Creek at Donnaha... RE: Initial USGS
response... Re: Low -flow characteristics of Yadkin River near NC 67... Re: Location of City of
King, NC WTP
Julie,
As requested and noted in the draft NPDES permit (Permit NC0088897) for the City of King, NC, please see the USGS
determination of the 7Q10 for Old Richmond Creek below. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any
additional information from us. Thanks.
David Rankin
Engineer II
D 864.234.3059
David. [e-mail]
AECOM
10 Patewood Drive, Building VI, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29615
T 864.234.3000 F 864.234.3069
www.aecom.com
From: John C Weaver [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:33 PM
To: Rankin, David
Cc: [e-mail]; Curtis Weaver; Jeanne C Robbins; Donald O Rosenberry; James C Finnerty
Subject: Low -flow characteristics of Old Richmond Creek at Donnaha... RE: Initial USGS response... Re: Low -flow
characteristics of Yadkin River near NC 67... Re: Location of City of King, NC WTP
N�/
USGS
science for a changing world
U.S. Geological Survey North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Date: May 28, 2010
To: Mr. David Rankin, Engineer II
AECOM
10 Patewood Drive, Building VI, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29615
Dear Mr. Rankin,

f
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics (7Q10, 30Q2) for Old Richmond Creek at Secondary Road
1600 at Donnaha in northwestern Forsyth County (station id 0211505080, drainage area 4.34 sgmi), the following
information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center does not indicate a previous
determination of low -flow characteristics for your point of interest at the location provided via your email dated May 10,
2010. No USGS records of discharge are known to exist for your point of interest or other locations in the Old Richmond
Creek basin. Low -flow characteristics have been previously determined for several nearby locations in vicinity of Old
Richmond Creek in 1975, 1984, 1985, and 1987.
Where no or insufficient data is available for a low -flow analysis, a determination of low -flow characteristics is based on
assessment of low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby locations where such
statistics have previously been determined. The low -flow characteristics that are provided have been computed by
correlating the runoff characteristics of a nearby stream in vicinity of the request site.
Please note the flow estimates do not account for the presence of any diversions or regulation, present or future, which
may occur upstream of the request site.
Previously published low -flow information for streams in your area of interest...
For streams in Forsyth County, the most recently published low -flow information is a statewide report completed in the
early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, 'Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and
Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available through http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usaspubs/wsp/wsp2403. The
report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites
with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sgmi and not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
If you access the report, please note the online report files are provided in the ".DJVU" format and require a particular
Lizardtech plug-in, also available through a link displayed on the page. Or you can click an adjacent link that will allow
you to view the report as a group of images without the need for a plug-in.
Several pieces of information to consider...
(1) A drainage area of 4.34 sgmi was determined for your point of interest on Old Richmond Creek at Secondary Road
1600 (Donnaha Road) at Donnaha.
(2) Streamflow data and, correspondingly, low -flow characteristics that would be based on such data are very limited in
your area of interest. In Table 1 of the above referenced report, there are three partial -record sites and one continuous -
record gaging station near your point of interest for which low -flow discharge estimates are provided. Expressing these
estimates as low -flow yields (again, flow per square mile of drainage area, or cfsm) provides some indication of the yield
ranges that could potentially be applicable to your point of interest. The 7Q10 low -flow yield range is from about 0.07 to
0.16 cfsm (with an average of about 0.11 cfsm). The 30Q2 low -flow yield range is from about 0.26 to about 0.41 cfsm
(with an average of about 0.33 cfsm).
(3) The regional low -flow relations presented in the above referenced report for this hydrologic area (HA9) results in 7Q10
and 30Q2 low -flow estimates with yield values of about 0.10 cfsm and 0.25 cfsm, respectively. While the 7Q10 yield is
within with the above 7Q10 yield range, the 30Q2 yield based on regional relations is slightly lower than the above 30Q2
yield range.
(4) Mean annual runoff for streams in this area is mapped in the above referenced report as being 1.0 to 1.1 cfsm.
(5) Considering the above information, please be aware of the following: The data provided in the above referenced
report are based on periods of record ending in advance of the drought conditions that have occurred since publication of
the report. In some North Carolina basins, the low -flow conditions observed during the recent droughts (1998-2002,
2007-09) have resulted in lower low -flow statistics. No formal statewide investigation has been completed to document
the changes in low -flow statistics since the droughts. However, where updated analyses have been completed for
selected stations, the changes in pre -drought versus updated 7Q10 discharges have shown varying percentage changes
of decline.
For instance, at the nearby long-term gaging station on Little Yadkin River at Dalton in Stokes County (station id

.'
02114450, drainage area 42.8 sgmi, records since August 1960), the 7Q10 declined about 25 percent between the 1998
and 2009 climatic years. Based on analysis of available period of record through the 2009 climatic year, the 7Q10 and
30Q2 low -flow estimates have yield values of about 0.07 cfsm and 0.27 cfsm, respectively. This gage is currently the only
active site in vicinity of the Old Richmond Creek basin.
Note: The climatic year is the standard annual period used for low -flow analyses at continuous -record gaging stations.
runs from April 1 through March 31 and is designated by the year in which the period begins. For example, the 2009
climatic year is from April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
Putting together the above pieces of information...
Applying the above low -flow yields (in items #2 and #3) to a drainage area of 4.34 sgmi results in 7Q10 flow estimates
ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 cfs (average about 0.48 cfs). Similarly, 30Q2 flow estimates range from about 1.1 to 1.8 cfs
(average about 1.4 cfs). However, because of the decrease in low -flow characteristics exhibited at the nearby Little
Yadkin River gage from 1998 to 2009, 1 would strongly urge use of the minimum values provided in the above flow
ranges. Use of the minimum values also would be consistent with the yield values at the nearby gage. Applying the
yield for mean annual runoff (item #4) to the drainage area results in an estimated average discharge of about 4.5 cfs.
A charge of $250.00 for accessing and processing information has been assessed to partially offset these costs. An
electronic invoice covering processing costs for these data is attached to this email as a .PDF file. Instructions for
sending your payment are shown on the invoice.
This information is considered preliminary and subject to revision pending further analysis as further data were to become
available, and is made available through our cooperative program of water -resources investigations with the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at the phone
number listed below.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] I! Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.uscLs.gov/

NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
City of King WTP
Foryth County
NCO088897
Facility Information
Facility Name:
Permitted Flow (MGD):
Facility Class:To
Pretreatment Program:
City of King WTO, 6949 Donnaha Road, Tobaccoville, NC 27050
N/A (maz 0 285 MGD) County: Forsyth
be determined Regional Office: WSRO
No USGS Topo Quad: 1. C17NW
- —
Permit Status:
1 New
USGS Quad Name:
--
Vienna
FReceiving
Stream Characteristics
Stream:
Old Richmond Creek
Drainage Area (mi2):
N/A
Sub -basin:
11 03-07-01
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)_:_
0.3 USGS letter 5 28/10
Stream Index Number:
L12-79
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.3 _
Stream Classification:
WS
30Q2 (cfs):
1.1
8-digit HUC _ _
03040101
Average Flow (cfs):
4.5
305(d) Status:
Not listed
IWC %:
60
Permit writer:
Julie Grzyb
Date:
June 29, 2010
Background
This is a new permit. The City of King has operated a Water Treatment Plant for many years but never acquired a
permit to its discharge filter backwash or sludge supernatant. The City of King applied for permission to expand the
existing 3 MGD potable water facility to a 6 MGD potable water facility and the existing backwash to Old
Richmond Creek was identified in the application. The Winston-Salem Regional Office requested that the City of
King apply for a NPDES pemrit and submit a schedule of compliance for acquiring an Authorization to
Constmct(ATC) and install a wastewater treament facility. The City's proposal estimated eleven months would be
required to construct the wastewater treatment system after the ATC was received.
On March 18, 2010, a complete application and Engineering Alternatives Analyses (EAA) was submitted to the
Division for review. Five different alternatives were assessed for disposal of the wastewater including: connection
and discharge to a Wastewater Treatment Plant, land application, wastewater reuse, direct discharge and a
combination of altematives. Installation of treatment equipment and direct discharge to Old Richmond Creek
proved to be the most economical choice.
The EAA discussed the timeline on how the WTP expansion and wastewater treatment facilities would be
constructed. Phase I would include the construction of all process wastewater handling facilities and equipment.
This would consist of upgrading the existing wastewater pump station and adding a new 300,000 gallon sludge
decant/thickening tank, a filter belt press building which will house a 1.0 meter belt press and ancillary equipment,
dechlorination equipment, seven new manholes, new controls, and electrical modifications. Pipeline extensions and
reroutes would be constructed to carry the wastewater to the existing discharge point.
After the new wastewater treatment facilities is on-line the average daily discharge from the filter backwash is
expected to be 45,000 gallon per day (gpd) with a maximum discharge of 285,000 gpd when the sedimentation basin
sludge is drained and decanted to Old Richmond Creek. This part of Phase I is expected to be completed within 11
months after the Authorization to Construct is issued. Phase I will also include the construction of a new 3.0 MGD

Water Treatment Plant and eventually 6.2 miles of 16-inch diameter water transmission main between the WTP and
the Newsome Road storage tanks.
Phase II will consist of upgrading the existing WTP with new equipment and the total plant capacity will be 6 MGD
of potable drinking water. Once the 6.0 MGD plant is on-line, the WTP will discharge a maximum of 241,000 gpd
of decant water to Old Richmond Creek. This discharge will be less than that of the 3.0 MGD plant maximum
because the sedimentation basins will be upgraded and use a sludge vaccum system that will enable the sludge to be
removed on a routine basis without taking the basins off-line.
The City of King is being issued an individual permit for a Conventional Water Treatment Plant in accordance with
the October 2009 NPDES WTP Permitting Strategy. The permit limitations for total suspended solids and total
residual chlorine will not take effect for 16 months allowing for the ATC to be issued and the treatment plant
construction completed. Monitoring should start the month the permit becomes effective. The consultant, David
Rankin of AECOM, requested a 7Q 10 flow from USGS which will be submitted to the Division when USGS
completes its evaluation in 3 weeks. For permitting purposes a 7Q 10 of zero was used to deveop the TRC limit of
17 ug/L. When the permit is renewed in three years the 7Q 10 estimated from USGS can be used to determine the
actual TRC limit. However, since all effluent TRC values reported below 50 ug/L are currently considered in
compliance, the estimated 7Q 10 of Old Richmond Creek (if greater than zero) is not likely to make a significant
difference in the TRC limitation and compliance.
The facility uses zinc orthophosphate as a corrosive inhibitor so monitoring for zinc is included in the permit.
Whole Effluent Toxicity testing will be required quarterly.
This permit will have an expiration date of October 31, 2013 so it will expire with all the other permits in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 5/12/10 (estimate)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 7/06/10 (estimate)
State Contact Information
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Julie
Grzyb at [phone].
NPDES Recommendation by:
Signature Date
Regional Office Comments:

A01,
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMORANDUM
MIA 2 4 2010
WORM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
May 12, 2010
To: Lee Spencer
NCDENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Winston-Salem Regional Office, 585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem,
From: Julie Grzyb
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO088897
City of King WTP
Forsyth County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by June 19, 2010. If
you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at [phone] or e-mail [e-mail].
Ao�*NESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the
u stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated
water quality standards.
nConcurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919N7-6300 \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Alfirmatve Acton Employer
9
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Winston-Salem Journal
Advertising Affidavit
Winston-Salem Journal
P.O Box 3159
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
NCDENR/DWQ/POINT SOURCE BRANCH
ATTN: DINA SPRINKLE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
Account Number
3376309
Date
May 14, 2010
Date Category Description Ad Size Total Cost
05/14/2010 Legal Notices PUBLIC NOTICE North Carolina Environment 2 x 36 L 260.06
PUBLIC NOTICE
North CaroUna Environmental
Management Commission/NPOES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Notice R Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Manage-
ment Commission proposes to Issue a NPDES
wastewater discharge permit to the person(s)
listed below.
Written comments regarding the proposed per-
mit will be accepted until 30 days after the pub-
lish date of this notice. The Director of the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) may hold
aaa publichearingshould tfrere be a signiftcant
o
g public interest Please mail com-
ments ancVor Information requests to DWQ at
the above address. Interested persons may vis-
it the DW� at S12 N. Salisbury Street. Raielgh.
NC to rev ew Information on file. Additional
Information on NPDES permits and this notice
may be found on our webslte: www.ncwater
quality.org, or by calling [phone].
The City of King requested a permit NC0088897
for Its Water Treatment Plant In Forsyth Coun-
wateri to Old Richmond Creek Ya�didn-Ptdd ee waste-
water
River Basin.
WSJ: May 14.2010
Media General Operations, Inc.
Publisher of the
Winston-Salem Journal
Forsyth County
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Forsyth County, North Carolina, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally appeared
S.A. Bragman, who by being duly sworn deposes and says: that she is the Assistant
Controller of the Winston-Salem Journal, engaged in the publishing of a newspaper known
as Winston-Salem Journal, published, issued and entered as second class mail in the City of
Winston-Salem, in said County and State: that she is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement: that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is
attached hereto, was published in the Winston-Salem Journal on the following dates:
05/14/2010
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper document, or legal advertisement
was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all
the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina.
This 14th day of May, 2010
(signature of per n making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 14th day of May, 201
My Commission expires j 1 eq v
KIMALEY JOHNSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
FORSYTH COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CARQUUj

Grzyb, Julie
From: Grzyb, Julie
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Meadows, Susan
Subject: City of King WTP Draft permit, NCO088897
Attachments: City of King WTP permit 2010.pdf
Susan,
Attached is the draft permit and fact sheet for the City of King WTP. This is a new permit with a WET testing
requirement and the final version will be amended so the WET testing is not required to start until 16 months after the
permit's effective date(XXXX, 2011).
Call or email if you have any questions.
Julie
Julie A. Grzyb, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
NPDES West, Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919/807-6389 (wk); 919/807-6495 (fax)
"Please note, my email address has changed to Julie.,&rzybna ncdenr gov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

�J..wJ.raw`w�w`w
ICING'S CABINCIRCA 1883
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
REVISED 11-18-09 RE CEfVED
NOV 2 0 2009
ENCLOSURES: DEN - WATER OUALIIY
PERMIT APPLICATION, POINT SOURCE BRANCH
ALTERNATIVES (EAA)
AND
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
EDDIE WILLARD
�Ar Re-c eiVeot 1`�v,ru4 /$,a°I°

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
fps` Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit Number INCOO
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name G i y 6� K 1 n q
Facility Name C`Ii�l O inr \44e'f''?6tt -
Mailing Address tj . fo X ' 719
city %%n
State / Zip Code No&'r01 inc` 10 �9-1
Telephone Number (33L ) Td-y-$3j 3
Fax Number (330 RaD'j4
e-mail Address ,emu;'I�OL,( @�L 0,i.1 II V, ,TiC, l."S
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above [1]/
Street Address or State Road
city
State / Zip Code
County
�9 0 .Dounla�y
--Tobacc0v1lle-
Nvr &CCA Inca
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
FLTI s-
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
I
Telephone Number ( )
Fax Number ( ) DENR
POINT CH
4. Ownership Status: /
Federal ❑ State ❑ Private ❑ Public �y
S. Type of treatment plant:
Page 1 of C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
❑ Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
❑ Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener ❑
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
C-0 N V eY`�- f i,APo -} Y�9'�-'[� m e Q
ao a�
0 e
5 Im -t
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility: � f'G✓ �ACILwaS V� tv��.r� U-SeS
� l,�sa.5� �t�,�S•
9. Number of separate discharge points: I
Outfall Identification number(s)
10. Frequency of discharge: Continuous ❑ Intermittent
If intermittent: a 1Y1 !1
Days per week discharge occurs: Duration:
11. Plant design potable flowrate .3 1.0 MGD
s
Backwash or reject flow ©p MGD'' is `I ^� ��opry X i 1�
o �owiti?-.ery �6�e b�L t,�a-sit u,�c�,�'-e ✓.
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and iongitudep l
ci
ram• � �c��"Y,. 3(� ° 13' � 5 ` �
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals or disinfection
treatments, that have the potential to be discharged.
Page 2 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
r)ILim j,,L'( W*\ Sk
1\u AY'D
1 -
(� to r,n e— �( S
0\-DI-c-
�-'JL-Ja�e Y- C IF X5 L (
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑
No
15. Additional Information:
Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the treatment process, and point of addition of chemicals. � e e- a- 44Ck m e-n- P,�,
Solids Handling Plan Se P- Q m Q n+ C
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15.
New applicants must contact a permit coordinator with the NCDENR Customer
Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? Yes ❑ No
Analyses of source water collected See a,." C' n y►le of J)
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Printed a of PersonLS*i"n jitle
Sign} toe of Applicant D e
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that: Any person who knowingly makes any false
statement representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document files or
required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission
implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or
monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the
Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable
by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section
1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both,
for a similar offense.)
Page 3 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

ICI
trv�
gly,
OL I L
COLV, Oil
PW 41kAp, II, :
IL all Pag aye hoc 1
211111111
City of King WTP — Existing racility
(Southwest View)

Attachment C
Solids Handling Plan
Finished treated water is used for the filter backwash water. Other that the use of this treated
water, there is currently no other treatment that takes place to the filter backwash water
before it enters a local stream. Attached is a copy of the latest inorganic chemicals analysis as a
potential substitute for an overall toxicity analysis
Other treatment options are being evaluated as part of planned upgrades in the coming
months.
We have discussed these measures with Mr. Tom Belnick of the NPDES Office.
(see attachments)

SECTION VII
ALTERNATIVES
A. General
Three (3) interim and three (3) long term alternatives are proposed to supply safe drinking water
to the City's residential and commercial customers during the twenty year design period. The
interim alternatives are proposed to supply safe drinking water to new and existing water users
during the three to five years required implement two of the three long term alternatives. The
interim alternatives include purchasing treated water from Winston Salem, or Pilot Mount, or
installing a temporary, pre-engineered coagulation and filtration modular unit at the present WTP
site. The long term alternatives consists of expansion and upgrade of the present treatment plant,
the construction of a completely new treatment plant, and purchasing all of the City's water from
Winston Salem.
B. Description of Alternatives
Alternatives considered in this report include upgrading and expanding the King WTP using
conventional or alternative treatment processes, purchasing water by contract from Winston
Salem or Pilot Mount or a combination of the treatment and purchase alternatives. Each
alternative is based on supplying 6.0 MGD to meet the anticipated peak day demand for water
during the 20 year design period.
Preliminary drawings, opinion of probable construction costs. and O & M costs for each
alternative are included in the Exhibit number corresponding to the Alternative number.
Alternative No. 1
Construct a new 3.0 MGD water treatment train and rehabilitate the existing 3.OMGD treatment
plant using conventional technology. Once the new treatment train is complete and operational,
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -19

the existing 3.0 MGD treatment plant will be rehabilitated and upgraded to meet current
standards.
New treatment processes provided for this alternative include continuous removal of
sedimentation basin sludge, a 250,000 gallon storage.tank for equalizing the filter wash water
flow and thickening the sedimentation basin sludge, and a 2.0 meter filter belt press for
dewatering the thickened sludge.
The existing sand drying beds will be converted to a covered holding area for the dewatered
sludge. A contract hauler will transport the dewatered sludge to an approved land fill for final
disposal.
A new 16" diameter ductile iron transmission main is proposed to reduce the discharge pressure
and run time on the pumps at the WTP, maintain safe levels in the Newsome Road ground
storage tanks, and improve system reliability. The 16" main will follow the route of the existing
12" main. The two water mains will operate in parallel for a distance of approximately 32,800
linear feet.
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
• 6 MGD raw water intake in the Yadkin River
• 250,000 gallon raw water storage tank
• Upgrade of the high and low level raw water pumping stations
• A new 24" diameter raw water main from the intake to the WTP
• A new conventional 3.0 MGD water treatment plant
• Upgrade of the existing 3.�0 MGD water treatment facility
•� _ A 250,000 gallons filter backwash and sludge storage tank
-----------------
• A 2.0 meter filter belt press
• Conversion of sand drying beds to a cover storage area for dewatered sluclg
• A second diesel generator
• A new 1.0 million ground storage tank
• 322800 L. F. 16" DIP finished water main
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -20

Alternative No. 2
Construct a new 6.0 MGD WTP using alternative technology including pre treatment of raw
water with contact clarifiers and absorption clarifiers in lieu of conventional flocculation and
sedimentation basins. The treatment plant building will be sized to contain three (3) modular,
pre-engineered treatment units each having a capacity of 2.0 MGD. This alternative includes
the abandonment of the City's existing water treatment plant.
Five days of raw water supply (30 million gallons) of off -stream storage is required for this
alternative. This storage is required by State Regulations because the treatment process does not
provide a 4.0 hour hydraulic detention time for the sedimentation process and because the
Yadkin River has a WS —IV watershed classification at the City's intake. The proposed treatment
process only provides one half hour or less hydraulic detention time in the contact clarifiers.
Therefore, this alternative must meet the State's lowest concentration levels for turbidity,
coliform and color for influent water to a surface water treatment plant. Both storage and pre-
treatment of raw water is required to meet this standards. Approximately 36,000 L.F. of 16"
ductile iron pipe (DEP) will be required to deliver treated water from the WTP to the Newsome
Road ground storage tanks and to provide additional capacity and system reliability. This
alternative also requires mechanical dewatering and other treatment of filter back wash water
and sedimentation basin sludge described in Alternative No. 1.
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
• Upgrade raw water intake in the Yadkin River to 6.0 MGD
• A new, high head, raw water pumping station
• Approximately 15,000 linear feet of 24" raw water main
• A 30 MG raw water reservoir
• Approximately 14,000 linear feet of 30" raw water transmission main
• A new pre-engineered 6.0 MGD water treatment plant using alternative technology
• A 250,000 gallons filter backwash and sludge storage tank
• A 2.0 meter filter belt press
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -21

• Conversion of sand drying beds to a covered sludge storage area
• A second diesel generator
• Approximately 32,800 L. F. 16" DIP finished water main
• A new 1.0 million gallon ground storage tank
Alternative No. 3
This alternative consists of purchasing 6.0 MGD of treated water from the City of Winston—
Salem and abandoning the City's existing water treatment plant. Approximately 4,200 linear
feet of 16" diameter ductile iron water main will be required to connect the City of Winston—
Salem's R.J. Reynolds 2.0 MG ground storage tank with the City of King's 2.5 MG ground
storage tanks on Newsome Road. Since the over flow elevation of King tanks are 34 feet higher
than the R.J. Reynolds tank, the Winston-Salem pumps will have to be modified slightly to
provide the additional head needed to fill the King tanks. An altitude valve will have to be
installed on the Winston Salem tank to prevent overfill by the modified pumps.
The proposed rates for this alternative are 1.5 times the Winston-Salem inside rates with a
minimum usage of 2.0 MGD. The rates are presented in the following table.
Table V11-1
Winston Salem High Volume Rate
Winston Salem King King
$ / 100 CF $ / 100 CF $ / 1000 gals
First 20,200 cubic feet (151,096 gals) $1.608 F-412 $3.22
'[All over 20,200 cubic feet (151,096 gals) Fs 0.951 $1.426 $1.91
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
• Master meter and concrete vault
• 4,200 L.F. 16" ductile iron water main and appurtenances
• Modification of the Winston —Salem pumps and controls
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -22

• Altitude valve of the R. J. Reynolds tank
0 Close out of existing King WTP
Alternative No. 1— A
The City of Winston Salem has three treatment plants which have a combined available supply
of 133 MGD. The primary raw water source is the Yadkin River. The average annual demand
on the Winston Salem system for 2002 was 44.1 MGD. The projected demands are 54.4 MGD in
2010, 63.2 in 2020, and 72.5 in 2030. The City supplies treated water to a 2.0 MG ground
storage tank at the R J Reynolds plant through two separate 24" diameter water mains which are
supplied from two separate 5.0 MGD pumping stations. Each pumping station and water main
was designed to provide 5.0 MGD to the R.J. Reynolds plant. Two sets of pumping stations and
water mains were constructed to provide system reliability. Water usage by the R.J. Reynolds
plant has decreased by approximately 200,000 gpd because of a change in process.
The R J Reynolds tank is located approximately three quarters of a mile from the City of King's
2.5 MG ground storage tanks on Newsome Road. The over flow elevation of the R J Reynolds
tank is 34 feet lower than the over flow of the Newsome Road tanks.
This alternative consists of connecting to the Winston Salem water system and purchasing the
water that the City of King needs from Winston Salem until Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No.
2 can be fully implemented. It is anticipated that 3 to 5 years will be required to complete the
planning, design, financing and construction phases of Alternative No.1 or No. 2. After the King
WTP has been upgraded and expanded, the connection will be maintained as a back up water
supply which could be used by the City of King during a line break or other emergency in the
King water system.
The proposed rate for 1.0 MGD is 2.0 times the Winston Salem inside rate. The proposed rate for
emergency usage is 2.0 times the Winston Salem inside rate. The rates are presented in the
following table.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -23

Table VII — 2
Winston Salem Low Volume Rate
Winston Salem King King
$ 1100 CF $ / 100 CF $ 11000 gals
First 20,200 cubic feet (151,096 gals) $1.608 F3.22 $4.30
All over 20,200 cubic feet (151,096 gals) $0.951 $1.90 $2.54
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
Master meter and concrete vault
• 4,200 L.F. 16" ductile iron water main and appurtenances
• Modification of the Winston Salem pumps and controls
• Altitude valve of the R. J. Reynolds tank
Alternative No. 2 —A
The Town of Pilot Mount's treatment plant, constructed in 1962, has a permitted capacity of 1.6
MGD. Toms Creek is the raw water source. Off -stream storage is provided by a 20 MG
reservoir. The total available raw water supply from Toms Creek is 2.25 MGD. The Town had
planned to expand their WTP to 3.0 MGD. However, these plans were dropped when the Town
lost two large water users. Additional off -stream storage is required to increase the raw water
supply from Toms Creek to 3.0 MGD.
For the year 2002, the average annual demand on the Pilot Mount was 0.384 MGD and the peak
day demand was 0.852 MGD. The projected demand is 1.235 MGD for year 2010, 1.375 for
2020, and 1.557 for 2030. The distribution system has water mains ranging in diameter from 2"
to 12" and three elevated tanks which operated at an over flow elevation of 1297.8 and provide a
total elevated storage capacity of 0.80 MG.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -24

This alternative consists of connecting to the Pilot Mount water system and purchasing the water
that the City of King needs from Pilot Mount until Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No. 2 can be
implemented. It is anticipated that 3 to 5 years will be required to complete the planning, design,
financing and construction phases of Alternative No.1 or No. 2. After the King WTP has been
upgraded and expanded, the connection will be maintained as a back up water supply which
could be used to supply King in the event of an emergency such as a line break in the King
water system.
This alternative is based on the purchase of 1.0 MGD of treated water from the Town Pilot
Mount by the City of King. The overflow elevation of the Pilot Mount tank is 96 feet higher than
King's elevated tank in Pinnacle and 39.5 feet higher than the King's Rains Road elevated tank.
This Alternative requires 50,500 linear feet of 12"diameter water main to transfer 1.0 MGD of
treated water from the Pilot Mount tank to the Rains Road tank. A low head, 1.0 MGD booster
pumping stations is required in Pinnacle to over come the head losses in the transfer piping
system.
The proposed rate for this alternative is 1.5 times the Pilot Mount inside water rates. For the
purchase of 1.0 MGD, the City of King's rate would be equivalent to $2.61 per 1,000 gallons.
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
• Approximately 50,050 linear feet of 12" diameter water main
• A 1.0 MGD booster pumping station
• Master meter at the connection point between the two systems
Alternative No. 3 - A
This alternative consists of installing a 1.0 MGD pre-engineered, modular treatment water
treatment system in a steel tank at the site of the present treatment plant. The proposed system
will include a contact clarifier and high rate, mixed media filters. The supplemental treatment
will provide the additional capacity needed to supply the water system demands during the
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -25

interim period while Alternative No. 1 or No. 2 is under construction. It is anticipated that 3 to 5
years will be required to complete the planning, design, financing and construction phases of
Alternative No.1 or No. 2. After the King WTP has been upgraded and expanded, the proposed
treatment system will be integrated into one of the new treatment plant processes.
Capital improvements required for this alternative include the following:
• A 1.0 MGD pre-engineered flocculation and filtration system and shelter
• Filter Valves and Pneumatic Valve Operators
• Instrumentation and Controls
• Reinforced Concrete Pad
• Yard Piping and Valves
C. Opinion of Probable Capital Costs
Capital costs presented in this report are preliminary and are based upon information currently
available. The cost estimates were developed from a variety of sources including equipment
manufacturers, contractors, in-house calculations, and published EPA cost data. They are used
for comparative purposes only and may not represent the actual costs for the facilities proposed.
Actual costs will be influenced by final site conditions, regulatory requirements, detailed
engineering design, market conditions at the time of bidding for construction services, inflation,
time constraints, and other factors outside the scope of this analysis.
The engineer's opinion of probable capital costs for each alternative are listed in the following
table. The detailed cost estimates for each alternative are include in Exhibits 1 through 6.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -26

Table VII -- 3
Capital Costs
Alternative
No.
Capital Costs
1 $16,7952,112
2 [-$19,063212-56
�3 $32700,198
1 -A $881,480
2 - A $41,1479926
3 - A
F-$1 371,460
D. Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs
The year 2010 estimated operation and maintenance costs for each alternative are listed in the
following table. A more detailed breakdown of the operation and maintenance costs for each
alternative are include in Exhibit 1 through 6.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -27

Table V11- 4
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Alt.
Water
Water
Water
Water
Annual
No.
Treatment
Distribution
Administration
Purchased
O & M
1 F-
$9955910F$7843258--
[-1413,562
$0
$2,243,730
2
$1,143,510
$7842258
$463,562
$0
�Y)3-911,330
3
$0
F$784,258
[-$4-63,562
$2,091,450
$3,3392270
$0
$39,200
$25,400
$925,167
$989,767
1
2 - A
$0
$1179600
$25,400
$952,650 ---
$1,0952650
3 - A
$95,800
$0 $0 F $0 l $95,800
E. Land Requirements
Alternative No. 1: Existing property owned by the City is adequate
Alternative No. 2: 20.0 acres for off stream storage of raw water
Alternative No.3: 0.5 acre for master meter
Alternative No. 1-A: 0.5 acres for master meter
Alternative No. 2-A: 0.5 acre for master meter
Alternative No. 3-A: None
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -28

SECTION VIII
COSTS ANALYSIS
A. Present Worth Value
Each alternative has been evaluated on the basis of present worth value, which is an alternative's
capital cost plus annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost and salvage value converted to
present day dollars. The long term alternatives have been evaluated on the 20 year present worth
value and the interim alternatives on the 5 year present work value. The capital cost estimates
include costs for structures, mechanical equipment, piping, site work, buildings, electrical work,
instrumentation, construction contingencies, and technical services. Salvage values were
calculated using a useful life of 20 years for pump stations and WTP equipment. The useful life
for buildings, concrete structures, and piping was estimated at 40 years. Salvage values were
calculated based on linear depreciation of the initial costs over the useful life span to an end of
useful life value of zero dollars. O&M costs include both fixed and variable items including
labor, power, chemical, solids disposal, supplies, and equipment repairs. It was assumed that
land would not depreciate. An interest rate of 3 percent was assumed in the present worth
calculations. Grant money, if received, will have an effect on the present worth calculations as it
will essentially reduce the capital cost component of the present worth analysis shifting the
emphasis to O&M and salvage value.
A summary of the estimated capital costs, annual O&M costs, salvage value, and present worth
value for the long term and interim alternatives are presented in the following table. Alternative
No.1, upgrade and expansion of the existing treatment plant, has the lowest present worth value
for the long term alternatives. Alternative No. 1-A, purchase of up to 1.0 MGD of treated water
from Winston Salem has the lowest present worth value for the interim alternative.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -29

TABLE VIII -1
20-YEAR PRESENT WORTH VALUE
LONG TERM ALTERNATIVES
TABLE VIII - 2
5-YEAR PRESENT WORTH VALUE
INTERIM ALTERNATIVES
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EaPANSION PAGE-30

B. Average Unit Costs
All six alternatives were evaluated on the basis of their annual average unit costs per 1,000
gallons of water usage estimated for the year 2010. The unit costs include debt service (interest
and principal) on the total capital costs for each alternative. The debt service is based on an
interest rate of 5% for 20 years. This analysis does not include existing debt service.
Alternative No.1, upgrade and expansion of the existing treatment plant, has the lowest unit costs
per 1,000 gallons of all the long term alternatives. Alternative No. 1-A, purchase of up to 1.0
MGD from Winston Salem, has the lowest unit costs for all of the interim alternatives.
The average unit cost per 1,000 gallons for each alternative for the year 2010 is presented in the
following tables.
TABLE VIII — 3
AVERAGE UNIT COSTS
LONG TERM ALTERNATIVES
Annual Capital Debt Total Annual MGD MG/YR Cost per
O & M Costs Service Costs 1000 gals
Alternative $2,243,730 $16,795,112 [$l , 3472690 $3130%583 3.0 1095 $3.28
No. 1
Alternative [$-223913,330 $1%063,256 $1,529,693 $32470,301 3.0 1,095 $3.58
No. 2
Alternative [�3,339,270 $3,700,198 $296,
915 $326362185 3.0 1095 $3.32
No. 3 F
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -31

TABLE VIII — 4
AVERAGE UNIT COSTS
INTERIM ALTERNATIVES
Annual Capital Debt Total Annual MGD MG/YR Cost per
O & M Costs Service Costs 1000 gals
Alternative $989,767 $8802480 $70,652 $1,060,419 1.0 365 $2.91
No. 1 -A
Alternative $13,095,650 $4,1473,926 $332,842 $1,428,492 1.0 365 $3.91
No. 2 - A
Alternative $95,800 $1,371,560 $110,058 [---$-2052858 1.0 365
No. 3 -A
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -32

9
SECTION IX
ALTERNATIVE RANKING
A decision matrix, or a composite ranking system, was utilized to rank the long term and the
interim alternatives. Ranking factors utilized in this analysis were capital costs, operation and
maintenance costs, system reliability, public acceptance and environmental impacts. The
decision matrix, given in Tables IX-1 and IX-2, summarizes the composite rankings assigned to
each alternative. Alternatives are ranked as either first, second, or third for each evaluation
factor. Three (3) points are assigned for a first place ranking, two (2) points for second place
ranking, and one (1) point for third place ranking. The weighting factor for each evaluation
factor is used to determine the composite ranking for that factor.
A. Capital Cost
Each alternative is ranked according to its capital costs in Table VII -1 and VII -2
B. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
Each alternative is ranked according to its O&M costs presented in Tables VII— 3 and VII-4.
C. System Reliability
The system reliability is essentially the same for each long term alternative. All three alternatives
received the highest ranking. The system reliability is essentially the same for Alternative 1-A
and 2-A. Each of these alternatives received the highest ranking. The system reliability for
Alternative 3-A received a lower ranking since it uses a non -conventional solids removal system.
F. Implementation
The interim alternatives were rated on implementation in lieu of system reliability. The time
required for implementation is critical for the interim alternatives. Water usage in the City's
service area is rapidly approaching the maximum day capacity of the treatment plant and water
service connections are not available to new customer outside of the corporate limits. Alternative
The estimated implementation period for Alternative No. 1-A is six (6) to (8) eight months. This
alternative received the highest ranking. The other alternatives received lower ranking because
their estimated implementation period is twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE —33

a
E. Public Acceptance
Continuing to operate and maintain their own treatment plant and control their costs is the most
desirable alternative for the residence of the City of King. This alternative received the highest
ranking. Alternative No. 2 is second to the highest the ranking since it is similar, but more
expensive than Alternative No. 1. Alternative No. 3 A received the highest ranking since it has
the lowest costs of all the interim alternatives.
F. Environmental Impacts
Alternative No. 3, purchasing up to 6.0 MGD from Winston—Salem received the highest ranking
because it has the least environmental impact. Alternative No. 2 received the lowest ranking
because it involves the construction of a 30 million gallon raw water reservoir on previously
undisturbed property. Alternative No. 3-A received the highest ranking since it has the least
environmental impact of all the interim alternatives.
TABLE IX —1
DECISION MATRIX
LONG TERM ALTERNATIVES
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -34

TABLE IX — 2
DECISION MATRIX
INTERIM ALTERNATIVES
G. Decision Matrix Results
Alternative 1, expansion and upgrade of the existing WTP, and Alternative 1-A, short term
purchase of water from Winston Salem, received the highest composite scores. The decision
matrix indicates that the combination of these two alternatives is the most feasible project for the
supplying safe drinking water to new and existing water users within the City of King's service
area.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -35

SECTION X
RECOMMENDED PROJECT
A. Long Term Project
Three (3) alternatives have been evaluated for increasing the capacity of the King WTP to 6.0
MGD to supply current and future demands for safe drinking water during the twenty year
planning period. Extensive analysis of the three alternatives indicates that Alternative No. 1,
expansion and upgrade of the present treatment plant, is the most feasible and cost effective
alternative. This alternative has the lowest present worth value and the lowest unit costs per
1,000 gallons of water produced or purchased. A decision matrix considering costs as well as
other factors such as system reliability, public acceptance, and environmental impact further
verifies the conclusion that Alternative No. 1 is the most viable alternative.
B. Short Term Project
Three (3) alternatives have been evaluated for safe drinking water to new and existing water
users during the three to five year period required to design and construct the proposed long term
project. Analysis of the three alternatives indicates that Alternative No. 1A, purchase of treated
water from Winston Salem, is the most feasible and cost effective alternative for supplying the
City's short term needs for safe drinking water. This alternative has the lowest present worth
value and the lowest unit costs per 1,000 gallons of water produced or purchased. A decision
matrix considering costs as well as other factors such as implementation period, public
acceptance, and environmental impact further verifies the conclusion that Alternative No. IA is
the most viable alternative.
C. Recommended Project
The proposed project consists of constructing a new, parallel, and completely independent 3.0
MGD treatment train featuring the latest improvements in conventional water treatment
equipment and technology. The new improvements proposed include compartmentalized,
tapered flocculation using 1.0 and 2.0 horse power variable frequency drives, continuous
removal of residual solids in the sedimentation basins, mechanical dewatering of residual solids,
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -36

liquid chlorination, back washing filters with air and water, electric motor filter valve operators,
and digital indicators, controller, and recorders.
When the new 3.0 MGD treatment train is placed in service, the existing WTP will be taken out
of service and retrofitted with the same equipment, materials and technology used in the new
treatment train. Existing concrete basins which have been damaged due to settlement and
weathering will be cleaned, repaired, and sprayed with a protective coating. Filter media,
subsurface sweeps, piping, fittings, valves, operators, indicators and controls will be removed
and replaced with new equipment and material. The existing mechanical flocculators will be
removed. Each flocculation basin will be partitioned into four smaller compartments. New low
horse power mechanical flocculators will be installed in each compartment to facilitate the
tapered flocculation process. Steel clearwell tanks will be scraped and painted. Existing steel
. hand railing will be removed and replaced with alum hand railing. Steel grating will be removed
and replaced with fiber glass grating. The existing chemical dosing system will be replaced with
new pumps, motors, controls, and valves. Electrical control panels, starters and switch gear
inside the filter building will be removed and replaced by new and larger electrical equipment
installed during the first phase of the project.
The proposed project includes new filter transfer pumps and new high service pumps, motors
and controls for transmitting treated water to the distribution system. Approximately 6.2 miles
of new 16" ductile iron water main will be installed from the WTP to the ground storage tanks
located on Newsome Road to provide the hydraulic capacity required for the 6.0 MGD
expansion. A new 1.0 million gallon tank will be installed adjacent to the existing 2.5 million
gallons tanks at the Newsome Road site to provide the additional storage needed for the
proposed project.
A new 27-inch diameter passive intake screen and 125 linear feet of 24-inch raw water line will
be installed in the Yadkin River to provide the additional capacity needed for the raw water
intake. The existing high and low level pumps, motors, and controls will be replaced with new
equipment capable of delivering a flow of 6.0 MGD to the new 250,000 gallons raw water
storage tank. The capacity of the existing pipeline between the raw water storage tank and the
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -37

WTP will be increased to 6.0 MGD by installing a new 24-inch diameter ductile iron pipeline
parallel to the existing pipeline.
Approximately one mile of 16-inch diameter ductile iron water main will be installed along U.S.
Highway 52 between the R.J. Reynolds ground storage tank and the City of King's ground
storage tanks on Newsome Road. A master meter will be installed between the two systems. The
City of Winston Salem will supply up to 1.0 MGD of safe drinking water to the City of King
during the three to five years required upgrade and expand the King water treatment plant and
distribution system to a capacity of 6.0 MGD. After the King water plant has been up grade and
expanded, the connection between the two systems will be maintained as an emergency water
supply for the City of King.
D. Project Costs
The estimated capital, operational and maintenance, water purchased costs for the proposed
projects are included in the following table.
TABLE X -1
PROJECT COSTS
Alternative
Capital Costs
Annual
Annual
O& M Costs
Water Purchased
Year 2009
Year 2012
Years 2008 - 2012
No.1
$16,795,112
$2,243,730
$0
No.1-A
$880,480
$0
$9899767
Total Project
$1796759592
$2,243,730
$9892767
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CITY OF KING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PAGE -38

X; VIE
NWERR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
15 October 2009
City of King
Attn: Mr. John Cater, City Manager
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
SUBJECT: Notice of Approval of Proposed Project/Permitting Schedule
Re: NOV#: NOV-2009-DV-0193
City of King Water Treatment Plant
Forsyth County - Physical Location of Treatment Plant
Stokes County - Physical Location of City of King
Dear Mr. Cater:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated 1 September 2009, which outlines the city's proposed plan of
action and schedule for the expansion of its water treatment plant and the associated required backwash
wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as the permitting of the treated wastewater discharge from
the plant into Old Richmond Creek. Thank you for the city's timely planning and response to the issues that
remained open from our previous meetings with the city's engineer, Scott Barrow, about this urgent project.
After thorough consideration, we agree that the plans outlined in your correspondence represent the most
effective, efficient and timely course of action to ultimately lead to permit issuance and the city's lasting
compliance with that permit. In your correspondence, you estimate that the city will complete the construction of
the required wastewater/sludge treatment and disposal systems within 12 months of receipt of an Authorization to
Construct (AtC) permit from the Division. We feel confident that the city will do all it can to meet or beat this
timeline. We do however request that you notify this office in writing if for any reason you believe the city will not
be able to meet this timeline.
3. If you have any questions or need any further assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Ron Boone at 336-771-5000.
Sincerely,
r�--
Steve Wfedder
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Winston-Salem Region
Division of Water Quality
CC: Central Files
NPDES West Unit
611ftr!Zrgft
171 . oco"Tt l3atToG 1tluLi3eer
P. �Vim
King, G&27R1*1e,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Location: M WaughWwn St. Winston-Salem. North Carolina 27107
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Mr. Steve Tedder
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
August 27, 2009
Dear Mr. Tedder,
Subject: City of King, NC Water Treatment Plant Discharge
AECOM Project # 60091481
The City of King (City) has received your Notice of Violation with Notice of Intent to Enforce dated June 24,
2009, concerning the above referenced discharge. The City is offering the following solution for compliance for
your review.
In an effort to bring the current treatment process into compliance, the City proposes to move forward with
construction of the sludge dewatering process designed for the new 3 MGD water plant project. This
construction will include an upgrade to the existing wastewater pump station, a filter belt press building housing
a 1.0 meter belt press, new 300,000 gallon sludge decant/thickening tank, dechlorination equipment, new
controls and electrical modifications, three new manholes, and pipeline extensions and reroutes will be
constructed to cant' the wastewater to the existing discharge point. The dewatered sludge will be transported
to the City of Winston-Salem landfill for disposal. A process diagram is included with this letter.
If this is acceptable, we will submit the design package for an Authorization to Construct (ATC). It is estimated
construction will be completed in approximately 11 months based on the following schedule:
Receive ATC
Advertisement for Bids — 30 days
Notice of Award — 2 weeks
Notice to Proceed —1 week
Construction — 9 months
Since the new 3 MGD plant will continue to use the same dewatering process and equipment described above,
the City would like to request a consolidation of the NPDES applications for the current and future discharges to
Old Richmond Creek.
AECOM Water I AECOM

If you have any questions or if additional information is needed for your concurrence with the project, please call
at [phone] or email at David. Ran kinCa.aecom.corn and copy those listed below.
Sincerely,
David Rankin
Project Engineer
Enclosures: As noted
Copy to: John Cater, City Manager, City of King, kinQcitymanager(a7ci.king. nc.us
Scott Barrow, P.E., City Engineer, City of King, sbarrow a-ci.king.nc.us
Gene Haynes, AECOM, Gene. Haynes(�i-)aecom.com
AECOM Water I AECOM

Grzyb, Julie
From: Stallings, Hannah
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:08 PM
To: Rankin, David
Cc: Grzyb, Julie; Belnick, Tom; Tedder, Steve; Reid, Dianne; Kountis, Elizabeth
Subject: FW: King, NC WTP EA
Mr. Rankin —
Thank you for working with DWQ to resolve our concerns on the subject project.
We can now concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact being issued for this project provided that: 1) the corrections
mentioned in your email to Julie Grzyb below are made and 2) that the Classification and Standards Unit is notified of
the new intake location coordinates along with a map of the new intake at the beginning of construction as you j
indicated would be done in your November 11 response to comments. /
If there is anything further I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to contact me. ,-
Thank you.
::;�
Han ��tcillinqs,. SEPA Coordinator
DWQ - Planning Section
[phone]
Mailing address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/sepa/index.htm
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Rankin, David [mailto: David. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:42 PM
To: Grzyb, Julie
Subject: King, NC WTP EA
Julie,
The maximum discharge to Old Richmond Creek for the new 3.0 MGD WTP will be 131,000 GPD. There will be roughly
half the flow from the sedimentation basins and filters at 3.0 MGD as when the 6.0 MGD plant is online. The belt press
will operate with the same flows regardless of plant size. As stated in the response letter, the maximum at 6.0 MGD will
be 241,000 GPD due to the doubling of sedimentation basins and filters.
There is a typo in the second paragraph of Section 4.2. The paragraph should read "1.0 meter filter belt press" instead
of "2.0 meter filter belt press."
Also in Section 4.2, "De -chlorination equipment" should be added to the list of capital improvements required for this
alternative.
Please let me know if there is any additional information you need. Thanks.
David Rankin
Engineer II
D 864.234.3059
1

David.Rankin(@aecom.com
AECOM
10 Paiewood Drive, Building VI, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29615
T 864.234.3000 F 864.234.3069
www.aecom.com

may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
From: Tedder, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:45 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Boone, Ron
Subject: FW: King WTP Meeting Summary
I'd like to see if maybe you, me, Julie, Jeff and Matt could meet on this issue on the 2nd prior to the Supervisors meeting?
This one is complicated and I'll follow up with some written suggestions as to how to proceed. Right now, just trying to
get this scheduled since I will be in Raleigh that day. I think the supervisors meeting starts at 10:00 so maybe we could
do this at 8:30??
I'm thinking efficiency may be to roll both the existing and new facilities into one permit. We could also put the schedule
for the existing facility into the permit conditions and avoid an SOC (not to mention publicity) and the second set of
limits upon expansion of the additional 3.0 mgd.
They are planning on building the new 3.0 facility beside the existing facility, then taking the existing off line and
upgrading the current 3.0 mgd facility.
With this new wrinkle, they will now have to do some of the upgrade to the existing facility just to meet the limits in the
permit we would issue. That would be their first order of business then build the new one and then rehab the existing.
Tedder
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Steve Tedder
[e-mail]
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
(336)-771-4950
Fax [phone]
From: Boone, Ron
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:39 PM
To: Tedder, Steve
Subject: King WTP Meeting Summary
Steve ... your notes have been added into the final document below.
Ron

Grzyb, Julie
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Grzyb, Julie
Subject: FW: King WTP Meeting Summary
fyi
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Tedder, Steve
Cc: Matthews, Matt
Subject: RE: King WTP Meeting Summary
Steve- I agree that this is one of the most convoluted processes going, but its fairly small beans (unpermitted WTP filter
backwash) and I'm not sure Jeff or Matt need to be involved. If SWPS meets in Archdale, Julie will be here at 9am and
we can discuss. Otherwise I can touch base with you later that day, but Julie has the most time invested thus far.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Tedder, Steve
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:15 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Matthews, Matt
Subject: FW: King WTP Meeting Summary
You been able to check with folks to see if we could meet? Looks like the Divisional Supervisors meeting will be at Ag
building on Reedy Creek Rd. WQ regional supervisors meeting somewhere at 9:30 (I've suggested to Matt that we meet
at EES in their conference room).
I could still be in -town by 8:00-8:30 to meet on the King issue. If Matt decides to have the SW meeting at EES, we could
meet there before the supervisors meeting starts.
Let me know.
Tedder
E-mail correspondence to and from this address

IAECOM
AECOM
10 Patewood Drive. Building A. Suite 500. Greenville. South Carolina 29615
T M-234.3000 F 864.234.3069 www.aecom.com
Ms. Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator,
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N C 27699-1617
November 11, 2009
Dear Ms. Stallings,
Subject: City of King, NC Water Treatment Plant Improvements Environmental Assessment
AECOM Project # 60091481
AECOM has received the review comments in your email dated September 9, 2009, concerning the above
referenced project and is providing the following response for your review. For ease of review, we have copied
your comments and provided our responses in italics.
1. The amended section 6 states that "The WTP is being upgraded to provide adequate treatment and to
ensure protection of human health and the environment through adequate treatment of water prior to
distribution." Please amend this statement and others like it throughout the EA to reflect that this project
involves: 1) the construction of a new 3 MGD WTP and 2) an upgrading of the existing WTP that will operate in
concert with the new WTP to provide 6 MGD of potable water.
Modifications to the EA to include the language above have been made. Please see the revised EA enclosed
wfih this letter.
2. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI)— Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) discussions are still
insufficient. When comparing the previous version of the EA to the revised section 6 that was included with
your response to comments, it does not appear that very much has changed. Since the service area will
increase over the next twenty years, ICI must be analyzed for this project. Please use the CD copy of the SCI
Guidance included with our June comments to identify and mitigate ICI resulting from this project. Also, please
consider the following definitions when amending the EA:
• Indirect impacts are impacts caused by and resulting from a specific activity that occur later in
time or further removed in distance than direct impacts, but are reasonably foreseeable.
Indirect impacts may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced
changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air
and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
• Cumulative impacts are impacts residing from incremental effects of an activity when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entsiies
undertake such other actions. Cumulative impacts are the reasonably foreseeable impacts
from individually minor but collectively significant activfies.
a. Your responses state that "If and when the City sees the projected increase in population and water
demand, it will upgrade the offline 3 MGD plant and expand the overall capacity to 6 MGD. The City
will seriously evaluate ICI's prior to future annexation, expansion of the ETJ, or expansion of the
water and sewer service area" and page 14 of the March EA states that "The City of King TULIP
project is being pursued to respond to existing growth trends and is not being designed to attract
AECOM 1i` al-r AECOM

growth. Therefore, impact analyses are focused primarily on the WTP project itself and not on the
impacts of regional growth."
L Section 6.4 provided with your response states that "the service area of the WTP is expected
to increase in population over the next twenty years." Please amend the document so that a
consistent plan for the future service area of the WTP in this document.
ii. According to page 3 of the March version of the EA, the expansion in capacity will happen in
the short term: "Once the new plant is constructed and fully operational, the existing
treatment plant will be taken out of service, renovated, and upgraded with new equipment
featuring the latest improvements in conventional water treatment technology resulting in an
ultimate capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day." Without a full copy of the EA to review,
DWQ cannot be assured of the City's plans. Please clarify the timing of the upgrading of the
existing 3 MGD plant and be sure to present a consistent capacity expansion plan
throughout the EA.
iii. Since this EA includes an assessment of the impacts of installing a new 6 MGD intake,
based on 15ANCAC 01 C.0206(c)(3), the renovation of the current 3 MGD WTP and
expected ICI must be covered in this document as well since these are interdependent
projects.
Modifications to the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts have been made in the EA. Please see the revised EA
enclosed with this letter.
3. The City of King must evaluate what treatment, if any, is necessary to meet the limitations listed in comment
4 for its current and future backwash discharges. It is important that treatment of the existing backwash be
addressed first, and not disrupted even as the new WTP is build. The proposed expansion states that the
existing drying beds will be converted to a covered holding area for the dewatered sludge. AECOM should
work with the City of King on this matter and revise the EA document so it addresses how the transition
from the existing facility to the new facility will occur without disrupting treatment of the existing
backwash. Also, the EA should discuss the changes in wastewater flows that will occur as the
transition proceeds. This means recognizing each additional discharge that may result from the new
facility, such as stormwater drainage and backwash, and if it will be mixed into the same outfall the
existing facility is using.
In an effort to bring the current treatment process into compliance, the Cify submitted a letter to Steve Tedder,
Regional Water Quality Supervisor w#h the Division of Water Qualify, addressing the City's plan for the
transition from the existing facility to the new facility without disrupting treatment of the existing backwash. In
the letter the City proposed they move forward with the construction of the process wastewater handling with
the construction including: upgrade to the existing wastewater pump station, a filfer belt press building which
will house a 1.0 meter belt press and ancillary equipment, new 300,000 gallon sludge decant/thickening tank,
dechlorination equipment, seven new manholes, new controls, and electrical modifications. Pipeline extensions
and reroutes would be constructed to carry the wastewater to the existing discharge point. The dewatered
sludge would be transported to the City of Winston-Salem landfill fordisposa! The State agreed the proposed
plan was the "most effective, efficient and timely course of action to ultimately lead to permit issuance, and the
City's lasting compliance with that permit." A copy of the City's letter and the State's response is included with
this letter.
After construction is complete and the new process wastewater handling facilities and equipment are online, the
WTP will be discharging a maximum of 285,000 GDP of decant water to Old Richmond Creek in accordance
with a new NPDES permit. This flow will only occur when an entire existing sedimentation basin is drained to
clean out the sludge and the existing filters are being backwashed. Otherwise, only 45,000 gallons of filter
backwash water and belt press wash water will be discharged to the creek. The storage tank will be increased
from the previously proposed 250, 000 gallons to 300, 000 gallons in order to handle the emptying of an entire
existing sedimentation basin. Once the 6.0 MGD plant is online, the WTP will discharge 241,000 GPD of
decant water to Old Richmond Creek in accordance wish the new NPDES permit.
4. DWQ discovered an unpermitted discharge of the plant's existing backwash during the first review of this
EA, which resulted in the City of King's submittal of an application for anew NPDES permit. For all new or
expanding flows, the NPDES permit application must include a detailed Engineering Alternatives Analysis
(EAA) along with the permit application. (Please find an EAA Guidance attached.) The City's NPDES permit
AECOM Jter I AECOM

application was returned and the City has been requested to resubmit the application along with complete EAA.
Please note that the information received in your responses does not adequately address the City's
requirements for an EAA. In accordance with North Carolina General Statures, the most feasible wastewater
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be
implemented. Soil surveys and land costs should be evaluated for land application and cost analysis must be
submitted for each alternative. A combination of altematives should be considered as well. At this time it is
recommended that the EAA which needs to be submitted with the NPDES permit application for the
existing backwash be done separately from the SEPA/EA document
The City of King was informed that the minimum NPDES permit limitations for conventional Water Treatment
Plants include:
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L Monthly average and 45 mg/L Daily maximum
Total Residual Chlorine 17-28 ug/L depending on stream's low flow data
Turbidity <25 NTU's North Carolina Water Quality Standard, Class WS
To meet these limits, most WTPs provide for the alum sludge to be settled, dried, and landfilled as discussed in
the proposed facility description on page 6 of AECOM's EA document. It is the supernatant from the settling
ponds that is commonly evaluated for reuse, land application, discharge to the POTW, or discharge to a
stream. Therefore, when the EAA asks if the wastewaters can be sent to a POiW or recycled through the
WTP, DWQ is referring to the supernatant (clear liquid) not the sludge. IF the Water Treatment Plants
wastewaters are chlorinated, prior to discharging to a stream, dechlorination will need to be provided in order to
meet the Total Residual Chlorine limitation. The EA should include dechlorination in the design of the
wastewater treatment process.
Dechlorination has been added to the EA as part of the design of the wastewater treatment process. As
requested, the EAA will be conducted separately from the SEPA/EA document.
5. AECOM should be aware that Old Richmond Creek (WS-IV) drains into 5.7 miles of unmonitored waters of
the Yadkin River (WS-IV); however, below this reach, the Yadkin River is Impaired because of turbidity
violations. DWQ plans to work for the improvement and recovery of the River. If there is noncompliance with
pennitted effluent limits and degradation of the Yadkin River can be attributed to the City of King's WTP
discharge, then more stringent limitations or removal of the discharge may be necessary.
The Crfy of King will adhere to the limits set forth by the NPDES permri.
6. Once this EA is approved and a FNSI issued, the City should submit an application for an NPDES permit
modification for the expanded flow. A detailed EAA will need to be submitted with that modification request for
an expansion so all possible wastewater alternatives are assessed and utilized. The amount of detail and effort
needed on the next EAA may be limited if the modification request occurs shortly after the current NPDES
application and EAA submittal. AECOM should call the NPDES Section at DWQ to discuss the second EAA
details prior to submittal. Also, please refer to the attached EAA Guidance. This document and NPDES
application forms can also be located on the DWQ website at:
httpM20.enr.state.nc.us/N PDES/documents.html. If you have any questions on this process please contact
Julie Grzyb at (919}807-6389 or email Julie Grzyb(&.ncdenr.gov_.
An NPDES permri application will be submitted once a FONSl is issued. A detailed EAA will be submitted with
the permit application.
7. DWQ's Classification and Standards Unit requests notification of the new intake location coordinates
(latitude and longitude) along with a map of the new intake at the beginning of its construction.
A map of the new intake will be sent, along with location coordinates, at the beginning of construction.
If you have any questions or if additional information is needed for your concurrence with the project, please call
at [phone] or email at David RankinOaecom.com and copy those listed below.
AECONI
AECOM 'ti►Vater

}r
Sincerely,
David Rankin
Project Engineer
Enclosures: As noted
Copy to: John Cater, City Manager, City of King, kin aciWManager ci.king.nc.us
Scott Barrow, P.E., City Engineer, City of King, sbarrowQci.king.nc.us
Dave Shaw, P.E., AECOM, David.Sha aecom.com
AECOM
AECO10';�daier

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
15 October 2009
City of King RECEIVED
Attn: Mr. John Cater, City Manager
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021 OCT
SUBJECT: Notice of Approval of Proposed Project/Permitting Schedule
Re: NOV#: NOV-2009-DV-0193
City of King Water Treatment Plant DENR - WATER QUALITY
Forsyth County - Physical Location of Treatment Plant
Stokes County - Physical Location of City of King POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Dear Mr. Cater:
1. We are in receipt of your correspondence dated 1 September 2009, which outlines the city's proposed plan of
action and schedule for the expansion of its water treatment plant and the associated required backwash
wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as the permitting of the treated wastewater discharge from
the plant into Old Richmond Creek. Thank you for the city's timely planning and response to the issues that
remained open from our previous meetings with the city's engineer, Scott Barrow, about this urgent project.
2. After thorough consideration, we agree that the plans outlined in your correspondence represent the most
effective, efficient and timely course of action to ultimately lead to permit issuance and the city's lasting
compliance with that permit. In your correspondence, you estimate that the city will complete the construction of
the required wastewater/sludge treatment and disposal systems within 12 months of receipt of an Authorization to
Construct (AtC) permit from the Division. We feel confident that the city will do all it can to meet or beat this
timeline. We do however request that you notify this office in writing if for any reason you believe the city will not
be able to meet this timeline.
3. If you have any questions or need any further assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Ron Boone at 336-771-5000.
Sincerely,
Steve W edder
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Winston-Salem Region
Division of Water Quality
CC: Central Files
NPDES West Unit or
City of King
Attn: Scott Barrow, City Engineer
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Location: 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1.877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

A/P I
r
NCL3ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Govemor - Director Secretary
15 October 2009
City of King
Attn: Mr. John Cater, City Manager
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
SUBJECT: Notice of Approval of Proposed Project/Permitting Schedule
Re: NOW NOV•2009-DV-0193
City of King WaterTreatment Plant
Forsyth County - Physical Location of Treatment Plant
Stokes County - Physical Location of City of King
Dear Mr. Cater.
1. We are in receipt of your correspondence dated 1 September 2009, which outlines the city's proposed plan of
action and schedule for the expansion of its water treatment plant and the associated required backwash
wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as the permitting of the treated wastewater discharge from
the plant into Old Richmond Creek. Thank you for the city's timely planning and response to the Issues that
remained open from our previous meetings with the city's engineer, Scott Barrow, about this urgent project.
2. After thorough consideration, we agree that the plans outlined in your correspondence represent the most
effective, efficient and timely course. of action to ultimately lead to permit issuance and the city's lasting
compliance with that permit. In your correspondence, you estimate that the city will complete the construction of
the required wastewater/sludge treatment and disposal systems within 12 months of receipt of -an Authorization to
Construct (AtC) permit from the Division. We feel confident that the city will do all it can to meet or beat this
timeline. We do however request that you notify this office in writing if for any reason you believe the city will not
be able to meet this timeline.
3. If you have any questions or need any further assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Ron Boone at 336-771-6000.
Sincerely,
Steve W. adder
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Winston-Salem Region
Division of Water Quality
CC: Central Files
NPDES West Unit
City of King
Attn: Scott Barrow, City Engineer
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
North Carolina Division of Water Quardy, ftstonSalem Regional once
Location: 585 Waughtawn SL Winston-Salem. North Carolina 77107
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
N One Caro na
at '
r�xrx lr�
An Equal opportun41 Affirmative Action Employer

/t _*I
WC*1DFERR
A�
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor . Director Secretary
15 October 2009
City of King
Attn: Mr: John Cater, City Manager
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
SUBJECT: Notice of Approval of Proposed Project/Permitting Schedule
Re: NOV##: NOV-2009-DV-0193
City of King WaterTreatment Plant
Forsyth County - Physical Location of Treatment Plant
Stokes County - Physical Location of City of King
Dear Mr. Cater:
1. We are in receipt of your correspondence dated 1 September 2009, which outlines the city's proposed plan of
action and schedule for the expansion of its water treatment plant and the associated required backwash
wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as the permitting of the treated wastewater discharge from
the plant into Old Richmond Creek. Thank you for the city's timely planning and response to the Issues that
remained open from our previous meetings with the city's engineer, Scott Barrow, about this urgent project.
2. After thorough consideration, we agree that the plans outlined in your correspondence represent the most
effective, efficient and timely course. of action to ultimately lead to permit issuance and the city's lasting
compliance with that permit. In your correspondence, you estimate that the city will complete the construction of
the required wastewater/sludge treatment and disposal systems within 12 months of receipt of -an Authorization to
Construct (AtC) permit from the Division. We feel confident that the city will do all it can to meet or beat this
timeline. We do however request that you notify this office in wrifing if for any reason you believe the city will not
be able to meet this timeline.
3. If you have any questions or need any further assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Ron Boone at 336-771-5000.
r•
Sincerely,
6Steve W. fedder
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Winston-Salem Region
Division of Water Quality
CC: Central Files
NPDES West Unit
City of King
Attn: Scott Barrow, City Engineer
P.O. Box 1132
King, NC 27021
North Carofina Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Location: 585 Waughlown St. Winston-Salem. North CaroCna 27107
Phone: [phone] X FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet: wvnv.ncwaterquality.org
NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity t Aftirma6ve Action Employer

WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director.
September 9, 2009
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Rankin, Project Engineer
AECOM '
THRU: Dianne Reid, Supervisor
l
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
FROM: Hannah Stallings, SEPA Coordinator
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
SUBJECT: Stokes and Forsyth Counties
City of King WTP
DWQ#14148; DENR#1506
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality (DW%bas reviewed the itemized responses, revised EA section 6, and project drawings
that were submitted -in response to our'June 12, 2009 comments on the subject project and finds the response lacking.
Since only one section of the EA was submitted along with itemized responses, DWQ could not evaluate the project in its
entirety as we would prefer. Therefore, when responses are submitted to these comments, please include the full text so
that we can. ascertain whether our concerns were addressed consistently throughout the document. Also, there are issues
relating to the overall project and its permitting process outside of the EA process that must be dealt with. -Our comments
on the project are:
1. The amended section 6 states that "'The WTP is being upgraded to provide adequate treatment and to ensure
protection of human health and the environment through adequate treatment of water prior to distribution." Please
amend this statement and others like it throughout the EA to reflect that this project involves:1) the construction of a
new 3 MGD WTP and 2) an upgrading of the existing WTP that will operate in concert with the new WTP to provide
6 MGD of potable water.
2. Indirect and Cumulative impacts (ICI) — Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) discussions are still insufficient.
When comparing the previous version of the EA to the revised section 6 that was included with your response to
comments, it does not appear that very much has changed. Since the .service area will increase over the next twenty.
years, ICI must be analyzed for this project. Please use the CD copy of the SCI Guidance included with our June
comments to identify and mitigate ICI resulting from this project. Also, please consider the following definitions
when amending the EA:
• Indirect impacts are impacts caused by and resulting from a specific activity that occur later in time or further
removed in distance than direct impacts, but are reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include growth
inducing erects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or
growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other -natural systems, including ecosystems.
• Cumulative impacts are impacts resultingfrom incremental effects of an activity when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other actions.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, north Carolina 27699-1617
Location: W2 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, north Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet www.wxatEquardy.org
An Equal Opportunity t Nfirmarive Men Employer
NOe CazOlina
�turullr�

s »
Cumulative impacts are the reasonably foreseeable impacts from individually minor but collectively significant
activities.
a. - Your responses state that "If and when the City sees the projected increase in population and water demand, it
will upgrade the offline 3 MGD plant and expand the overall capacity to 6 MGD. The City will seriously evaluate
ICI's prior to future annexation, expansion of the M, or expansion of the water and sewer service area" and page
14 of the March EA states that "The City of King WTP project is being pursued -to respond to existing growth
trends and is not being designed to attract growth. Therefore, impact analyses are focused primarily on the WTP
project itself and not on the impacts of regional growth."
i. Section 6A provided with your response states that "the service area of the WTP is expected to increase in
population over the next twenty years." Please amend the document so that a consistent plan for the future
service area of the WTP in this document.
ii. According to page 3 of the March version of the EA, the expansion in capacity will happen in the short term:
"Once the new plant is constructed and fully operational, the existing treatment plant will be taken out of
service, renovated, and upgraded with new equipment featuring the latest improvements in conventional water
treatment technology resulting in an ultimate capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day." Without a full copy
of the EA to review, DWQ cannot be assured •of the'City's plans. Please clarify the timing of the upgrading
of the existing 3 MGD plant and be sure to present a consistent capacity expansion plan throughout the EA.
iii. Since this EA includes an assessment of the impacts of installing a new 6 MGD intake, based on
- V r AC-OT C702D61(cj(3 f,"IFie renova on of the current 3 and expected I I must be covered
in this document as well since these are interdependent projects.
b. ICI discussions in the following sections actually describe direct impacts of the project: 6.1, 6.2, 6.8, 6.9, and
6.13. Please amend these sections so that direct impacts are not included under the ICI labels.
3. The City of King must evaluate what treatment, if any, is necessary to meet the limitations listed in comment 5 for its
current and future backwash discharges. It is important that treatment of the existing backwash be addressed first, and
not disrupted even as the new WTP is built. The proposed expansion states that the existing drying beds will be
converted to a covered holding area for the dewatered sludge. AECOM should work with the City of King on this: .
matter and revise the EA.document so it addresses,how the transition from the existing facility to the.new
facility will occur without disrupting,treatment of the existing backwash. Also, the EA should discuss the
changes in wastewater flows that will occur as*the transition proceeds. This means recognizing each additional .
discharge that may result from the new facility, such as stormwater drainage and backwash, and Nit will be.
mixed into the same outfall the existing facility is using.
5. DWQ discovered an unpenmitted discharge -of the plant's existing backwash during the first review of this EA, which
resulted in the City of King's submittal of an application for a new NPDES permit. For all new or expanding flows,
the NPDES permit application must include a detailed Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) along with the
permit application. (Please find an EAA Guidance attached.) The City's NPDES permit application was returned and
the City has been requested tolresubmit the application along with a -complete EAA. Please note that the information
received in your responses does not adequately address the City's requirements for an EAA. In accordance with the
North Carolina General -Statutes, the most feasible wastewater treatment and disposal: alternative with the least
adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Soil surveys and land costs should be evaluated
for land application and cost analysis must be submitted for each alternative. A combination of alternatives should be
considered as well. At this time it is recommended that the EAA which needs to be submitted with the 1VPDES
permit application for the existing backwash be done separately from the SEPA/EA document.
The City of King was informed that the minimum NPDES permit -limitations for conventional Water Treatment Plants
include:
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L Monthly average and 45 mg/L Daily maximum_
Total Residual Chlorine 17 =- 28 ug//L depending on stream's low flow -data
Turbidity < 25 NTU's North Carolina Water Quality Standard, Class WS
To meet these limits, most WTPs provide for the alum sludge to be settled, dried, and landfilled as discussed in the
proposed facility description on page 6 of AECOM's EA document. It is the supernatant from the settling ponds that
is commonly evaluated for: reuse, land application, discharge to the POTW, or discharge to a stream. Therefore,
when the EAA asks if the wastewaters can be sent to a POTW or recycled through the WTP, DWQ is referring to the

supernatant (clear liquid) not the sludge. If the Water Treatment Plant's wastewaters are chlorinated, prior to
discharging to a stream, dechlorination will need to be provided in order to meet the Total Residual Chlorine
limitation. The EA should include dechlorination in the design of the wastewater treatment process.
6. AECOM should be aware that Old Richmond Creek (WS-Iil) drains into 5.7 miles of unmonitored waters of the
Yadkin River (WS-IV); however, below this reach, the Yadkin River is Impaired because of turbidity violations.
DWQ plans to work for the improvement and recovery of the River. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent
limits and degradation of the Yadkin River can be attributed to the City of King's WTP discharge, then more stringent
limitations or removal of the discharge may be necessary.
7. Once this EA is approved and a FNSI issued, the City should submit an application for an NPDES permit
modification for the expanded flow. A detailed EAA will need to be submitted with that modification request for an
expansion so all possible wastewater alternatives are assessed and utilized. The amount of detail and effort needed on
the next EAA may be limited if the modification request occurs shortly after the current NPDES application and EAA
submittal. AECOM should call the NPDES Section at DWQ to discuss the second EAA details prior to submittal.
Also, please refer to the attached EAA Guidance. This document and NPDES application forms can also be located
on the DWQ website at: hM2://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.htmI. If you have any questions on this process
please contact Julie Grzyb at (919)-807-6389 or email julie.grzyb cdenr.gov.
8. DWQ's Classification and Standards Unit requests notification of the new intake location coordinates (latitude and
longitude) along with a map of the new intake at the beginning of its construction.
Please contact me at 807-6434 if I can be of any additional help.
Thank you.
Cc: Scott Barrow, Eddie Willard — City of King
Melba McGee — DENR
Steve Tedder — WSRO
Tom Belnick, Julie Grzyb — NPDES

CITY OF%ING
Jack Warren, Mayor
John Cater, City Manager
P:O. Drawer 1132 229 S. Main Street
King, NC 27021-1132 Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
September 1, 2009
Mr. Steve Tedder
Regional Water Quality Supervisor. -
North Carolina Dcpartmmt of EjKirAmkd acid lQ1uralrRegourt- es'-'..,+
Division Of Water QUality 4�
3 r
585 Waughtown. Street i' %
f
Winston-Salem, NC Zv b-1"
7r
J
Dear Mr. Tedder,
,
Subject: City Qf KidgC 1Y#e;-. Trooao t Amt 01
3;- % K
AECOM Profect.# 600914�1- r
'J Z!�Z. N
Vf Edf-Qrc� dated
The 2009
ia 0 tq - F. - t. ...
�
divotdciib Nied
The City of g (City}has r e. . .:-.*dkx I - ... t
Base
: , n
concerning ity pTow e.
tli� abov�':iefbici�6�a disk, blif fife
Igo F? UP. ILM i
following solution fir
r-OM - -r; . --
p . I ** a -
�V
f z d to ocons
12'aZz I - I - be aii;;We P r.aq, .Ah ofidate the
BE "a for this
firing ft�,.puri If
Inaneffort4-�' W-'.. 1. n. r.s 14 'i6,s. me equjpment
E76 current s P" fiR bffi, VIM!
NPDESpe f h
L
VET
V 'He
rL. jonstrtiction of the
ye, fqM,ard'w'A'tK.#ie
would Wt U 'k I U
process and b 0 - - '.. -.1 --a - +T . .
R-9
W.O lk — - - - -J. 11 1 's-
'h 0.1 '
�i OF .0?
sludge dewatering ppq cd-'16r ffie, new
his c4v�tiucdp&I Wddhclude an upgrade
3 MGD water pint project -(whidhffie 1k4 ffifae:0
to the existing v* f&-%n� pst�09pafiltde belt whfich*woul4hot.i.$e.a,I.Q- x:.
neteTb�eljjpress, new 300,000
gallon sludge decay.�iit,.diqbloniation equipfnent,61ex net' d�qjes�now controls ard'electrical
ki5� wastewaWz the:dxisting discharge
modifications. PipeVqe 3ni reroutes WOU14.kO. COWted&dd to 6 412;-e ;,,�q the: .
'Atm ** W. A process diagram is
point. The d tere� transported "*` to fWinston.-Salepl landfill for dijpj�
ewa would b6 go wou
included with this letter.
if this is acccptable, we will gbmitle design pae4gq.for a-n.Anthorizationto Constitiq4ATC). It is estimated that
construction will be completed mi a2proxirnately 12, "'Mq-n' *tthe &C is receive-'-,Tha intended schedule is:
LT
I-0
Receive ATC
Advertisement for Bids - I month
Notice ofAward - 1 month
Notice to Proceed - 1 month
Construction - 9 months
COUNCILMEN
Mayor Pro Tempore Dillard Burnette - Carolyn Byerly - Terri Fowler - Gray Southern

If you have any questions or if additional information is needed for your concurrence with the project, please call at
[phone] or email at kingc:ir mans erCuh.' kin c.us and copy those listed below.
Sincerely,
ohn Cater
City Manager, City of King
Enclosures: As noted
Copy to Scott Barrow, P.E., City Engineer, City of King, sbarrowCcvci.kin�.nc.us
Gene Haynes, AECOM, Gene Ha 1BS ecom.core
David Rankin, ABCOM, DI-0 L tankin(u�aecom.com

c
Sur'*nmary of Meeting
Date: 25 Aug 2009
Time: 1030 AM
Location: King WTP, King, NC
Subject: NPDES Individual Discharge Permit for King WTP Filter Backwash Water
Attendees: Steve Tedder, DWQ Winston Salem RO Supervisor for SWP
Ron Boone, Environmental Specialist, DWQ Winston Salem RO SWP
Gene Haynes, AECOM (Consultant for City of King)
Scott Barrow, City of King Engineer
David Rankins, Unknown
Eddie Willard, Water Plant Superintendent
Purpose of Meeting: To discuss permitting of King WTP's filter backwash wastewater discharge into Old Richmond
Creek, a WS-IV (water supply) water in the Yadkin River Basin
Notes:
- Mr. Willard presented some data reflecting pollutant concentrations in the backwash water as follows:
Parameter Beginning of Backwash Cycle End of Backwash Cycle
Total Suspended Solids 282 mg/I 3 mg/I
Turbidity 114.5 NTU 2.4 NTU
Settleable Solids 38 ml/I 0.2 ml/I
Fluoride <0.1 mg/I <0.49 mg/I
Total Residual Chlorine 0.46 mg/I 2.0 mg/I
-The City of King water treatment plant has been discharging its filter backwash water without a permit for upwards of
41 years.
-The City of King currently has project to build new 3.0 MGD WTP beside the existing WTP. This new plant will then be
expandable to 6.0 MGD, by upgrading the existing WTP.
-The new WTP project is designed, but City still waiting for final engineering/environmental approvals (i.e. FONSI).
-New plant designed with backwash wastewater treatment system including sedimentation basin and filter press, but no
dechlorination facilities.
-City has discharge permit application all ready to go for the new plant's wastewater discharge.
-Discharge will be at same location as old discharge (same pipe).
-Only existing equipment currently at the plant that could be used to treat backwash wastewater are drying beds.
-There was formerly one —230K gallon storage tank used to store the filter backwash wastewater prior to being placed
on the beds and discharged. That tank still exists but has since been turned into a potable water storage tank.
-City could not, in current operational mode, meet typical WTP discharge permit limitations.
-Options include:
1. Turning old —230K gallon wastewater storage tank that is now used at the potable water storage tank, back
into a wastewater storage tank and using it in conjunction with existing drying beds to treat the backwash water
before discharge. This still does not guarantee ability to meet potential permit limits.
2. Proceed immediately with construction of the wastewater treatment portion of the project for the upgraded
WTP. City estimated approximately 18 months minimal once NTP is issued to construct entire new WTP. Most
likely not much different to construct just the WW portion of the project.
-City to formally pose options in writing to WSRO no later than 31 Aug 09.
Ron Boone
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

R�
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
4

To: Hannah Stallings, Sepa Coordinator
From: Julie Grzyb, NPDES West
Subject: NPDES comments relating to SEPA/EA for City of King
Date: 8-14-09
The initial SEPA/EA document was intended for the expansion of the City of King's Water
Treatment Plant. An unpermitted discharge of the plant's existing backwash was discovered
which resulted in the City of King's submittal of an application for a new NPDES permit.
For all new or expanding flows, the NPDES permit application must include a detailed
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) along with the permit application.
The City of King's NPDES permit application was returned and the City has been requested
to resubmit the application along with a complete Engineering Alternatives Analysis. The
information submitted in the SEPA/EA document (7-30-09) does not adequately address the
City of King's requirements for an Engineering Alternatives Analysis. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, the most feasible wastewater treatment and disposal
alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented.
Soil surveys and land costs should be evaluated for land application and cost analysis must
be submitted for each alternative. A combination of alternatives should be considered as
well. At this time it is recommended that the EAA which needs to be submitted with the
NPDES permit application for the existing backwash be done separately from the
SEPA/EA document.
The City of King was informed that the minimum NPDES permit limitations for
conventional Water Treatment Plants include:
Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/L Monthly average and 45 mg/L Daily maximum
Total Residual Chlorine 17 — 28 ug//L depending on stream's low flow data
Turbidity < 25 NTU's North Carolina Water Quality Standard, Class WS
To meet these limits most water treatment plants provide for the alum sludge to be settled,
dried and landfilled as discussed in the proposed facility description on page 6 of AECOM's
EA document. It is the supernatant from the settling ponds that is commonly evaluated for:
reuse, land application, discharge to the POTW, or to a stream. Therefore, when the EAA
asks if the wastewaters can be sent to a POTW or recycled through the Water Treatment
Plant the Division is referring to the supernatant (clear liquid), not the sludge.
The City of King must evaluate what treatment, if any, is necessary to meet the limitations
listed above for their current and future backwash discharges. It is important that treatment of
the existing backwash be addressed first, and not disrupted even as the new Water Treatment
Plant facility is being built. The proposed expansion states that the existing drying beds will
be converted to a covered holding area for the dewatered sludge. AECOM should work
with the City of King on this matter and revise the EA document so it addresses how
the transition from the existing facility to the new facility will occur without disrupting
treatment of the existing backwash. Also, the EA should discuss the changes in
wastewater flows that will occur as the transition proceeds. This means recognizing

each additional discharge that may result from the new facility, such as stormwater
drainage and backwash, and if it will be mixed into the same outfall the existing facility
is using.
AECOM should be aware that Old Richmond Creek (WS-IV) drains into 5.7 miles of
unmonitored waters of the Yadkin River (WS-IV), however, below this reach, the Yadkin
River becomes impaired because of turbidity violations. It is the plan of the Division to work
for the improvement and recovery of the River. In the event of the continuance of problems,
the future may require the removal of direct point source dischargers to the Yadkin River for
the health of the stream. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and
degradation of the Yadkin River can be attributed to the City of King's Water Treatment
Plant discharge, then more stringent limitations or removal of the discharge may be
necessary.
As stated in AECOM's response dated 7-30-09, once the SEPA/EA document is approved
and a FONSI issued the City of King will submit an application for an NPDES permit
modification for the expanded flow. A detailed Engineering Alternatives Analysis will need
to be submitted with that modification request for an expansion so all possible wastewater
alternatives are assessed and utilized. The amount of detail and effort needed on the next
EAA may be limited if the modification request occurs shortly after the current NPDES
application and EAA submittal. AECOM should call the NPDES Section at DWQ to discuss
the second EAA details prior to submittal. An Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance
Document is enclosed for your assistance on this matter. This document and NPDES
application forms can also be located on the DWQ website at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.htmi. If you have any questions on this process
please call me at (919)-807-6389 or email [e-mail].

GMb, Julie -
From:
Patt, Heather
Sent:
Wednesday, June 10, 20091:56 PM
To:
Stallings, Hannah _
Cc:
Grzyb, Julie
Subject:
City of King EA
Hi Hannah and Julie, We previously mentioned to these folks that their facility is the High Rock Lake watershed which currently has a TMDL
being developed b/c of chlorophyll a, turbidity and high pH levels. Otherwise, Old Richmond Creek(WS-IV) AU# 12-79 is
not monitored by DWQ and drains into 5.7 miles of unmonitored waters of the Yadkin River (WS-IV). However below
this reach, the Yadkin River AU# 12-(80.7) becomes impaired b/c of turbidity violations. There are also high fecal
coliform bacteria #s but not enough to impair it.
I'm more concerned with the big picture assimilative capacity issues, as more facilities withdraw water upstream(and
not all of it being discharged back into the river system) what happens to the assimilative capacity capabilities of the
dischargers downstream.... is anyone in DWQ dealing with this???. Question of the day that gets put on the
backburner.... now moving on to the rest of my pile
Thanks, Heather
n
Heather E. Patt
Basin Planner X.
DENR Division of Water Quality _ `: C,
1617 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(919) 8o7-6448
www.ncwatergualill.org/basinwide
Note: My email address has changed to heather.pdtt(@ncdenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
i�G

E� WTP/City of King NGDWQ# 14065
N
A.
}Subject: EA WTP/City of King NC/DWQ# 14065
From: Tom Belnick <I`[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:21:33 -0500 .
To: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>
A J ( +J!r -0
S EM eASC117
I -L/O to '/
Hannah- I'm responding to the EA scoping for the proposed expansion of the City of King water
treatment plant (WTP), from 3 to 6 MGD. My comments pertaining to NPDES wastewater permitting
issues are as follows:
• The applicant should specify where the current WTP discharge of filter backwash goes to. It does
not appear that City of King is currently permitted to discharge WTP filter backwash.
• The applicant should specify why the filter backwash cannot be recycled back through the
treatment system, which is allowed for conventional WTPs subject to a few conditions.
• If the applicant seeks a new NPDES watewater permit for discharge of WTP filter backwash, they
will need -to submit an application form (NC Form C-WTP) with fee, as well as an Engineering
Alternatives Analysis (EAA) that requires a flow justification and alternatives analysis. These
forms are- located on the DWQ website at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.html. The
applicant might also want to review the document titled Water Treatment Plant Permitting
Strategy, also located on the website.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
919-807-6495 (fax)
tom.belnickoncmail.net
1 Af 1 1/1 VlnnR a-?1 PM